March 7, 1994                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLII  No. 6


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of all hon. members I would like to welcome to the public galleries twenty-eight students and four teachers from Eastern College, Carbonear, who are involved in a program called Improving Our Odds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a point of privilege. This is the first opportunity I have had to rise in the House on the point of privilege since receiving documents to support my point. Members will recall that on Friday morning past I asked the Premier the following question, and I quote from Hansard, "Yesterday the Premier admitted that Jim Chalker, now the Hydro board chairperson, controlled the purse strings of his $50,000 a year salary supplement. Will the Premier confirm that Jim Chalker's law firm has been doing work on the Hydro privatization, explain the nature of the work, and tell the House how much the law firm has billed to date and will be billing in the future? Members will also recall that the Premier remained seated and stayed silent while the Minister of Justice gave the following answer, again I quote from Hansard. "Mr. Speaker, let me simply say to the hon. lady that in this case, as is unfortunately too often the case with her, her premises are completely wrong. Mr. Chalker's law firm, which is Chalker, Green & Rowe here in St. John's, a very fine law firm indeed, I may add, has not been retained by anybody, to my knowledge, certainly by neither the government nor Hydro, in connection with this transaction."

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, the same as all others in the Chamber on Friday morning, even the Member for St. John's South, heard the Minister of Justice give that answer. Now since I had directed my question to the Premier in the first place, surely the Premier should have answered it or at the very least corrected his minister when the Premier heard him give a false answer.

Mr. Speaker, I have documentary proof that the Minister of Justice gave an incorrect answer to the House of Assembly. I wish to table the following copies of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro financial records relating to expenditures on Hydro privatization. First, Exhibit A, a computer generated summary document headed "Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Newco Costs", indicating a total outlay of $387,830.07 at the end of 1993; second, Exhibit B, a computer generated accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe indicating $24,977.47 - paid $9,312.08; third, Exhibit C, a computer generated accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe showing $7,216.83 - paid $9,312.13; fourth, Exhibit D, a computer printed accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe showing $5,059.81 - paid $9,307.16; fifth, a computer printed accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe showing $11,645.85 - paid $9,304.30; and sixth, an accounts payable document naming supplier Chalker, Green and Rowe showing $3,964.76 - paid $9,302.01.

These documents exist, Mr. Speaker, yet when I asked the Premier about work Jim Chalker's law firm has been doing on Hydro privatization he sat in silence while his henchman, the Minister of Justice, denied Chalker, Green and Rowe had done any such work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Now, Mr. Speaker, Chalker, Green and Rowe is a firm very well known to the Premier, very well known. It's his paymaster law firm. The law firm that laundered his $50,000 a year salary supplement.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Premier and the Minister of Justice breached my privileges as a member of this House on Friday when they denied - the Minister of Justice orally denied, the Premier denied by his silent acquiescence - that Chalker, Green and Rowe has been doing work on the Hydro privatization and has billed substantial sums for the work and has been paid substantial amounts for the work. Mr. Speaker, Chalker, Green and Rowe is not just any firm. Chalker, Green and Rowe is Jim Chalker's law firm, the law firm that administered the Premier's salary supplement when he was Leader of the Opposition and a member of this House and the firm of the Chairperson of the Hydro Board of Directors, that firm, Mr. Speaker.

If Your Honour rules that I have established a prima facie case, that my privileges have been breached, I will proceed to make the following motion: I move, seconded by the Member for Grand Bank, that the Premier and the Minister of Justice be expelled from the House of Assembly for two weeks for breaching a member's privileges by knowingly and deliberately withholding information from members of this hon. House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may say a word or two before I'm to be hung, drawn, quartered and executed, the hon. lady should know that snooping at keyholes gets you nothing but an eyeful of dirt. This is where she is with respect, Sir. I submit there is no point of privilege. What I said, according to Hansard, page 137, was that Mr. Chalker's law firm "...has not been retained by anybody, to my knowledge, certainly by neither the government nor Hydro, in connection with this transaction." That statement was correct, that statement is correct.

Mr. Speaker, it is that simple. The hon. lady has apparently, by whatever means -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. the Opposition Leader would control -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) trying to trick (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not trying to trick anybody, Mr. Speaker. I answered a question. I made a statement. The statement -

MR. TOBIN: Come clean! Come clean!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman from Grand Bank wouldn't know the truth if he stumbled over it, because what he is getting is the truth, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Who?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I apologize to my friend for Grand Bank. My friend for Grand Bank's problem is not knowing the difference between 1,000 and $6 million, but that is another story.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the point. Mr. Chalker has been retained personally by Hydro. My friend the Minister of Mines and Energy said this in the same exchange. He said - I am reading now from Hansard, page 138. This is the Minister of Mines and Energy speaking. "Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. member" - the lady from Humber East - "that I have never, ever said that Jim Chalker's law firm was involved. I have said that Jim Chalker has been on our negotiating team. He's the best person we could have for it and I am pleased to have him there."

What has happened, I said that Mr. Chalker's firm - Chalker, Green & Rowe - has not been retained. That was correct, that is correct, to the best of my knowledge as of now. What has happened is Mr. Chalker has quite properly been submitting bills for the time he spent on the negotiating team.

He has done a splendid job for us, and I am told that he has assigned to his law firm, the right to receive payments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite may interrupt or cheer or do as they want. What I have said is correct. There is, in my estimation or in my judgement, no point of privilege, in my submission, no point of privilege. I stood in this House and told the truth; I am telling it now. Mr. Chaulker's law firm, Chaulker, Green and Rowe has not been retained, Mr. Chaulker has. Mr. Chaulker gets paid because he does his work and he does his work very well as a member of the negotiating team, and those of us who have been involved in dealings with the negotiating team, will give eloquent, ardent and continuing testimony that Jim Chaulker is of very great assistance to us in putting this together.

Far from making an apology for that, I would say we are very fortunate to have his services. And, of course, we are paying him for it. Hon. members opposite, as far as I know, don't work for free - whatever their services are worth, they get paid the same stipend as every member of the House. So, Mr. Speaker, in my submission, there is no point of privilege.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: To the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) if ever there was one.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a prima facie case, then we have one here, because what the minister has just done today he could have very easily done on Friday morning. As my colleague for Burin - Placentia West said, he could have come clean with the House, he could have given the information as asked by the Member for Humber East, but what did he do? He stood in his place and denied what the hon. the Member for Humber East has shown very clearly today, has happened.

Now, I say to the Government House Leader, if ever there was a blatant conflict of interest in this Province, it has just been outlined by the Member for Humber East and confirmed - confirmed by the Government House Leader, that for Mr. Chaulker, who is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and as outlined a couple of days ago by the Member for Humber East, administered, really administered the Premier's salary supplement fund, to have cheques issued to the law firm for $300-and-some-thousand, Mr. Speaker, I mean, how -

MR. SIMMS: No, that is not quite correct - $300,000 is the amount of cheques issued.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, the total amount.

MR. ROBERTS: Not all of them (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, a substantial amount of money, I say to the Government House Leader, but that is beside the point, if it were one dollar, I say to the Government House Leader, it is still a conflict of interest.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that what the Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice did Friday morning, was, he misled members of this House, not only the Member for Humber East but all members of this Legislature. That member asked a very straightforward question which the Premier refused to stand and answer, but gave the nod to the Minister of Justice, who stood in his place and misled all members, because the Government House Leader could have told us on Friday morning what he told us today, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Now, perhaps the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations thinks that kind of behaviour is acceptable, but we don't, and I doubt very much if anyone else does, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Humber East has very clearly outlined the case. It is a definite prima facie case that has been established, and I would ask Your Honour that in your deliberations, when you come back, that you take under consideration the motion as put forward by the Member for Humber East, and that the Premier and the Minister of Justice be expelled for two weeks, being ten sitting days.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we are seeing here is an abuse of the rules of the House, essentially, to simply make a point. The Opposition has made it clear that they will use every trick imaginable to try to delay the process that we are now going through in this House, and what we see here is a deliberate use, or misuse, of the right to bring up a point of privilege, just to take the opportunity to make a speech or two and to reiterate something that has already been said, and a total waste of time, Mr. Speaker.

I would suggest that this obviously is not a point of privilege. Your Honour is quite familiar with the regulations and rules involving privilege in the House, Mr. Speaker. A question was asked during Question Period. An answer was given, and I think the Minister of Justice has indicated that the total answer was given by a combination of his answer and the answer of the Minister of Mines and Energy. The information was given accurately. The information that was given is totally accurate, Mr. Speaker, so this is the fact of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, essentially, this involves a dispute over allegation of fact, and I refer Your Honour to Hansard, paragraph 31, page 13.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry - Hansard?

MR. BAKER: "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

So obviously, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the minister referred to Hansard. Is that Beauchesne?

MR. BAKER: Oh, I am sorry, Beauchesne.

MR. SPEAKER: What was the reference again?

MR. BAKER: Beauchesne, paragraph 31, page 13.

"A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

Mr. Speaker, also, I would like to draw to Your Honour's attention that if the bone of contention that the member brings up in her preamble was that the Premier didn't answer the question, I would like to also remind Your Honour that the same paragraph indicates that: "The Failure of a Minister to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege." - may not be raised, even.

The same paragraph indicates that failure of a minister to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege, may not be raised even, as a question of privilege. So, Your Honour, I submit that the whole thing is a charade being played out here by members opposite simply to try to drag red herrings across this whole issue of privatization of Hydro and to use every trick in the book to fill in time and to delay our consideration of this process. It's obviously not a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader may try all they want to whitewash this but this is a serious allegation. It is not a question of just simply trying to raise some fuss over the Hydro privatization. The point that the Minister of Finance made about the question asked by the Member for Humber East is not the point of privilege at all. The point of privilege relates to the misleading answer that the Minister of Justice gave to this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now that is what the point of privilege is all about. He very carefully mentioned an example of matters of no privilege and he is correct, a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of fact but, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that in this particular case there is no dispute as to the allegation because it has all been proven there and the minister himself in fact admitted some of it here this morning.

What we have to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that your role, the Speaker's role as you well know, is not so much as to determine whether there is a breach of privilege - we will have to determine that ourselves in debating the motion that the Member for Humber East indicated she would lay down - the Speaker's role is to determine whether this allegation and this matter is serious enough so as to require the Speaker to allow us to debate that motion over everything else that might be coming up during the course of the rest of the day. Now that is the point of privilege that the Member for Humber East is raising.

Now in terms of the details, I think, Your Honour, that the Member for Humber East has very carefully laid out - as she should or any member should in putting forth a case of privilege - a fair bit of material for Your Honour to consider. She has documentation to put forth with her allegation and of course we have the minister's answer from Friday, and now his answer today, to clearly indicate that this House and the privileges of all members of this House were breached, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that minister, the Minister of Justice, not telling the people the truth but trying to hide the truth by misleading, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may with respect to the procedure, I am not the least bit concerned with the hon. Leader of the Opposition's histrionics, which I suspect, not even he believes. The answer I gave was the truth and the full truth. I answered the hon. lady's question, if she is so incompetent in asking questions, that's on her head.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriate procedure - should Your Honour conclude there is a prima facie case - is to have a motion before the House either to refer it to a committee or to the House to debate it. Then there's the matter of the priority to be given to it. At the very least the House might want, I suggest, to do something the hon. lady hasn't done and that is to hear the facts of the matter instead of documents that say that she's got - I won't say she's got them surreptitiously, she's presumedly got them honestly and honourably - but documents that she's got by listening at a key hole.

MS. VERGE: You're just sorry I got them.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm not sorry you got them at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just briefly to this point of order.

First of all, the Minister of Justice gets more like his boss, the Premier, every day. When he gets himself in big trouble he tries to defend himself by attacking somebody as he just tried to attack the Member for Humber East. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can say what he wishes but he can't deny the fact that the information he gave the House on Friday was not the truth, it was just the opposite, it was an untruth. He tried to hide the fact that the Chairman of the Board, who holds a very authoritative position in Hydro, is now being paid to do legal work on behalf of that board. Now, Mr. Speaker, outside of the fact that we had a breach of privilege here in this House, by the misinformation given to the House, that is a clear conflict of interest. One would have thought that that firm would have automatically been disqualified from even being considered to do that type of work.

Indeed, we will find there are only three or four law firms that have the expertise within those firms here in this Province to deal with a large share offering in the public market. One of them is John Green, who is a partner of Chalker, Green and Rowe, a school buddy of mine. In fact, I grew up with him all my life. The other one is Mr. Doug Black, who is a partner in a firm that my hon. friend was involved with, and I believe his good wife is probably involved in. The other one is, I think, associated with the firm that used to be Marshall, White, Ottenheimer and Green. I am not sure what's left there now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) firm.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Another Liberal firm.

MR. WINDSOR: Another good firm.

Anyway, they are the three people that I am aware of, in this Province, who have the legal expertise to deal with this issue, and the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is the firm, one of the principles of which is the Chairman of the Board, should have automatically been disqualified, and the minister is certainly in breach of privilege of this House by trying to hide that and to skate around that on Friday morning.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think there is clearly a breach of privilege here in the House because the documents tabled today show that payments show invoices to Chalker, Green and Rowe. Had they been made to Jim Chalker in person there would be no grounds, but they are made to the law firm, and that is the reference that the minister made. He made reference specifically to Jim Chalker and the possibility of doing work, and he intentionally avoided reference to Chalker, Green and Rowe. The documents show that, and it's clearly a prima facie case of breaches of privileges of the Members of this House.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, if I might add a few words to this point of privilege, the thrust of the point of privilege appears to be that the Minister of Justice misled the House.

Your Honour will know that there are many authorities which say that misleading the House doesn't make a point of privilege. I refer specifically to Maingot. Since I have been away from Maingot for some time, and don't have the authority with me, I am sure Your Honour would be familiar with it, and the people of the Table.

It's somewhere around page 200 where Maingot makes reference to the fact that misleading the House is not a point of privilege, or to deliberately mislead the House is not a point of privilege. It might be a point of order, but to deliberately - that's an accusation - an accusation made by somebody that somebody deliberately misled the House is not a point of privilege.

If the member admitted to the point that he or she deliberately misled the House, that is a different matter. The hon. the Minister says, of course, that what he said was the truth. Therefore I submit for Your Honour, on the quotations of Maingot - I am sorry that I wasn't able to quote the page and verse - but Maingot very clearly states that misleading the House, or even deliberately misleading the House, doesn't a point of privilege make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will take the point under advisement and, if the parties consent, address -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I would like to raise another point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member - on the point of privilege, I think obviously I need some time to review the record and documents filed, and review the rulings that have been made, and I will rule on it as soon as possible, hopefully within the next several days.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of privilege because of the fact that a matter has come to my attention, only today, that throws into disrepute, I guess, the answers given by the Premier to me last Friday and, by his own admission, in a letter to me today, that did actually occur.

I think, for the benefits of Members of the House of Assembly, who should be aware, and who laughed, and who did all the other kinds of things when he gave the answer, they should be very much aware of this, and the media, and the public, through the media, I hope.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday morning past, I asked the question whether or not the government was planning an extensive public relations campaign to try to sell the idea of privatization of Hydro to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador. I alleged that we understood they were about to put together a campaign of brochures, radio advertising, newspaper advertising and the like, and the Premier got up and essentially denied that was occurring. He wasn't aware of anything going on like that, which was rather surprising, because we were aware of it, and certainly members in his own caucus were aware of it, because I could see them nodding when I was asking the question.

So, Mr. Speaker, we were thoroughly misled, I now find out, and I want to enter into the record the answer by the Premier: "Late this afternoon" - which was Friday afternoon, the Premier says - "I became aware that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, acting in concert with the Government are in fact planning to carry out some radio advertising to inform the public as to the reasons why Government feels Hydro ought to be privatized."

Second paragraph and final paragraph. "When I answered your question in the House this morning, I sincerely did not know that this programme was in the process of being developed," Mr. Speaker. "As indicated in my answer, I expected that Hydro would in fact be doing some promotion and advertising, but I did not know that the Government would also have some involvement and that it would be done in the form of radio advertising, explaining the basis for privatization. I have just now been shown drafts of scripts for radio spots and I felt I ought to forthwith advise you that, inadvertently, the answer I gave you this morning was not correct.

"Yours very truly, Clyde.

"P.S." - handwritten - "Since dictation I have now been advised there will be newspaper advertising as well."

Mr. Speaker, I want to enter that on the record because clearly it is a breach of privilege to give false information to the House and that clearly is what happened. It has now been confirmed as a result of the letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are stretching it now.

MR. SIMMS: I'm hardly stretching it, Mr. Speaker. It is very clear. He didn't give the proper information in the House on Friday, and rather than get up in the House today and admit it he writes a little letter to me, knowing that he was going to be gone and out of the Province he could have had the Government House Leader or anybody else respond to it.

MR. ROBERTS: If I may?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may. Late Friday afternoon the Premier telephoned and asked if I would come to see him, and of course I did. Just as when Mr. Peckford telephoned the hon. Leader of the Opposition, he went to see Mr. Peckford, or when Mr. Rideout telephoned, he went to see him, or when Mr. Moores telephoned, he went to see him. I would think it is only a courtesy when the Premier of the Province asks to see an individual an individual goes, if he or she can.

The Premier said to me, would I make a statement in his behalf in the House on Monday, today, because he was to be away from the Province on business. I said, of course. What is it to address? He gave me a copy, which I have here, of the letter he had just written to the Leader of the Opposition. Now, the hon. Leader of the Opposition may ask: why have I not made the statement?... the answer is: when the Speaker called "Order," indeed, before the Speaker called "Order," the hon. lady from Humber East was on her feet -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: No, if the hon. gentleman can possess his soul in patience for a minute. That matter was discussed for thirty minutes. Your Honour then took the matter under advisement. Before Your Honour said anything further the hon. gentleman for Grand Falls was on his feet, fair enough, was recognized and went on.

I don't have a written statement. What I have here is a copy of the letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have that.

MR. ROBERTS: Of course the hon. gentlemen have copies of the letter. I have forty on the way down here for any other member who may want them and for the press.

MR. SIMMS: They already have them.

MR. ROBERTS: That is good. It is a well-written letter. It too, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: Where is your statement?

MR. ROBERTS: I am about to make the statement, if the hon. gentleman will simply cross his legs and possess his soul in patience -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Jim Chalker? (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady from Humber East can be irritating, she can be very irritating, in the same way as any other minor irritant can become irritating over a period of time.

I would like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, simply to address the substance of it. The matter is very simple. When the Premier made his answer in the House - I can read it from Hansard, the hon. gentleman perhaps did - the answer he made was full and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief. He returned upstairs to his office later on - I don't know when, I don't how long he was in the House that day - but at some point after he went back to his office after the House had adjourned he was made aware that the information he had given was not complete. He immediately did the proper thing. He asked one of his secretaries to come in, dictated the letter to the Leader of the Opposition - which I understand was delivered by hand that afternoon - the letter was typed, it was signed. The Premier added a note, as the gentleman has said, in his own hand, and sent it off. Then he telephoned me and the message he gave me during the discussion was, would I come to the House on Monday and at the appropriate time make this be on the record as I am doing. There is no more to it than that. I realize that hon. gentlemen and lady opposite tend to think the Premier is omniscient but I must, on behalf of the Premier, say that he is not always omniscient. On occasion, Mr. Speaker, even the Premier doesn't know everything there is to know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No. Mr. Speaker, one can say many things about the present Premier of this Province; what one cannot say is that he deliberately, or intentionally, or knowingly misleads. He does not. We all, on occasion, make mistakes. The Premier made a statement which he believed to be correct, which, to the best of his knowledge, was correct, and my statement, in fact, is correct and was correct. Jim Chalker's law firm has not been retained by the Government of this Province nor by anybody else.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why did he pay him?

MR. ROBERTS: Why did who pay what? I ask my friend for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked, why is (inaudible)?

MR. ROBERTS: I have already told the House that. Mr. Chalker, himself, told me that he had assigned his right to receive payments from Hydro to his law firm. Now, that is a matter between him and his law firm.

AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?

MR. ROBERTS: I have no idea when the assignment was made, Mr. Speaker, none at all. I haven't seen it, don't know it, I am relying on the information given to me by a gentleman who is honest, honourable and, in my experience, speaks the truth. What I have said about the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is that he asked me to come here to make the statement I made, and I make it, and leave it with the House. In my submission, there is no question of privilege. Far from there being a question of privilege, the Premier has acted honourably, honestly, responsibly, openly, and quickly. What more could a person do, Mr. Speaker? So I let it stand on that. I can table copies of the letter and I ask the table clerks to distribute copies to the press gallery so that they have them as well.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a word on the point of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

 

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, from listening to the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of Justice, it is very obvious the Premier knew that the people of the Province were going to hear the radio ads and they were going to read the newspaper ads. He couldn't hide behind that, but very clearly, on Friday when asked by the Leader of the Opposition, he said, "No, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge, none is planned." Now, that was his answer to the questions about the advertising campaign. Now, of course, the Premier did not know, I say to the Government House Leader, that the Member for Humber East was going to get the records of payments to Chalker, Green & Rowe, or maybe we would have had a letter from the Premier about that today. Of course, I want to say to the Government House Leader, that you have become so used to not being honest that you don't know now when you are or when you're not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And, of course, if you do something like that often enough, eventually you will get caught, and you have been caught today, I say to the Government House Leader. We saw more of it on Friday, Mr. Speaker, when they threw a gentleman out of the lobby here, out of the confines of the House, one of the Premier's staff booting Mr. Vetter out and he wasn't allowed to be interviewed, then the press conference where some of the people from Power of the People went to get in and they locked the doors in their faces. That's what is going on, Mr. Speaker. Then the Government House Leader gets up and talks about how honest and honourable they all are. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been caught. He didn't tell the truth to the House on Friday and now the Premier and the Government House Leader are trying to cover-up. So again I submit that a prima facie case has been established.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is away, and I expected the Minister of Mines and Energy to be here, but he isn't here, either.

MR. ROBERTS: He is on the Cross-talk program on CBC.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I guess we won't wait for that because we have some other matters we want to address. I will ask the Minister of Finance, I guess, the questions because, under the privatization legislation, Bill No. 1, the minister in the legislation referred to is really the Minister of Finance; so I want to ask him a few questions, if I may, about this legislation.

Now, in the closed-door briefing referred to by my colleague, the Member for Grand Bank, just a moment ago, that the Premier gave to the press on Friday - which we were not allowed to have anybody attend, by the way, in our role as the Official Opposition - we understand that the Premier stated categorically that new Hydro would not get any of the undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: Isn't it a fact, that the undeveloped water rights are not specifically excluded under this privatization act, and is he aware that, in fact, the act gives him, as Minister of Finance, in the future, the power to give away any or all of the undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador? Is he aware of that fact?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the comments about the press briefing and so on. Hydro and the government gave a briefing to the press and we would also give a briefing to the members of the Opposition if they so desire; we would give a briefing to Mr. Vetter if he so desires. We will give briefings to anybody who feels a need to receive a briefing in terms of the Hydro privatization bill. So, we are quite open on the issue of briefings - anybody who wants to, can have a briefing; however, Mr. Speaker, what we can't have is to arrange a briefing for the press and then, all of a sudden, have an extra 100 or 200 people pile in. We will arrange briefings, exactly the same briefings, for anybody who wants them. Mr. Speaker, let's get that clear first. There is no attempt to not brief anybody, to hide anything; this is a method of being open about anything and I say to members opposite, if they want a complete briefing in terms of the Hydro privatization, then I would be only too glad to arrange it for them. The same thing goes for any other group who would like a briefing on that topic.

With regard to water rights, Mr. Speaker, obviously, if power is going to be developed, then certain conditions have to be attached to the water that provides that power and, Mr. Speaker, these are the only rights that any company will have in terms of the production of power in this Province, whether the power is being produced by a private company, by a small company, by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro or new Hydro or by Newfoundland Light and Power, certain conditions have to be attached before a hydro development can take place. And that involves the use of that particular bit of water and control over that water that runs through the facility, otherwise, hydro development anywhere in the world, is impossible. Hydro development anywhere in the world is impossible unless there is a certain control over the water that flows through the facility because, Mr. Speaker, if there is not, then you can't do a hydro development.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask the Minister of Finance, if he would confirm remembering that the Premier made a statement publicly that new Hydro would not get any of the undeveloped water rights in the Island and in Labrador. My question to him is this: Isn't he aware, in the legislation, that in fact, undeveloped water rights are not excluded from the legislation, and that in fact, the act gives the Minister of Finance the power to give away all or any of the undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador, at the stroke of a pen any time in the future, without ever having to come back to the House of Assembly. Will he confirm that?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that and I am a pretty reasonable person, and have no intentions of giving away anything that is not supposed to be given away, I will point that out. As to his point about exclusion, Mr. Speaker, we also didn't exclude the use of Hudson's Bay or the North Atlantic or anything else. There is no exclusion in there, certainly, but that is reasonable.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important point that has been downplayed by the government.

The act gives the minister extraordinary powers to give away lands, waters and water rights at any time. That is what the legislation says. Now, over half this Province is covered with water. The minister could give all that away if he wish to, Mr. Speaker, because that is the way the legislation is written and we wouldn't know it until the bulldozer showed up to demolish all the summer homes and everything else around the Province. Mr. Speaker, that is the reality I say to members opposite; that is the way the legislation is written and, Mr. Speaker, you would expect that to happen only in Banana Republics or dictatorships, but it is now clear, this could happen right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. So I want to ask the minister again - well, not again, I want to ask him a new question. Why has the government - he has now confirmed, by the way, for members opposite, in case they didn't hear him, that in fact, that could occur - why has the government given those extraordinary powers to the Minister of Finance? Why should one person, the Minister of Finance, have the power to give away our birthright, if he wishes? Why should he have that right? Can he tell the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, obviously, ministers don't, by themselves, make decisions of that nature, and I should point out to the hon. gentleman that as the legislation goes through the House, and the detailed examination occurs in committee stage, they can make all the kinds of suggestions they want as to how to change conditions of the bill, and we will talk about, in detail, everything that's in the bill.

I say to the hon. gentleman that one of his tactics was obviously to eat up time through points of privilege, and I guess you will see more of those in the days to come, Mr. Speaker.

Another one of his tactics is the great scare tactic. All of a sudden, this privatization bill is going to mean that we are going to give away all the land and all the water in the whole Province of Newfoundland, and there's going to be nothing left there.

Mr. Speaker, scare tactics like that are simply not believable, and a word of advice for the Leader of the Opposition, if he is going to base his opposition to this purely on scare tactics, that is a losing proposition.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't need any lectures from the Minister of Finance about how to lead a losing proposition, because they are doing it very well themselves on privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister can use all the verbal trickery that he wants. He can hide behind words, and he can talk about other issues. The point and fact of the matter is, he has now confirmed that this legislation does not specifically exclude undeveloped water rights, which is contrary to what the Premier said in the press conference on Friday - totally contrary and misleading.

Secondly, it does give the Minister of Finance the opportunity and the right to give away anything - any undeveloped water rights in the future. It does. So, Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the Minister of Finance: That is wrong. You should not have that power, no Minister of Finance should, unless - and I ask him if this is, in fact, what is in their mind - unless these is a two-part stage to give away the water rights, firstly, unless the government intends to give away all the lands, waters and water rights used by new Hydro at this time - at the time new Hydro is formed; secondly, after Hydro is privatized, and the risk of a public backlash has diminished, maybe the Minister of Finance would then be able to sign over whatever undeveloped water rights it wants to the new company, new Hydro, come hell or high water. Can the minister tell us if that's in their plans, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker. It wouldn't surprise me if his next suggestion would be that I would give all the water rights away to myself. Mr. Speaker, the line of questioning is simply outrageous.

No, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to give away this Province. We have no intention of giving away all the water rights of this Province. There are no nefarious schemes involved here. This process is open. We have the legislation in front of us. We are going to have a full debate on that legislation. There will be full explanations given at all stages of the legislation. We have no intention of secretly and nefariously plotting to give away this Province. That's not the reason we became the government of this Province. Mr. Speaker.

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

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

A few minutes ago, when I smoked the truth out of the Minister of Justice, he confessed to a worse, a more flagrant, and a more abhorrent abuse of public office and conflict of interest than I had imagined. Will the government put an immediate end to Jim Chalker, the Premier's paymaster and the Hydro board chairperson personally profiting from Hydro privatization?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady uses the verb `smoked'. The only thing I can suggest, with all respect, is that she is smoking something that is not sold in stores, and is not subject to tobacco tax.

Mr. Chalker has been retained to advise with respect to the privatization proposal. He gets paid for his services. So do the galaxy of people - law firms, the government's law firm, Hydro's law firm, the underwriters law firm, the mainland counsel retained by each of those three law firms, the financial advisors to all hands, the consultants -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chalker personally gets paid. Not only do I not make any apology for that, I would say that what we are paying him is money well spent. I don't even know what his hourly rate is - I think I was told at one stage - but it is money well spent. He is entitled to it. He gets paid by the hour, which is a perfectly appropriate, accepted, normal and widely used way of paying for lawyers. Some people get paid by the each. Some people get paid by the hour. Lawyers often work by the hour, and in my understanding, that is how Mr. Chalker is billing for his services, and that is how he is being paid. So, far from being improper, I think it is entirely appropriate.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is an atrocious statement for a Minister of Justice. Another question for the Minister of Justice. Will the government put an end to Hydro director Roland Martin's firm's work for profit on the Hydro privatization?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Martin's firm, whatever it is called, has not been retained by Hydro nor the government in connection with this transaction. Now, I will save her the trouble of a second question. Mr. Martin has been retained. I assume he is getting paid by the hour -

MR. WINDSOR: By whom?

MR. ROBERTS: It is my understanding, by Hydro, but I'm not even sure of that.

MR. WINDSOR: And he is on the Board of Directors of Hydro, too?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes - what is wrong with directors being paid by their companies?

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) a whole board of directors to do what they are supposed to be doing anyway!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, directors of companies are paid all the time.

MR. WINDSOR: Not when they are working on a project (inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Of course they are. Mr. Speaker, I don't know what sort of dream world the hon. gentleman lives in. Members of boards of directors who are working for the company get paid. They get paid all the time.

MR. WINDSOR: He gets paid to be on a board of directors?

MR. ROBERTS: I beg your pardon?

MR. WINDSOR: He gets paid to be on the board of directors?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman is correct. They are paid a - whatever it is, I don't know what it is - usually a retainer and so much an hour to be on the board of directors, then in addition, if directors work beyond that, they get paid. Now, the hon. gentleman may find that astonishing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: I find it not only normal, but entirely appropriate.

MR. WINDSOR: No wonder you (inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: The amount of time that I understand Mr. Martin is devoting to this, and I know that Mr. Chalker is devoting to it, because I've seen Mr. Chalker far more at the meetings in which I've been involved than I have Mr. Martin, although I've seen Mr. Martin, a fair amount, but the amount of time -

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you get paid?

MR. ROBERTS: What I get paid, I say to my friend, are the huge dollars that are paid to a minister of the Crown and a member of the House of Assembly, and I get my cheque every two weeks, like he does, and it is reduced by 4.5 per cent, as is his.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Fortis shares (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I don't have any Fortis shares any more. I'm not allowed to invest in Fortis.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. ROBERTS: I tell my friend how I know. I directed my trustee, with the Premier's permission, to sell the shares. I have a letter back from him saying he sold the shares.

MR. SIMMS: That was after you said you weren't going to do it - three days after (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't say I wasn't going to do it. I said if I was told to do it I would. I was, and I did.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin is providing advice on this transaction. He is being paid for that advice. I have no doubt it is worth every penny we pay, and probably a great deal more.

MR. WINDSOR: He should resign from the Board of Directors! He can't serve two masters.

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. gentleman, the Member for Mount Pearl, who knows a great deal about a lot, obviously has never come across the real-life situation where directors are paid over and above their director's fees if they do work over and above their work as directors. That is where Mr. Chalker is, and that is where Mr. Martin is. Not only is it a proper thing to do, I would say, speaking for the government, we are darned lucky to have their advice and it is worth every cent we pay for it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Justice calls these transactions normal - normal in a giant transaction that stinks to high heaven, perhaps.

I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy who just took his place. Will the minister confirm that since the government and Hydro discovered that the computer-generated Hydro records showing large payments to Chalker, Green & Rowe and Roland Martin's firms were leaked, Hydro has changed its accounts payable record-keeping so that transactions are now done by hand?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea whether Hydro payments are done by hand; I have no idea at all.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Can he tell the House when the Provincial Government made the proposal on the Income Supplementation Program to the Federal Government, specifically the Prime Minister? And, can he tell the House what the initial and official response of the Federal Government has been to the proposed Income Supplementation Program?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't know, I can check and get the exact dates because that is not information that I ever considered to be that important to carry around in my head, as to exactly what day. I can indicate quite clearly that it was back before Christmas, in December, 1993 that it was released publicly. Shortly after that, the Premier had an opportunity to discuss the matter directly with the Prime Minister and shortly after that - and again, all of it before Christmas, we had an opportunity to have a discussion, the Premier and myself, with Minister Axworthy about the general principles contained in the Income Supplementation Program, whereby then a commitment was taken that officials would have a look at it and that Mr. Axworthy, as the minister responsible federally, would give us an indication as to the level of interest and what possibilities existed. It was in the last week or so that we received a letter from Mr. Axworthy, to the Premier, indicating that they are still very interested in the principles but there may be some difficulty at this point in time, in terms of implementing the Income Supplementation Proposal in its entirety as we proposed it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the minister this - it is very important when the dates are. I know and I'm fully aware of what was released publicly, a 53-page document that was released to all members of the House of Assembly, since that time and after Christmas, we are in possession of a document of some 130 pages that was a document presented to the Prime Minister, that outlines in more detail what the Income Supplementation proposes or what the program proposes, what groups will benefit but, in particular, what groups will be hurt in a negative fashion by this proposal. So let me ask the minister this: Are you considering implementing parts of that program as proposed, and if so, what parts are you considering implementing in conjunction with the Federal Government? Is there is a pilot project somewhere in the Province where you are seriously looking at implementing the Income Supplementation Program?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to the first part of the question, since I wasn't personally at the meetings between the Premier and the Prime Minister, I couldn't tell you exactly which pieces of paper changed hands at those meetings. Other than that, I do know that the Income Supplementation Proposal of the Provincial Government was discussed with the Prime Minister by the Premier. Following that, the Premier and myself as the minister, discussed it with the federal minister responsible and continuing discussions have gone on. The response, as I indicated, from Minister Axworthy, most recently in the last week or so, is that of the entire program, which is a major significant reform, they agree with the gist of it, the intent of it and the idea of moving from disincentives to incentives and so on, that there are a lot of characteristics that were described in that reform that they agree with the direction and the principles.

They are not in a position now, for a couple of reasons, to go ahead with the complete program in Newfoundland and Labrador using the Province as we had indicated as a possible pilot project for testing to see whether or not it could be implemented on a national scope later on. They are not in a position to do that but they have asked us - and we haven't responded to them yet - to consider if, in fact, we would do as the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, asked in his question, if we would look at any one or two component parts of it, to do on a pilot project basis in the short term, and we haven't responded to that at this point in time.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Federal Government is considering and likes the principles outlined in the Income Supplementation Program. All one would have to do is look at the federal Budget and the negative impact that that will have on this Province as well as the Income Supplementation Program and the negative impact that that will have. So let me ask the minister this clearly, so he will understand it clearly: Will the minister say now that he is prepared, as the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, charged with the responsibility of spearheading the Income Supplementation Program, will he commit to holding public hearings in the Province to give the people a chance to have input and to voice their opinion on this program, which as in the case of Hydro they had not done and denominational education they had not done? Will he commit to do it today so the people of the Province can have a chance to voice their concerns?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, with respect to the first part of the question, the comment made about the federal Budget changes with respect to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, it was made quite clear by the Premier on the day that we released the Income Supplementation proposal publicly in the Province, that it was concerned over the fact that everything at the political level and at the official level, that anyone representing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador had heard in the last couple of years, showed quite clearly, with the previous administration and then with the change of government in October, there was no doubt, because of the difficulties the federally-administered unemployment insurance plan is encountering, that there were going to be changes in that plan, and we knew that those kinds of changes would have negative impacts on a fair number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who rely on that system for their income maintenance. And it was because of that, that we were proposing a replacement scheme as outlined in the Income Supplementation proposal. So we have recognized that.

The problem is that the Federal Government have found that they had to move on the unemployment insurance thing to maintain the integrity of that plan without the replacement that we suggested should be there for the people who would be left without income. The other part of the proposal and the question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to public hearings, as part of the overall two-year agenda that Mr. Axworthy has spelled out as the federal minister responsible for social security reform in the country, they want to participate with the Provincial Government in Newfoundland and Labrador, on parliamentary hearings on their part and legislative hearings on our part, hopefully done together, so that we can talk about the need for social security reform generally, and Mr. Axworthy has asked that the Provincial Government also include discussion of the Income Supplementation Program in that public discussion, which hopefully, federal politicians and provincial politicians will do in the Province together, rather than having two different sets of politicians running off with two different sets of hearings.

MR. SPEAKER: A further supplementary, the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: I should ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, is he the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in the Province or is he the executive assistant to the federal minister, Lloyd Axworthy - which are you? Now, I asked you a question: Are you committed, as a minister, to holding public hearings across the Province, so that people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, can have a chance to have input into the Income Supplementation Program? a fairly simple question, yes or no. I can tell the minister that we, on this side of the House, are holding public meetings and people want to have input, so will he commit today to hold public hearings, yes or no, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand more fully, I guess, that you would have to answer very simply like that so that they could understand, because I really thought I answered the question previously, adequately, for anyone to hear.

What we have is a request, Mr. Speaker, that, rather than burden the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with two sets of politicians, just because one happens to represent the Federal Government and one happens to represent the Provincial Government, with two different sets of hearings, talking about the same thing, that, wouldn't it be in the best interest of the people and also to conserve some of their money to send one group around to talk about the general nature of income security reform which is going to happen in the whole country in the next two years and in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in that context, give people an opportunity to talk about now that they have some view or will have some view of the overall social security reform, will they then be able to discuss publicly as well, how they think the Income Supplementation Program might fit into that overall context, so there will be an opportunity as I see it, Mr. Speaker, it is only a matter of when it makes sense to go forward and discuss the Income Supplementation Program in the context of the overall reform that is going to occur in the next two years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

The Throne Speech made reference to the Federal and Provincial Governments jointly developing and implementing a fisheries industry renewal agreement, a restructuring agreement for fish plants, and there is reference there to the renewal boards, as referenced to Mr. Cashin's report. I am wondering if the minister could inform the House whether or not governments are looking at mothballing maintenance programs for fish plants throughout the Province to maintain the infrastructure just in case the fishery comes back?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, his reference to the Fisheries Industry Renewal Board as recommended in the so-called Cashin Task Force Report, I believe, I indicated to the House that is something that is being considered by the Province but the terms of reference as we know them certainly do not go far enough to accommodate what the Province wants in terms of something close to joint management, but the matter is being considered. With respect to his question as to a mothballing fund being established I can only tell him, Mr. Speaker, that there is no provision at the present time to engage in that kind of an exercise or to provide those funds.

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

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

Let me ask the minister if there will be any money allocated or provided for plants to modernize or to convert to secondary processing of value added products? Will there be any money allocate by the provincial government or provincial and federal governments for that purpose?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there are already a number of sources from which plant owners can access funds, ACOA, of course, Enterprise Newfoundland, but at the present time we do not have any such fund, my department does not, but there are, like I said, avenues through which those kind of funds can be accessed, like I said, namely ACOA and Enterprise Newfoundland Limited.

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

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

Let me ask the minister when government will be making a decision, or an announcement on what plants will remain open in the Province? What plants will stay in the system? When can we expect the minister to inform the House, and the public consequently, what plants will remain open in this Province and what plants will be closed? There is a lot of anxiety out and about the Province, as I am sure the minister knows. People have been calling for decisions for a period of time as to plant restructuring, so can the minister inform us when he will be announcing that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, as the Throne Speech indicated we have plans to introduce in the House during this session, a White Paper in which we will be outlining government's policy on the fishery of the future. This White Paper came about as a result of a discussion paper that was tabled in the House and discussed publicly last fall, at which time I conducted, I think it was sixteen public meetings around the Province, sought input from community leaders and stakeholders in the fishery, and stemming from that we are now putting the finishing touches on the final policy, at least the government's policy for the fishery of the future. I am hoping to introduce that in the House of Assembly certainly before this session ends.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if the minister could inform the House what measures he or government are taking to counter the advertising that we see again today in the Globe and Mail by the International Fund for Animal Welfare? I am wondering if government is going to undertake a campaign to counter this advertising we see on the front page today of the Globe and Mail, very compelling advertisements about the seal hunt and seal organs, and really, I guess, false arguments, as I see it, of really what the Province has been promoting and the markets they have been trying to develop? I wondering if the minister or the government has any plans to counter this?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the ads that appeared in the national newspapers, including The Evening Telegram, two page ads, contained nothing but a pack of lies and deceit shamefully being spread by the IFAW. I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is being done for self-serving reasons because every year at about this time they start their fund-raising campaign. I have no doubt that the ads that appeared in the Globe and Mail today, and those that appeared in other national newspapers will result in millions of dollars pouring in to replenish the coffers of the animal rights people.

It is rather strange that these same people who supposedly are concerned about conservation, the environment, and the ecology have been totally silent when it comes to taking a stand on the side of Newfoundland in trying to protect our fish stocks that are being ravaged now by foreign countries. They have not seen fit to raise their voice to utter a word in support of the position Newfoundland has taken.

Let me say for the benefit of hon. members that the project that is referred to in the newspaper articles, that of a 50,000 animal harvest being done by a local company in collaboration with a Chinese company, is being conducted along the lines as stated by the policy of this government, that the entire animal must be utilized. We would not support a seal harvest for any particular organ, except where the entire animal is being utilized, and that is the case with respect to Terra Nova Fishery. That is why I say that the ads, and the content in the ads, is nothing but a pack of lies.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with Your Honour's leave, since Newfoundland artists made such a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. member. Question period has expired. I take it you're not raising another question? Okay.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I am rising with the indulgence of Your Honour and other members to bring to the attention of hon. members a fact of which they may be aware, that Newfoundland artists made an outstanding showing at last night's Gemini Awards ceremonies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: I would like to propose that Your Honour, on behalf of all hon. members, send congratulatory messages to the Newfoundland artists who were recognized for their excellence in English language television.

Major winners were, for best performance in a comedy series, CODCO - Cathy Jones, Greg Malone, Tommy Sexton, and Mary Walsh. I propose that Your Honour, on behalf of all of us, send messages of congratulations and praise to Cathy Jones, Greg Malone, and Mary Walsh, and a message to Tommy Sexton's parents.

Also, I propose that Your Honour send a congratulatory message on behalf of members of this House to the producer of The Boys of St. Vincent, which was given awards in several categories. A film that was largely made in St. John's, based on the Mount Cashel story, and which involved several Newfoundland artists.

Thank you, Your Honour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the House that the message be sent?

Carried.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table in the House the annual report of the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for the year ending 1993.

Also, some very important documents. The Province of Newfoundland pooled pension fund financial statements, year ending December 31, 1992. The report on the evaluation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Pension Plan as of August 31, 1993, prepared by William Mercer Limited, and a report on the evaluation of the Public Service Pension Plan for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as of December 31, 1992.

AN HON. MEMBER: When is Budget day?

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we would give leave to the minister. Is he ready to tell us the Budget date, is that what he is indicating? Or he would rather wait till tomorrow?

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in presenting to the House a petition from 182 students at F.G. Bursey Memorial Collegiate in Grand Falls - Windsor. The petition was submitted to me during the break, when the House was closed for the Christmas break. I spoke to the representatives out there and indicated that as soon as the House reopened I would present that petition.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say to you I have several petitions from several parts of the Province dealing with the issue of denominational education. In fact I have several here from the Minister of Education's own riding. One from Port au Choix, one from Hawke's Bay, and one from Port Saunders, which I hope I will get a chance -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: In his seat mate's riding, I guess, is it? Yes. Mr. Speaker, it may be in his riding next election maybe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There will be nothing in his riding next election.

MR. SIMMS: Of course, there won't be anything in his riding because the minister won't be running.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Government House Leader who may jump up at some point and say: Oh, here we are, we are going to present a whole pile of petitions, this is all part of delaying. The fact of the matter is these are five petitions that I have received over the Christmas break all related to the issue. I made a commitment to these people that I would present these petitions at the appropriate time. I will be honouring my commitments. In view of the fact especially I believe we are sitting through till 10:00 p.m. as I understand it, no break for supper, so there is no panic, no rush.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Today I can. If the minister would like me to I would. Not all together.

MR. DECKER: I'm just wondering, will I respond?

MR. SIMMS: No, individually. I would like you to respond individually to each of the five. Now some other of my colleagues may have petitions on the same topic, I don't know, or some other topics, but I can tell the minister I have five, three separate ones from Port au Choix, Port Saunders and Hawke's Bay. Those three, I would like to present separately, obviously.

MR. DECKER: You are presenting all three today?

MR. SIMMS: I may, yes. If the minister would like me to I will do it that way. I will present them all today. It doesn't matter to me.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to get on with it. The students at F.G. Bursey Memorial Collegiate are saying of course that they disagree with the government's proposal, or at least the way the government is proposing to reorganize the educational system. They have their own reasons for doing it. I would just like to read, if I might, a couple of paragraphs from the accompanying letter:

We, the students of Bursey Memorial Collegiate - and, by the way, this petition also went to the Minister of Employment, the Member for Exploits, in whose district this school will be, I guess, after the next election, if the boundaries changes are made. He has a copy of it, and I know my friend, the Member for Windsor - Buchans has a copy, so they may, too, stand up and speak to this at some time. I don't know; I doubt it very much. I suspect they won't, but anyway, Mr. Speaker...

We, the students of Bursey Memorial Collegiate, would like to tell you that we want to keep our Pentecostal school system because it influences our lives in a very positive way. We understand that it may cost our government a little more money; however, we must get our priorities straight. Our future in Christianity is far more important than any amount of money.

Our understanding of the government's model is that because our school board may be gone, new boundaries for schools will be made, cutting of bus routes, reallocation of teachers, will mean this school will not have the same students or teachers as present. Therefore, it will cease to exist as a Pentecostal school.

Our generation will be running our Province soon, and we think our education now will influence the way we do this. A Christian background will help us and our future greatly. Please understand how we feel, and help us keep Bursey Memorial Collegiate as it is.

We ask you to present this in the House of Assembly, et cetera ...

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to have a couple of extra words to say to this petition. We only get five minutes in presenting the petitions, but I have met with a number of students out at Bursey Memorial. I have talked to a number of teachers, for sure, on this whole issue, and from time to time they have expressed a lot of reservation, a lot of concern.

A broader issue, I guess, that I hope the minister might address, is the criticism that we hear more frequently now about the approach and the way that the government is moving ahead with its plan, forging on, I guess, is the way to put it, with its plan to, in the minds of a lot of people who are opposing his position, abolish the denominational education system.

The minister argues that he doesn't intend to abolish it, but I guess it's a question of who believes who, or who is saying what, and who is right about what. The fact of the matter is, though, Mr. Speaker, there are some serious concerns about the approach that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: If I could just have thirty seconds or so, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: If the minister could address those issues, because there's no question about it, if you listen to any of the conversation on the streets, or talk to anybody on this issue, I know there are people who support the idea of changes to the educational system, and we do, too, and we have said it many, many times. The minister has often tried to twist what we have had to say, but nevertheless we have said many, many times that we would like to see a lot of the changes recommended in the Williams Royal Commission.

We would like to see a lot of those changes made, but if it is going to affect the constitutional rights that people, or classes of people, in this Province have already attained, and worked very hard to get over the years, and which were included in the Terms of Union, 1949, then as a political party we will defend and support those constitutional rights - just so the minister understands our position clearly, and the public understands our position clearly - and if it appears as if we are headed towards a confrontation, I remember the minister's words. They ring kind of hollow now, but I remember last spring. I remember him taunting us - and he may remember it himself - you'd love to see me have a fight, I think were his words, with the archbishop and a few other people like that.

He smiles, because I am sure he remembers. Well, I can assure the hon. members opposite that is not going to happen - words to that effect.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we can see those words ring hollow, because there certainly is a confrontation between the minister and the leaders of the churches these days, no matter what way you slice it.

So I hope that the minister will come to his senses. I have a funny feeling the minister will not come to his senses, but I do suggest, Mr. Speaker - since he has given me leave, I won't be too harsh on him - I do suggest to the government, anybody who might be listening on the government side, if you want to get a deal, if you want to get an agreement, on this educational system, and the changes that are being talked about, particularly with respect to governance, the best way that could be accomplished is to flick out the Minister of Education from around the negotiating table.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's South, I am telling him that is the best opportunity to get an agreement. Get the Minister of Education from around the table, because there is no way the other side is going to agree with him - not a chance in the world - but if there was somebody else, or a third party -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's North knows what I'm talking about. If there could be a third party - I will suggest it to the Premier when he gets back, as a matter of fact, in the House one of these days, in Question Period. I seriously believe that there is a chance of getting an agreement but not while the Minister of Education sits around the table, you have to get somebody else involved in this process and I think you could pull it off. Anyway, I thank members for leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to stand in support of my colleagues putting forward a petition on behalf of the 182 students of F.G. Bursey Memorial Collegiate in Grand Falls - Windsor. I would like to make some comments on why I support the petition. The governments stated goals of the restructuring plan, Mr. Speaker, are to transform this society from one of persistent under-achievement to one whose achievement levels rank with the best in the nation. After studying the documents that they put forward and some information that is available through the Department of Education itself, I question that statement, Mr. Speaker. An example is referenced in To Success in Public Examinations as publication Profile '92 from the Department of Education themselves which compares the graduation rate in Newfoundland to those in other parts of Canada.

While Newfoundland's rate is below that of most other provinces, this document points out that since graduation requirements vary considerably, these comparisons should be made with caution. Alberta, BC, Quebec and Newfoundland are the only provinces with a full scale system of provincially set public examinations, therefore these provinces provide the most appropriate comparison for this Province but instead they use the whole country when they are making their comparisons, Mr. Speaker.

Newfoundland's graduation rate was the highest of these four provinces that were on the level playing field. The foregoing would appear to be an underlying rationale of adjusting the course to be at least questionable. What does this say to the rest of the document? We talked about achievement, Mr. Speaker, what type of achievement do we have here in Newfoundland? For some reason or other the minister and the government try to come up with the underachievement aspect but there's quite an amount of achievement here in the Province. With a score of 59 per cent, Newfoundland ranked sixth in mathematics, above Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario and also above the US. Worthy of note, is the fact that this province was the only population where females outscored males in mathematics.

In terms of science, overall Newfoundland with an average score of 66 per cent performed better than the french population in Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. Newfoundland performed only marginally lower than english Ontario and at the same level as New Brunswick. In the 1991 international assessment, in mathematics and science, Newfoundland performed slightly better than the international average and three points below the Canada average in Mathematics.

Newfoundland has the highest graduation rate out of four provinces that have comprehensive public examinations.

Some other statistics, Mr. Speaker: according to Maclean's Magazine in 1992 Newfoundland had fewer drop-out rates than Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. I ask the minister, is this failure? According to the Royal Commission on Employment and Unemployment, our graduate rates have increased 1 per cent per year for the past thirty years, is this failure, I ask the minister? According to Profiles 1991, a publication of the Department of Education itself, Mr. Speaker, our students in the international tests in math and science were very close or even better than the national average, is this failure? The same report shows that Newfoundland has the highest percentage of students doing achieved advanced placement courses and the highest success rate in Canada, I ask the minister is this failure? I believe that the minister and the Premier would like one super school in Newfoundland, all students be bused or flew - one school in all Newfoundland and Labrador, that would make them quite happy.

MR. GRIMES: How foolish can you get?

MR. MANNING: Yes, that's the question, how foolish can we get? You should be asking yourselves that question in supporting this. Why do they call you Pop Grimes? What is more important is a child's personal development, physical development, academic development and spiritual development. All of these above items are very important in our education.

Mr. Wells has stated that if he cannot get the churches to agree to go along with what he wants, he's prepared to seek an amendment to the Constitution of Canada to take away our rights. If he can succeed in taking away the rights of one minority, I ask, who will be next? When they talked about accountability, most of the problems for which they consider someone to be accountable for are actually under the control of the Department of Education themselves. Instead of trying to place the blame elsewhere, the government should try to examine its own shortcomings. Reform should start at the top.

Mr. Speaker, at present, there are 293 communities in this Province with schools. Thirty-five communities have more than one school system. Many of these thirty-five schools in St. John's and Corner Brook for example can support more than one system because of the number of students involved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

By leave.

MR. MANNING: A few sentences to clue up. Maybe the Minister of Education will get a few seconds to wake up and see what is coming down the tubes here because this is not going to be resolved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Oh yes, anyway. I will just close off in saying I have been happy today to be able to stand and support this petition. I am sure there are more coming like the petition so ably presented by the Leader of the Opposition and I am sure that there will be other petitions coming forward, Mr. Speaker, and many other topics to discuss under the Adjusting The Course and Adjusting The Course II. I am sure that the Minister of Education is waiting anxiously for the petitions to come.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words to this petition which was presented by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

First, I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to go back to the children at Bursey Memorial Collegiate and explain to them just what it is that government is trying to do.

Government is trying to bring in an interdenominational system of education, Mr. Speaker. All too often, some would suggest that government is going for an integrated secular system, that indeed is not the case. There are people who would argue that the integrated education system in this Province is a secular system, however, in reality it is not.

The integrated system is an example of some churches who decided to practise their rights collectively, to exercise them collectively but they hold them individually, so essentially, what we are asking the churches to do, is to keep their rights as individual churches but in the interest of education in this Province, exercise them collectively.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what kind of a school will that give us in the Province? Let us walk for a second, into a Grade II classroom under the new system the government is talking about, under the interdenominational, under the ecumenical school system that we are talking about, and you would probably see in the first row or in a semicircle, however you sit them, a little Pentecostal child, next to that little Pentecostal child would be a little Roman Catholic child, next to that little Roman Catholic child would be a United Church child, and then there would be an Anglican child; children of all religions would sit down and study together, learn about religion, learn about each other's religion, each other's denomination, and, Mr. Speaker, I personally, don't have any problem with that, and I don't know very many Pentecostal people who have any problem with that, and I don't know many Roman Catholic people who have any problem with that, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about an interdenominational system, which is basic to christianity itself, where we understand each other as christians, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of a school system that I am talking about and the children at Bursey Memorial Collegiate say that they have something that they don't want to lose. They are talking about the ambience of their school and I say to them, I don't want to lose it either, but anything that they have, I don't want to confine it to Bursey Memorial, I want to bring it into the larger picture so that the strengths that are contained in Bursey Memorial will be found in an interdenominational system, so that the strengths that are found, Mr. Speaker, in the Roman Catholic system will be shared by all of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, whether we are Roman Catholic or whether we are Pentecostal or whether we are Anglican or United Church, that is the kind of a school system to which we are looking forward and I am sure that when the students at Bursey Memorial Collegiate get at the truth of the matter and see the kind of an educational system that we are talking about, not a secular system, not a secular system but an interdenominational system, where boys and girls of all religious affiliations can sit down and study the great truths of humanity, together, under the protection which is granted to us by Term 17, where we can have a denominational-based education system, that is the kind of system and that is the message I ask the hon. member to take back to his friends at Bursey Memorial Collegiate.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition of outraged citizens of Humber East, Humber West and Bay of Islands districts who are extremely upset at the Wells government's proposal to sell Hydro. People are extremely angry not only at the policy decision to privatize Hydro but at the bulldozer tactics of the Administration, at the failure of the government to consult people, to hold public hearings, or to have a referendum.

The petition reads as follows: Whereas the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will burden the people of the Province with higher electricity costs, higher unemployment, diminished economic development opportunities, alienation of water rights, and the transfer out of the Province of millions of dollars every year in dividends to shareholders, therefore we petition the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown owned corporation.

Mr. Speaker, a citizen of Corner Brook, Eric Dyke, who lives on East Valley Road, called me last week to say that he is so upset about the government's move to sell Hydro that he wanted to sign a petition. I brought a petition to his door. He asked for extra pages. He and his wife then, all on their own, without my even knowing about it, went door to door on the street where they live, East Valley Road, and the adjacent streets, and collected signatures from people at virtually every door.

I've had two public meetings in Humber East for people in the Corner Brook area to get information about the Hydro issue. I had a meeting on November 25 and I had a meeting on Saturday past. On each occasion there was a good cross-section of citizens. People affiliated with every political party, as well as several never involved in party politics. A variety of ages, a variety of socio-economic backgrounds. With the exception of one citizen, people were unanimous in their strong and heartfelt opposition to the sale of Hydro. Some people at the meeting on Saturday objected to the noun "sale," saying it is not a sale, it is a giveaway. People are incensed.

Hydro, the fourth largest electrical utility in Canada, is a Crown jewel owned by the people of this Province. Hydro comprises the state-of-the-art hydro-generating facilities at Bay d'Espoir, Hinds Lake and Cat Arm. The government's proposal is worse than people had feared earlier when they heard rumours, when they heard talk of the negotiations with Fortis. The legislative measures before the House of Assembly open up the possibility that the undeveloped water rights throughout the Province, including the undeveloped water rights in Labrador, will be handed over to a privately owned utility.

What do people of Newfoundland and Labrador have left of their birthright? The groundfish stocks have been depleted through mismanagement. There is only one operating mine left on the Island of Newfoundland. Our agricultural land is being taken for superhighway construction. Our trees are being cut at a rapid rate with technology that is very destructive, in ways that are harmful to regeneration. What do we have left? We have free, eternally flowing water, water that is now fuelling the hydro-electric generating facilities on the Island, water that is fuelling the giant Upper Churchill project, water that will fuel hydro-electric developments to come.

The people of this Province have already invested heavily in hydro-electric generation. We and future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve to profit from the return. On behalf of these petitioners I urge the government to reconsider at the very least to hold public hearings or a referendum.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition as outlined by my colleague for Humber East who expressed on behalf of her constituents the outrage that is not restricted to Humber East but is indeed prevailing right throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a sham. Last year the Premier gave a little note to the Member for St. John's South which said: come into the House and fly the idea of privatizing Hydro and see what kind of reaction we can get, and the Member for St. John's South, being the professional gofer he is, and the gofer he has been most of his lifetime, stood up and did not know what he was talking about, and asked on behalf of the Premier to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. That is where this came from, Mr. Speaker. Something like the Member for Fortune - Hermitage standing up and bringing in a private member's resolution asking the House to endorse Adjusting the Course, and nobody knew what he was talking about because he had not seen it. Well, that is the same type of goferage that we saw from the Member for St. John's South. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this government is about to give away something that every man, woman, and child in this Province has a right to be part of.

MR. MURPHY: Nothing.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I say to the Member for St. John's South that the people of this Province do not think it is nothing. The people of this Province think it is a lot.

MR. MURPHY: I do not believe you.

MR. TOBIN: Now, this is what you have to deal with, the Member for St. John's South who works in the Premier's office saying Hydro is nothing. The Premier is going around saying he will not have to borrow for one year, that he will get by for one year if he sells Hydro, so that is nothing to the Member for St. John's. Well, tell the Premier it is nothing and tell him to leave it alone. That is what you should tell him. This government has decided to take away something that has been of a benefit to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. I do not care what the members opposite say, I know from my district that every time you go to the shopping malls, no matter where you go you hear about Newfoundland Hydro.

One of the questions that continues to be brought to my attention is what role is the Minister of Mines and Energy playing in this, because no one has ever heard from the Minister of Mines and Energy. No one, Mr. Speaker, knows he is alive. I was not here Friday because I was in my district but I was told this morning by my colleague for Grand Bank that the Member for Humber East asked a question of the Premier on Hydro and he would not answer but referred it to the Minister of Justice. He let the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is responsible for this, sit back and he totally ignored him. There are two things here, either the Premier has lost confidence in the Minister of Mines and Energy, and if he has the minister should resign, and if the Premier has not lost confidence in the Minister of Mines and Energy then the minister should go to him and say: I speak for Hydro, Premier, and not the Minister of Justice. You cannot have it both ways I say to the minister. It is either you carry out your responsibilities -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Probably he does not have the virtue of arrogance, probably he is not as arrogant and as contemptuous, and every other adjective you can think of as the Minister of Justice. Probably that is why the Premier got someone with an abundance of arrogance to get up and answer the question. The Minister of Mines and Energy should stand up to the Premier because you have been invested I say to the minister, you have been invested with the responsibility of overseeing Hydro in this Province. Probably you do not support the deal. That is why you are probably not saying anything, probably you are against it, and if you are resign. Stand up and be counted I say to the member because the people of this Province would be very proud of the Minister of Mines and Energy, and his constituents would be if he were to take a stand. You cannot stay on the fence on this issue I say to the minister, and I say to all members opposite. You cannot stay on the fence.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not on the fence.

MR. TOBIN: You are not on the fence? What's your position?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Should have been sold twenty years ago?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There you go, Mr. Speaker. You talk about arrogance. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. TOBIN: Sure, Mr. Speaker. Sure, I can have leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs -

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

Does the hon. member have leave?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, sure I can have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: No leave? Mr. Speaker, that will tell you where they stand on Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister responding?

MR. SIMMS: Is the Minister of Mines and Energy going to respond to that petition or not?

MR. TOBIN: Are you going to respond to the petition?

MR. SULLIVAN: It's a different petition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Mines and Energy wants to get up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: He doesn't want to get up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition on behalf of some of the residents of Calvert, in my district.

The prayer of the petition is addressed to the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened. The petition of the undersigned residents of the District of Ferryland,

WHEREAS the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has drafted and given approval in principle to an income supplementation proposal; and

WHEREAS the government has presented this proposal to the Government of Canada for its consideration; and

WHEREAS we believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed, and will have harmful consequences for tens of thousands of people, and for the economy of the Province generally;

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador immediately to undertake a process of consultation with the people of the Province on this proposal, and to halt any action with respect to this proposal until the voice of the people has been heard, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, indeed, to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Calvert, in my district, and I find and take great offence with the manner in which the income supplementation program has been presented.

Back last winter, before a provincial election, the Premier of this Province had drafted an income supplementation program behind closed doors, that he took to his Cabinet in June, approved it and presented it to the Prime Minister of Canada last November, one month before he made it aware to the people of this Province. I think that's an insult to the people of this Province whose livelihood is so greatly affected by the recommendations within this proposal.

Now we have a social security system in this Province that's costing about $2 billion a year, and for a government to move forth and make changes to a system without consulting the people who are so greatly affected by it, I think, is an insult to the integrity of hard-working people in this Province.

In an economy that is so dependent upon a social security net, the least the Premier could do is give the people of the Province an opportunity to have input into how these social programs would affect their lives in the future.

The Finance Minister of Canada went a lot further. He stated that we will not change the social safety net of this country, until the stakeholders, the people of Canada, have an opportunity for input. Still, the Premier of this Province went ahead, unaware to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, and presented this proposal that is detrimental to their well-being, and is fundamentally flawed in many specific areas.

What it proposes to do is increase the number of weeks a person has to work to twenty weeks. In an economy that is reeling from a recession, and many people are finding difficulty in putting food on the table, many people having to leave this Province to go to other parts of the country to get employed in seasonal-type work, and being told by the Premier of this Province that you must get twenty weeks in order to be able to draw unemployment insurance benefits, and then you can only draw for twenty weeks.

It is little wonder that the Federal Government came back and proposed a system that has very serious impacts on this Province, a system in the recent federal Budget on UI alone, that is going to have a negative impact to the tune of $300 million on the economy of this Province. The Premier went out and asked the Federal Government to come down with such a program.

Now, it is flawed on many fronts. Number one, what it proposes to do is to take the income that is there and redistribute income - to take it away from construction workers and trades workers and fisheries workers and others who do not have an opportunity to get twenty weeks work and put them out onto a program that is going to be the same as social assistance. This Income Supplementation Program is based upon family size and structure, and it is structured like social assistance, not like unemployment insurance. So, that program is going to have very negative impacts on many families in this Province.

Had a program been accompanied by a job creation program that would see a phasing-out of the dependence on UI - and nobody disputes the fact that the system is very heavily dependent on UI. But we need to have an economy that is going to have a stimulation from job creation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I will get back again.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand and support the petition as presented from the people of Ferryland, from the district of Ferryland.

It is astounding to me that a government in hiatus of public consultation can propose such radical reform on the people of the Province without any consultation. In December, the government presented for public showing the Income Supplementation report that outlined in general what the program was about. Shortly after Christmas, I received a document of approximately 125 pages outlining in more detail - it was the actual proposal that the Premier had presented to the Prime Minister on the Income Supplementation Program.

To talk about the absolute nonsense, and how out of touch this program is with the reality that is taking place in the Province today, I will use one example: the construction industry which employs on average about 15,000 to 16,000 people in the Province on a seasonal basis, year after year, both in the union and non-union sectors, that in the last ten years, on average, in its best years, has received fifteen-and-a-half to sixteen weeks works - in its best years.

The climate of the Province we live in, the conditions of employment, the nature of the business and terms of when tenders are let and when tenders come back and when business begins, don't allow for twenty weeks work, which most people in the construction industry can count on today. Those people themselves who, contrary to what the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations said, who make high levels of income in a short period of time, contrary to that they do not make high levels of income in a short period of time, and the people in that industry, will be reduced to abject poverty. That is what the Income Supplementation Program will do for those 16,000 Newfoundlanders who are involved in that single industry.

If we look at other seasonal industries such as the fishery, the mining industry, forestry, that is the employment base of this Province. That is where our people are employed, and that is what this program attacks. The Income Supplementation Program is an attack on seasonal industries, and therefore, by strict and sheer logic, is an attack on the people of this Province, especially those people who live in rural Newfoundland.

What I also object to in the strictest form is the continuous lack of consultation by this government on major issues. They go out of their way on small issues for public consultation, but on the major issues there are hidden agendas, no consultation, decisions made, decisions taken, and the people of the Province are left to bear the brunt.

What I also object to on the Income Supplementation Program again is the process. It was only ten short months ago that we faced an election in this Province, and the idea of the Income Supplementation Program was alive and well. But the government knew full well what impact it would have if they announced it or talked about it during the election campaign and they did not. But I can assure you, if the government proceeds with this or any of its principles, they will bear the responsibility, and the people of the Province in the next general election will let them know. The Member for Bellevue knows full well what I'm talking about.

MR. BARRETT: Are you against the educational supplement?

MR. E. BYRNE: The educational supplement has not been explained in full detail. How will it affect - you know nothing about it. The Member for Bellevue is the same member who told me that it won't see the light of day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: - that it will not see the light of day. So don't talk with two tongues to me, Mr. Member, I can tell you that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition of several citizens of the Corner Brook area, residents of the districts of Bay of Islands, Humber West and Humber East. Mr. Speaker, the petition reads as follows;

Whereas, the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will burden the people of the Province with higher electricity costs, higher unemployment, diminished economic development opportunities, alienation of water rights and the transfer out of the Province of millions of dollars every year in dividends to shareholders; therefore, we petition the Premier and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to retain Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown-owned corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition is circulating in the Corner Brook area. Joan Chambers, a senior citizen, called and asked me for a petition and then she undertook to sit in the Co-op store groceteria one day last week to collect signatures. She told me the response was overwhelming - people are furious at the Wells government's proposed sale of Hydro, people want a way to express their opposition, people were eager to sign the petition.

Mr. Speaker, at my public meeting on Saturday, Kevin St. George suggested that a citizens committee be formed, and solicited volunteers. A ten-member committee was struck. They are hard at work now. They call themselves, `Save Our Hydro'. Mr. Speaker, these citizens have invested in Hydro, these people through paying taxes over the last twenty-five or thirty years, have made a contribution towards the cost of building the Bay d'Espoir facility which was just paid off last year. They've made a contribution to building the facilities at Hynes Lake and Cat Arm. These people are benefiting through electricity rates right now. These people feel threatened by the proposal to sell Hydro because they realize that all the government and the people of the Province will get in return is an injection of $350 million or $450 million in cash. So what's that going to do? What's that going to do, I ask the Minister of Finance, with an annual Budget over $3 billion? That's a bit of cash that will ease current account for a couple of years, reduce borrowing by maybe what? Who knows, $25 million a year? But to do that deal the government is giving up more in the way of fees and tax revenue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where are we going to be four or five years down the road? We'll be paying higher electricity rates then we would otherwise, year by year, after the sale, but then when the full tax measures are implied, electricity rates will go through the roof and we won't have our Crown jewels. Our inheritance will have been given away for a song. Mr. Speaker, people are saying this is insane. Now, many of the people who signed this petition voted Liberal in the last election. They voted for the Speaker or the Premier and some of them voted for the Liberal candidate who opposed me.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know that?

MS. VERGE: Because they say - because they've told me.

MR. GRIMES: You can say anything. It's a secret ballot, nobody knows. Don't be so foolish!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, there were people voicing opposition to the sale of Hydro at my November meeting who attended the Liberal Convention in Gander.

MR. GRIMES: I voted P.C. in 1972, do you believe that?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, these people, a cross-section of citizens, can't understand why the Premier would do something so stupid as to sell Hydro, they just can't understand. And, Mr. Speaker, they haven't had a chance to discuss this with the Premier personally because he has avoided discussing it with them. The Premier has refused to have or has failed to have a public meeting about the Hydro issue in Bay of Islands district, and people smell something rotten with this transaction, because it is such an illogical, crazy, proposal that is so obviously going to work to the financial detriment of the Province, our businesses and our citizens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: All they can conclude is that there is some skulduggery going on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) get up, boy!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Member for St. John's South, we have no worries about him getting up in the debate. He will get up and do what he is supposed to do and do what he is told when he is told to do it. That has been his contribution for a while. Mr. Speaker, this NCARP -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: There are a lot of things we can talk about on the Southern Shore, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind the hon. member that he is addressing the petition put forward by the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for getting carried away in responding to the Member for St. John's South. I shouldn't have done it, because this issue is much bigger to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador than the Member for St. John's South. This issue is about Newfoundland and Labrador; it is about the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and about a corporation that is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that somehow, the Premier of this Province, at his whim for some reason, and we can all have our own suspicions, but for some reason the Premier of this Province has decided that he wants to get rid of Newfoundland Hydro. I would say, according to what I heard on the weekend, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Exploits shouldn't talk too loudly. I threw out one word today, I say to him, and I have more coming.

Now, this issue, as I said, is about Newfoundland and Labrador but why does the Premier want to sell Hydro? We all know that Newfoundlanders will become unemployed; there will be less people working in Hydro today or in a year's time or a few months time that there are today. There will be job losses. So I say to members opposite that if you are to vote for this, you are voting to take away jobs from Newfoundlanders. If you vote, and I say this to the backbenchers, some of them whom I hope will have the courage to join with us and vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, we see the Member for Eagle River changing a lot. When the federal elections were over he went from being the great defender of the fishermen to the fellow who then went out and advocated taking away the U.I. on them; we see his cowardly act and I don't expect him to stand up, but I hope there are men and women over there who will have the courage to stand up. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you vote for this, you are voting to take away jobs from men and women in this Province. If you vote for the privatization of Hydro you are voting to increase the light bills for every family in this Province - the Premier has stated that. You are voting to increase the light bills for the working poor in this Province. You are voting to increase the light bills for the people who are on social services in this Province. You are voting to increase the light bills for everyone in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

If you vote for this act, you are voting to take away what has been ours for decades and to give it to who - and I would suspect, Mr. Speaker - we cannot lose sight of the fact that this government did not get away with the plot or the plan to sell it off to their buddies in Fortis. Don't ever think that wasn't a sweetheart deal, don't ever think that wasn't a buddy-buddy deal cooked up by some of the hierarchy and the government.

Fortis backed off. It was Fortis who backed off, not the government. Fortis backed off when they started getting publicity they didn't like, I say to members opposite. Fortis backed off, that is what happened, and now they are putting it on the block.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I say to the Member for Eagle River, if the Premier has his Cabinet shuffle before the vote, then you may vote against it.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 210 students, residents of Grand Falls - Windsor, some of whom will be living in the district of Exploits, if they don't already live in the district of Exploits as well. It is further to the petition I presented about half-an-hour ago related to Bursey Memorial Collegiate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it is basically - not the same petition, it is another one, but it is related - the same prayer. I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, it is the same prayer. So it is a total of 210 names on this petition, and 190 or whatever it was, it is nearly 400 students.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all you need are three names.

MR. SIMMS: All you need are three names for a petition. But you can see that this is not something that we just dreamed up or whatever, there are 210 names - nor are the ones presented by my colleague, the Member for Humber East. On that one she just presented there were tens and tens of names who were opposed to Hydro privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Whether there are five on that sheet or fifty or twenty-five it doesn't matter, as the hon. the Minister of Finance knows.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring my remarks back to the petition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say briefly, and follow up on what I said earlier when I presented the first petition to the Minister of Education dealing with the educational issue, that the students from Bursey Memorial Collegiate don't understand, I guess, or if they do understand, they don't agree with the minister's explanation of what it is the minister and the government intend to do with respect to changes in the educational system.

The minister got up and tried to explain what it is the government are intending to do, but it is clear that there are many people around the Province who don't understand that or don't agree with it. I suspect most of those who disagree with the approach that the government is taking on educational reform simply don't trust the government, simply don't believe the government. I'm glad the Minister of Finance was here, because I'm not sure he was here when I spoke earlier on this issue.

I said to the House that on this particular issue, from our own position as a party, we have always said that we will support and defend the constitutional rights that classes of people or people have gained in this Province over the years, going right back to 1949 in the Terms of Union and all the rest of it. We will defend those constitutional rights because the party opposite won't defend them, and the NDP, as I understand it, won't be defending them. So we will be defending them.

At the same time, support for constitutional rights does not mean that you cannot support changes to the educational system, and we have outlined on many occasions that we support most of the recommendations, in fact, that are contained in the Williams Royal Commission. We have said that publicly. We support changes to curriculum, we support changes and improvements to training for teachers, all of those kind of changes we support, Mr. Speaker, and we have always said that, but unfortunately the Minister of Finance has not heard it for whatever the reason might be.

I think what is wrong out there, Mr. Speaker, if I may try to make an analogy, is that a lot of people feel they have not been allowed to participate in the process and that is a failure of the government not only on its educational issue but as we see on the privatization issue, as we see on the income support program, and on several issues, the large issues, the government is not prepared to hold public hearings and give people a chance to speak. That is what has people so upset and so outraged.

But they will hold public hearings on issues like public accounting in the Province, they will hold public hearings on smoking, as important as those issues may be. Not only will they hold public hearings on electoral reform, but they will send the commission around a second time at a cost of probably $250,000 to determine the boundaries of the various ridings in the Province, but something as fundamental and important to the future as Hydro privatization, or as income support, or as educational changes, something as critical and as fundamental to our future and the future of our children, and our childrens' children, this government is not prepared to give the people a chance to have a say. That is outrageous, it is regrettable, it is sad, and it is wrong, I say to the Minister of Finance. I hope the Minister of Education, when he responds, or if he does speak to the petition, will elaborate a bit more -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to speak when people are shouting in your left ear, very difficult, on both sides I am talking about.

I hope the Minister of Education will further elaborate on the points he was trying to make, that I can bring back to my friends at Bursey Memorial Collegiate, because I would like to hear more. I would like for him to explain a bit more on why they are taking the approach they are taking, why they have decided to force the debate for several months on the philosophical question of denominational education which has done nothing other than cause bitterness and anger among family and friends.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: And why he has not proceeded to undertake a lot of the other reforms. He does not need to deal with the governance issue as he claims to get on with some of the other reforms, so maybe the minister will have a chance to address that.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand and support the petition put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am glad to support the petition and support the people of F.J. Bursey. The plan that the minister and the government put forward in relation to an international denomination system, Mr. Speaker, to many people in the Province is a joke. We talk about keeping the church in the school system because it is the total education of a person, their physical education, their academic education, and their spiritual education. It is very important that we keep the church in the schools because they play an important role in the overall growth of the child.

The plan we have put forward states today that the church and religion will stay in the schools, Mr. Speaker. I refer to an incident just this past year on Prince Edward Island. In one of the public schools on Prince Edward Island this past year the Department of Education received a complaint from a parent concerning her child who had to stand up and say the morning prayer in school. Upon receiving the complaint, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education decided to forbid school prayer in Prince Edward Island public schools, and ladies and gentlemen, as I am sure many of the members opposite realize a little prayer never hurt anybody. That goes especially for the Member for St. John's South. I say to the Member for St. John's South that if he were interested in saving the government money he would be out looking for lost furniture. He was so active in October past.

We talk about the reduction in school boards, Mr. Speaker. In 1969 there were 270 school boards in this Province. The number was reduced to thirty-seven and the present number of school boards is twenty-seven. I believe, and I am sure the minister knows for a fact, that the number can be reduced to ten or twelve without destroying the denominational system of education in this Province. There is no need to lay the blame on school boards for the problems that are within the educational system in the Province, it goes back directly to the Department of Education.

The 1993 Budget for primary, elementary and secondary schools was $579.1 million, Mr. Speaker, teachers' salaries were $433.2 million of that, with the school board operations with $125.8 million, the remaining $20 million was allocated to native peoples education, insurance, school supplies etc., so it is very important that we look at the overall cost of education in the Province and see where it can be cut. Because of cutting out denominational education, the minister has stated that he may save $10 million, the possibility of saving $10 million. The Royal Commission said that they would save approximately $20 million.

MR. GRIMES: Are you reading that?

MR. MANNING: Are you listening? It is important that you listen, it is not important that I am reading, it is important that you listen. You are one of the people sitting at the Cabinet table and it is important that you listen. You should listen to people in your own district, when the time comes.

I ask the minister, which figure is it, is it $20 million that can be saved as the Royal Commission put forward, or is it $10 million that the department now uses as the figure that can be saved? What is the real figure that will be saved by destroying denominational education in this Province? The real figure I believe, is closer to $3 million or $4 million. If the minister and this government were level and straightforward with people in this Province, they would come forward and tell exactly what would be saved. Why has the government not demonstrated exactly where that money will be saved? They are throwing around figures in the air but they are not laying out the facts where those dollars will be saved, and I ask the minister to come forward and tell us about the effect that this will have on communities around this Province, especially in rural Newfoundland.

Most urban areas will have numbers that will allow them to maintain some possibility of certain denominational schools in their cities but the fact is that the biggest impact of these changes will be felt in rural Newfoundland. I understand that the government has to save dollars and I understand that they have to take strides with education with the Budget as it is laid out every year for the education of the people of this Province, but, the problem is, we are dealing with rural Newfoundland also and I believe that the effects of these changes throughout rural Newfoundland would be felt for years to come.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted when hon. members bring these petitions to the House because it gives government an opportunity to try to dispel some of the myths which are out there about government's intention to reform the educational system in this Province, because, Mr. Speaker, in the previous opportunity that I had, I described the kind of school that I would see in the future, where children of all denominations sit down together and study the great truths of humanity.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the misinformation that is out there. He said it is possibly that the people in Bursey Memorial Collegiate don't really understand what we are all about. The hon. member is correct but I wonder how this misinformation is getting out? I heard the member who just had the by-election in the Placentia district, made a statement that if government gets its way, the crucifixes would be torn down and thrown in the garbage. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can't -

MR. MANNING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, on a point of order.

MR. MANNING: I have no problem with someone repeating what I said, but I say that the minister wasn't paying attention or if not he has a hearing problem, because I did not say anything about crucifixes in the few words I had to say, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the minister correct his statements and maybe read Hansard tomorrow to find out exactly what I said.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I heard the member who ran in the Placentia by-election, who was elected and who is not sitting in his seat yet because he has (inaudible). I heard that during the by-election he said that the crucifixes would be torn down. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is pure misinformation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), you have the misinformation.

MR. DECKER: Okay, if I have misinformation, then I certainly will apologize for it - I am corrected - but I have heard that he said it, and if he said it, that is absolute nonsense. Government has no intention of removing any of the symbols of the faith from any school in this Province, and there is no reason why a crucifix could not be in every school in this Province, whether it be a denominational or an interdenominational.

I know the distinction which some denominations make between the cross with Jesus on it and the empty cross. There is no reason in this world why there should not be an empty cross or a crucifix or whatever in any school in this Province, as long as we keep a denominational system; however, this is why I am so delighted to get an opportunity to speak to these petitions, and assure people of Newfoundland and Labrador that as long as the churches exercise their rights collectively, keep the protection of Term 17 there - there is no need to touch it - we can have an interdenominational system where the right to say the Lord's Prayer will remain, where the right to have christian programs will remain.

In this Province, at this very minute, there are several schools that are being used to conduct church services on Sundays. I received a question the other day: Would this still be allowed? Of course it would still be allowed. In the integrated system churches still use school buildings to conduct church services. There is no reason in the world... We are not talking about a public system, and that's why I am so delighted to get up today and dispel those myths and I wonder where they came from.

I wonder where they come from, when they talk about tearing down crucifixes, when they talk about a secular, godless system. I wonder who is perpetrating these myths on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I have a dirty, sneaky suspicion who is doing it, because all too often I have heard hon. members get up and tell half-truths, trying to twist the minds; but I would say to the students in Bursey Collegiate, get the facts for yourself. Get the facts as to what government is about to do, and make up your own minds after you have the truth. Don't be swayed by the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody else.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present a petition of constituents of mine and the Speaker's, residents of Corner Brook, Steady Brook, and Little Rapids.

Mr. Speaker, the petition reads as follows:

WHEREAS the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will burden the people of the Province with higher electricity costs, higher unemployment, diminished economic development opportunities, alienation of water rights, and the transfer out of the Province of millions of dollars every year in dividends to shareholders;

THEREFORE we petition the Premier and the government to retain Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a Crown owned corporation.

Mr. Speaker, these signatures that I am about to present were added to the petition at the public meeting I called in Corner Brook on Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, the purposes of my holding the meeting were to let people in the Corner Brook area concerned about the future of Hydro know what happened in the House of Assembly last week, to give them copies of the two bills the government have introduced, to give them the analysis of the legislative proposals done by the official Opposition, and to give them the government's brochure which was tabled in the House of Assembly last Friday.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't without irony that I distributed the government's propaganda. I pointed out to people that by the time the government mails it out to them, this legislation may be passed, because I told them that I have never seen such anti-democratic bulldozer tactics used before.

Mr. Speaker, as I've said before, many of the Corner Brook area residents opposing the sale of Hydro are long-time Liberal supporters, and voted Liberal last May. Now, Mr. Speaker, those people, and citizens throughout the Province who voted otherwise, didn't hear the Premier or the Liberal candidates say anything about any intention of privatizing Hydro during last spring's election campaign.

The CFCB radio open line host covering Western Newfoundland and Labrador, Dave LeDrew, asked the Premier, when the Premier was a guest on his show during the election campaign, if the Premier wanted to sell Hydro and the Premier avoided answering. The Premier did not give a direct answer to that question. He didn't deal with the issue of Hydro privatization. The Premier basically hood-winked the voters. The Premier and this government do not have a mandate from the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador to sell Hydro. Now if the Premier is bound and determined to privatize Hydro, let the Premier call a referendum. Let the Premier give the citizens of this Province an opportunity to have a say in the retention or the sale of an important part of their birthright on water rights, on free, ever flowing, eternally flowing water and the hydro electrical facilities already in place, built through their taxpayers contributions and the potential hydro electrical development, especially the giant untapped potential in Labrador.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing is anti-democratic. It's hard for people to comprehend what is happening because it is so staggering and its coming down so fast. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, people can't understand for the life of them why the Premier would want to do this because it is so illogical. There are so many negative consequences that would obviously flow from selling Hydro, negative consequences for present and future citizens and businesses.

Mr. Speaker, all people can conclude is that something underhanded is going on, that there is a hidden agenda, that the Premier and the Minister of Justice - who's probably the only other member of the Administration who's in on a fair part of the agenda - have some master plan that they haven't divulged to the citizens of the Province. Mr. Speaker, citizens have concluded that this deal stinks. They want no part of it and they are petitioning in droves, in the hundreds and in the thousands, to try to stop the government before it's too late because, Mr. Speaker, if we sell Hydro in 1994, when the government changes after the next election it will be too late. We will never be able to afford to buy it back. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we sell Hydro there will be no going back.

In the 1960s Premier Smallwood couldn't foresee the way energy costs were going to escalate. He was nevertheless foolish to enter into a contract which didn't provide for an escalator clause but he can be perhaps forgiven to some extent by history. But, Mr. Speaker, there will be no forgiveness for Premier Wells because he knows full well what he is doing. The history books will judge, Mr. Speaker, and the history judge will condemn not only the Premier who is driving the sale of Hydro but all the other members of his Administration and his government benches who'll vote, because at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, the Premier only has one vote, the Member for Port au Port has exactly the same vote -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: - the Member for Harbour Grace has exactly the same vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: I'd say to the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, take it easy.

MR. ROBERTS: I find the Globe and Mail (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I noticed you looking at the TSE.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I stand to support the petition presented by the Member for Humber East once again. She touched on a very important issue, I say to members opposite, and that is public hearings. That's what you would call democracy at work, democracy at its best, where there would be a select committee of this House appointed, made up of the NDP and ourselves and the government side, give a mandate to that committee to travel throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and let the people of this Province speak on this issue.

I say to members opposite, what would be wrong with public hearings? What would be wrong, for example, for a committee of this Legislature to be down in my district tonight, down in Marystown or Burin, giving an opportunity to the people from that area to come before the committee and to ask questions and to express their views, to exchange ideas, and to let the committee know how they feel about the privatization?

For example, if you were to do fifty-two districts, forty districts, twenty-five districts, and if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador said to the committee: We are against the privatization of Hydro, if the majority of the people at these meetings said to the committee: We are against the privatization of Hydro, wouldn't you have a responsibility? Because I sincerely believe, truly believe, that is what they would say. Not only that, I'm convinced the Premier believes that is what they would say. I believe the Premier believes that is what they would say. Because the Premier and his Cabinet or his lackeys in Cabinet believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to oppose the privatization of Hydro, he has decided not to have public hearings.

I would say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, what would be wrong with a public hearing of a select committee of this House in your district out in Exploits or Botwood some place? What would be wrong with those people explaining to you how they feel about this piece of legislation? What would be wrong, Mr. Speaker, if you were to go out there with resource people or whatever the case may be and explain to the people what the bill is all about, An Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation? What would be wrong with the people having input?

If we believe, as legislators, that we are all sent in here to make decisions and forget about the people who sent us here, then we are in for a rude awakening, I say to members opposite. We are in for a rude awakening if we put ourselves ahead of the people who sent us here. They didn't send us here to act unilaterally on issues, they did not send us here to refuse to consult with our constituents. They sent us here to be responsible and we are not being responsible. We are not being responsible if we as elected representatives deny our constituents the right to express their views on this issue.

I don't know why members opposite are afraid to put together a select committee of this Legislature to go out. There is one group in this Province - nothing to do with legislatures, I think it is referred to as the Power of the People - which has done a tremendous job in educating the people of this Province about what this piece of legislation is going to mean. I can say to all of you - I say to the Members for Harbour Grace, Port au Port, and St. George's - that your constituents are no different than mine on this issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes they are. Very different.

MR. TOBIN: You are saying the people from Harbour Grace support this? They support the privatization of Hydro. The people of Harbour Grace.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would say -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I would repeat the motion. It is the motion to implement the arrangement I outlined on Friday. I move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. It is now 4:31 p.m. Apparently we may be going on in Petitions for some time yet, so I just move that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. so that hon. gentlemen and lady opposite have an opportunity to present all of the petitions they want, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I want to ask Your Honour, and get some clarification as to: Right now we are on Petitions. How can the Government House Leader rise in his place and make a motion such as he just did? I thought that he had to do that when Orders of the Day were called.

Could Your Honour clarify that for me, because I think the Government House Leader is out of order to do what he just did, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To the point of order, I would submit that the motion is in order at any time. I was recognized by Your Honour. I had the floor of the House, and I made a motion, seconded by my friend, the Member for the District of Exploits.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, I don't believe there was a seconder. There was no indication of a seconder, number one, and I would suggest Your Honour check the tapes to confirm that.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I think the point my friend from Grand Bank is trying to make is that the member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We will get to it in due course. The Minister of Justice should just sit back and relax. We will have a ruling eventually. He knows that.

Mr. Speaker, the point the Member for Grand Bank is making is that we are, at the present time, presenting petitions, and normally anybody who is recognized during the presentation of petitions would be instructed, according to the standing rules of the House, to restrict their comments to the number of people who signed the petition, and the prayer of the petition.

Now, Mr. Speaker, two people spoke on this side on the petition presented by the Member for Humber East. The Member for Naskaupi stood, presumably to speak to the petition. That would be the normal procedures, but instead he didn't speak to the petition. He should have been ruled out of order immediately. If he is not going to speak to the petition, he should not be entitled to speak at all, and that is the argument that we will make.

Now I know there are precedents, by the way, one way or the other, but a precedent doesn't always necessarily mean that is the ruling that should stand. As Your Honour well knows, and as the former Speaker knows, a precedent doesn't necessarily mean that is the ruling that will stand forever and a day, and Your Honour can certainly review the precedents.

I understand, from talking to the Clerk of the House, there were a couple of precedents back in 1983 and 1984, as well as one recently, in 1990. So we truly believe that the motion is out of order, and we ask Your Honour to consider the arguments and have a look at the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: We will take a short recess.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

After doing research the Chair rules that a motion to adjourn or to not adjourn is in order at all times. So I rule that the motion is in order. The motion before the House is that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

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

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a debatable motion, we'd like to debate the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not debatable.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if I might refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 98, subsection 300, debatable motions, "all motions are to be decided without debate or amendment, except those specifically recognized as debatable under Standing Order 32.

(2) Examples of motions which come under Standing Order 32 and are debatable are motions:

(a) relating to the time of sitting and the business of the House;"

Quite clearly Your Honour this is a debatable motion. I rise and am recognized to debate the motion.

Unless Your Honour wants to rule it out of order I will carry on.

MR. SPEAKER: Check with the Clerk of the House.

MR. WINDSOR: His Honour, has ruled that the motion is in order and I submit he's quite correct but it is also a debatable motion, very clearly.

I say to my friend the Minister of Justice, I take my advice from Beauchesne not from him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The precedent of this House is that this motion is not debatable.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is pretty clear.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has already ruled on the point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't go arguing with the Chair now.

MR. WINDSOR: Well I will argue with the Chair when the Chair is clearly wrong. Yes, I will argue with him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kick him out, Mr. Speaker, kick him out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him. Name him.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was outside in the caucus room having a coffee and it's my understanding that in circumstances like we just had, where Your Honour left the Chair to make a ruling, was that the bells were supposed to ring for five minutes. Now, Your Honour, the bells did not ring for five minutes, I can assure Your Honour of that. I am just wondering who gave the orders for the bells to stop ringing? I mean, a lot of us were out there having a coffee and having meetings and wanted to be in here to hear Your Honour's ruling. The bells are suppose to ring for five minutes, I say to the Government House Leader, and the bells did not ring for the five-minute period, so I ask Your Honour to revert, to allow the rest of the members to get in.

MR. SPEAKER: It is only in division that we ring the bells for ten minutes. There was a quorum present in the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Your Honour if he would take under consideration his earlier ruling, I don't mean to reconsider it now, but his earlier ruling on the question as to whether or not the motion not to adjourn is not debatable, that particular issue, that particular point. I understand that the advice he received was that it, by precedent, has not been debatable. There are also references - and I am trying to find them here as quickly as I can, but I do not have it in front of me, where it indicates, or points out - I do not know if it is in Beauchesne, Maingot, the friend of the former Speaker, Erskine May, or who, but there is a reference that a precedent years ago, last year or whatever, doesn't necessarily always mean that that is going to be the ruling or the precedent forever and a day. That is in one of the parliamentary reference books. I don't have it at my fingertips, so in view of that, if I could find that reference, I would have argued earlier with Your Honour that very point. I think, with all due respect, as pointed out by the Member for Mount Pearl, debatable motions include motions that deal with timing, the sitting of the House, and all the rest of it. That is also precedent because there are lots of other rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, do you have a specific reference?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay. I ask the hon. the Government House Leader if he would provide the House with a specific reference, as opposed to the precedent argument, because I don't think the precedent argument is really one that we necessarily need to take.

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

MR. ROBERTS: First of all, to the point of order made by my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, let me say this: Your Honour has made a ruling. Your Honour has done so after taking advice from wherever Your Honour saw fit. Now, there is only one way to challenge a ruling. I am not suggesting it should be done but that is a matter for members to decide. If my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, given that he feels, I won't say `if', I mean he says he does, and I accept his word on it, that the ruling is not consistent or not an appropriate one, what I would suggest is, we all take the time to research, we not go around - what I would say is that in my years to the House, an adjournment motion is not debatable and I have been here as long as anybody, but that doesn't mean I am right.

MR. SIMMS: But an adjournment to a special (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, no. The motion to adjourn or not to adjourn is not debatable, I would suggest.

MR. SIMMS: How do you explain Beauchesne?

MR. ROBERTS: The point I am making is that the Speaker has made a ruling. Now, one cannot challenge the ruling by indirection; there is only one way to challenge a ruling of the Speaker, and if any member chooses to do that, he or she may follow the proper procedure. Other than that, we should simply await another day, the motion would be moved again tomorrow; if the hon. gentleman wants to bone up on the - that might be the time. Let's have a discussion.

MR. SIMMS: So far, you haven't given us any references.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to give references, what I am here to say is, Your Honour has made a ruling and I suggest it is out of order and entirely unparliamentary to attempt to challenge that ruling by any means other than the appropriate one which is laid down in Standing Orders.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, lectures like that coming from the Government House Leader are rather humorous in many ways because he has done it himself, I think, as a matter of fact, challenging his own Speaker, if I recollect. But anyway, I tried to do this in a peaceful and responsible way and that is the reason I stood and asked His Honour if he would have a look at this whole question and consider the reference, if I could ever find the darn thing here, about precedence not always standing forever and a day; I don't know if the Clerk could help me or if he has found it. But it is in here, somewhere, and I think that that is an important one when you put that with the reference that the Member for Mount Pearl used, which talks about debatable motions, and a motion to deal with the time or the sitting of the House and so on that is different from normal, is debatable, and has been debatable, I think, in other instances, as you will find there.

Now, the other point that I wanted Your Honour to have a look at - and it is a question or raising a matter, it is not so much as to challenge, but if the Government House Leader wants us to challenge the Speaker's ruling, we are quite prepared to do that. I don't know what purpose it will serve, we don't want to embarrass the Speaker or anything else but, you know, if the Government House Leader suggests we do it - The Clerk has the reference now, I think, that I was looking for, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, under the old section I guess, Mr. Speaker, of precedent and tradition of Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, page 5, paragraph 11 dealing with Precedent and Tradition. I don't want to read it all but: "Although the House normally assumes that a ruling is binding for the future, Speakers have used the flexibility available to them to develop procedure regardless of conflicting precedents in the past."

Now, that is the one I want to bring to Your Honour's attention, in paragraph 11. I dare say, if I had a bit more time and went on to read all the rest of it, it would also give Your Honour -

MR. TOBIN: Read it all. We want to hear it.

MR. SIMMS: Changes in the Standing Orders from time to time also give ample opportunity for the House to adjust the interpretation of its precedents and tradition in the light of changing circumstances. It is impossible to estimate the extent of this body of traditional parliamentary law. In Canada, not only is there more than a century of native practice, but also Standing Order 1 adopts for Canada parliamentary tradition in other jurisdictions so far as they may be applicable to the House.

Custom and precedent are basic to the parliamentary system. Parliament, and the manner in which it works, has developed over the centuries and the written rules are relative newcomers to the procedural field. Indeed, increasingly, the written rules are being used, not to codify existing practice, but rather to trim and adjust historic traditions to modern needs."

The point is, it follows through what I read at the beginning: "Although the House normally assumes a ruling is binding for the future, Speakers have used the flexibility available to them to develop procedure regardless of conflicting precedents in the past."

I guess my argument, Mr. Speaker, is not so much - and I make this very clear - questioning Your Honour's ruling. Your Honour made a ruling based on the advice that he received, I think, from the Clerks. I saw the Clerk go up to His Honour, and the Clerk quite rightly said: The precedent has been that this motion has not been debatable.

What I am arguing, Mr. Speaker, is that because there was a precedent, it does not mean that necessarily has to stand forever and a day. I think Your Honour should perhaps give it a bit more consideration. I think, also, that you should research with some other jurisdictions. I am not sure if this is necessarily the case in other jurisdictions. We often check with the House of Commons in Ottawa, or we often check with the Mother Parliament in Great Britain to see what their rules are, and how they deal with this particular issue. I think it is an important issue, and one that merits a bit more than simply saying, you know, it's the precedent.

I would like to see Your Honour take a bit of time to maybe just review that. We are not in any hurry here, no big argument or anything like that, but that's a matter that I would like to see him review and consider a bit.

The other point I would ask Your Honour to consider is the issue that my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West raised on the point of order about the bells ringing.

Now, I am not sure what the rules are, quite frankly. I think, when we had a committee of the House looking at rules, it may have been an issue that we addressed. I'm not sure if the former Speaker remembers or not - the Minister of Social Services - I don't know if that particular point was addressed. The issue of the bells ringing and how long they should ring after - if the Speaker calls an adjournment to do some research or whatever, when he comes back to the House, surely there should be some time allotted and maybe we could agree on it - five minutes or something, once the bells start ringing, because members would have left. The Speaker might be out for an hour to do some research so they wouldn't just sit here in their seats, and I think it is a point that we need to address. I would ask Your Honour to rule on that point maybe sometime down the road so that we have some clarification and some reference that we can pursue.

Mr. Speaker, somebody just passed me a note and I thought it might have been in reference to the argument.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Has the hon. Member finished?

MR. SIMMS: I wasn't quite finished, Mr. Speaker, but getting close to it.

Mr. Speaker, the reference that the Member for Mount Pearl made I think is a pertinent point for the Chair to consider strongly because he made the point quite clearly that in the cases of debating those kinds of motions that are debatable, clearly this type of motion, according to the reference the Member for Mount Pearl used, would be a debatable motion, and yet, because of precedent, some ruling made by some Speaker - maybe it was me back fifteen years ago, I don't know - but because it was a precedent then, as Beauchesne says in its Sixth Edition, as I just quoted to Your Honour, it does not necessarily mean that it has to stand as a precedent now. Many speakers have used the flexibility to set their own precedents, if you wish, Mr. Speaker.

So all I'm arguing and suggesting is that Your Honour, I hope, will take a little more time perhaps to consider the matter and maybe consider the referenced paragraph 11 to Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, page 6, as I referred, and set Your Honour's own precedent. Let Your Honour take this matter under serious consideration and advisement and set your own precedent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled, of course, on the previous point of order. I would suggest to the hon. the Opposition Leader that his submission probably would be worthwhile to be made to the Standing Committee on Rules of the House, because we're not clear on some of these things so I'd suggest probably that this sort of submission be made to the Standing Committee on Rules.


 

March 7, 1994             HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLII  No. 6A


[Continuation of Sitting]

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not about to question Your Honour's ruling as it relates to the bells ringing but I wonder, to assist me, if Your Honour would refer me to what section of the Standing Orders that is in, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already ruled on the point of order. The hon. Opposition Leader did a great submission in terms of the problems encountered with this kind of a decision, and I don't see any point in pursuing.... The Standing Order is clear. If hon. members don't like the ruling of the Chair, there is a procedure that can be followed.

The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, given the ruling of Your Honour, and the suggestion by the Government House Leader, I guess we are not left with much other alternative other than to challenge Your Honour's ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: It is not quite as simple as that.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair puts the question, there was a point of order whether the motion was a debatable one. Our Standing Order 11.(a) is very clear on that: Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate.

So the motion is not a debatable one.

Is the House ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Chair's ruling be sustained? All those in favour say `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn at 7:00 p.m. tonight.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): It is moved and seconded that the House do adjourn at 7:00 p.m. tonight. All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate the motion.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: My understanding is that once a motion to adjourn has been made, another one cannot be made until an intermediate proceeding has taken place.

MR. SIMMS: To that point of order -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The only difficulty with that argument, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government House Leader did not make a motion to adjourn. He made a motion not to adjourn.

AN HON. MEMBER: Same thing.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, no, it isn't, and I would argue that we have a very recent precedent that would indicate that a motion to adjourn at a time specific is a debatable motion, and if Your Honour would care to check references, I think going back to some time in 1990, probably during the Meech Lake debate, when the former Speaker, the Minister now of Social Services was in the Chair, this very procedure occurred. A motion was made to adjourn the House at a specific time and His Honour then, Speaker Lush, ruled that the motion was a debatable motion, so I would ask -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You do agree now that it is debatable?

MR. ROBERTS: I agree with the motion (inaudible) debatable.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, okay. Well in that case I am ready to debate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: But, Mr. Speaker, my point of order was that a second motion to adjourn cannot be made until there has been an intermediate proceeding.

MR. SIMMS: There is an intermediate proceeding. He gave a ruling, we had a challenge to the Chair's ruling. In fact, the Government House Leader himself said we are back on petitions. So there in fact have been intermediate proceedings.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Government and the Opposition agree that a motion to adjourn at a specific time is debatable, but the question is whether or not there has been an intermediate proceeding since the last motion. Is that the question before the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That plus the fact whether or not the motion not to adjourn is a motion to adjourn. I would argue that it is not. That is the motion that the Government House Leader moved, not to adjourn. Which is a totally different motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I will recess for a couple of minutes and we will see if we can get things back on track.

MR. SIMMS: Perfectly acceptable, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: The question before the House is whether or not the Leader of the Opposition's motion that the House adjourn at 7:00 p.m. is in order. It is agreed that motion is debatable. I've looked at the order of proceedings that transpired when the Chairman of Committees was in the Chair, and it appears that the Chairman of Committees put the motion not to adjourn, which was passed. It was ruled that the motion was in order and was not debatable, and that that ruling was challenged and that ruling was sustained.

Having looked at the proceedings and looked at Standing Order 22, which provides that "[a] motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance), shall always be in order, but no second motion to the same effect shall be made until after some intermediate proceeding has been had." The question is whether or not there has been an intermediate proceeding such as to render this motion properly before the House.

I don't need to consider, for the purpose of making a decision, whether or not a motion to adjourn is, for the purpose of this order, the same as a motion not to adjourn. My ruling is that the challenge of the Speaker's ruling which was sustained in itself is an intermediate proceeding, is entered on the journals of the House, a vote was taken, and therefore the motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is in order and can proceed at this time.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are not allowed to comment one way or the other on the Speaker's ruling so we won't do that, other than to say that we are kind of happy with the ruling as it turns out.

I can speak for an hour on this debate which is to adjourn at - what? I forget what the motion was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven.

MR. SIMMS: Seven o'clock, was it, 7:00 p.m.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I will speak for the entire hour or anything. That is not the intention. Just for a couple of moments. Because I recognise full well - oh, yes, I recognise full well my former colleague, the former Member for Kilbride who just came in, the well known -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: He couldn't stay away from it.

MR. SIMMS: He loves it. Well known -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yes. If there is one individual here today who has a lot of experience at night sittings it is the former hon. member up there.

MR. TOBIN: You should see the information he brought us in.

MR. ROBERTS: I hope there is some good information (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak for the entire hour that I have at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Well, I may, if the hon. minister insists. The point is at 7:00 p.m. a motion will be put -

MR. ROBERTS: Only if there is nobody rising to speak on it.

MR. SIMMS: Only if there is nobody rising to speak on it, exactly. Then -

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

MR. SIMMS: A point of order? Oh, of course. Thank you for (inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if the motion to adjourn specified whether this was 7:00 p.m. or 7:00 a.m., and if so, which interpretation are we putting on it?

MR. SPEAKER: The recollection of the Chair is that it was 7:00 p.m.

MR. ROBERTS: He did say 7:00 p.m.?

MR. SPEAKER: He did say 7:00 p.m.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: That is a very weak and feeble attempt by the Minister of Finance to throw a loop.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the point I was going to make is that if we don't speak beyond 7:00 o'clock then presumably the motion will be defeated. It is not likely to be passed. I would say that is a pretty good prediction, and then we will carry on again until 10:00 o'clock I would presume.

MR. ROBERTS: The House will not sit later than 10:00 o'clock.

MR. SIMMS: The minister has said that, has confirmed that. We were not quite sure if the minister would keep his word or not, and I have to say that it would be incorrect for the media to refer to what has happened over the last three or four hours as a filibuster.

DR. KITCHEN: You have run out of things to say.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I say to the hon. Minister of Health that we certainly have not run out of things to say. We have dozens and dozens of petitions.

Mr. Speaker, we did what we were suppose to do, legitimately representing our constituents by presenting petitions that had been presented to us. We have done that. Then there were some very important debates on procedural wrangling that occurred, and those took a lot of time. I do not know how much time the Speaker was out of the Chair today but it was probably as much time as we spent on petitions, so I guess the Speaker will have to take some responsibility for the length of time we have been sitting today because the Speaker has been out of the Chair, and that is not meant to be an attack on the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, the real purpose for moving the motion to adjourn at 7:00 o'clock is because we do not like the way the proceeding is going in terms of the debate. The House on Friday only received second reading, or at least the bill was introduced by the Premier, second reading of the bill to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. We had one speaker from our party and that was me, one speaker only. That was the end of the day then, and my colleague for Grand Bank then adjourned the debate.

MR. MURPHY: (inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: He is not in our party I say to the hon. Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, that might be confusing but let us stick to the facts I say to the Government House Leader. Only one member in this party, in the Official Opposition, spoke to the motion to privatize Hydro, the privatization bill. Then immediately before the House adjourns the Government House Leader stands up and says, we are going to start sitting nights, extend into night sittings from 5:00 until 10:00 o'clock, Monday and Tuesday for sure, which in fact is almost equivalent to two days of sitting, because normally you would have a couple of hours each day. In fact it might be a little more, but at least a couple of extra days of sitting.

So, after asking questions in the House on Thursday and Friday about whether or not there was a deadline, or any need to rush this, and all the rest of it, and being given assurances by the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Energy, the Premier who indicated we are not in any rush for this, you do not have to panic, there is no reason to sort of rush this through. We wondered why suddenly, after the first day of debate with only one person having spoken on this side, why they would want to have night sittings if they were intent on rushing it through. Clearly the reason is to try to wear the Opposition down and to try to ensure that we run out of speakers, because everybody is entitled to speak for thirty minutes, except the two leaders of the parties, the Premier and the Opposition Leader. Everybody else gets a half hour to speak so with sixteen members on this side, eight hours and they are all used out.

That is the intent. Mr. Speaker, I say to the Government House Leader that the night sittings are fine. If he wants to proceed with night sittings I suggest to him it is only drawing more attention to the issue, which is not something he wants. I am sure he does not want to draw too much attention to the issue, so I would say to him that if the debate proceeded along normal lines you would probably get to the point that you are going to reach, maybe next week, maybe the latter part of this week, where you are going to take some other steps. Where you have some other plans in the back of your mind to try to get this debate concluded as quickly as you can rather than just simply have sittings until 10:00 p.m., from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.

I can always tell by looking at the Minister of Finance - when he is smiling I can always tell that I'm on to something when I mentioned this little plan they have in the back of their minds for a further stage. What that could be -

AN HON. MEMBER: He gives it away.

MR. SIMMS: He gives it away every time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plan B.

MR. SIMMS: Plan B from their perspective, who knows what it could be. I don't know, I have no idea. I say to the members opposite that to call for an extended sitting to add five hours on to a normal day's sitting today and again tomorrow, one day after the debate had only begun, when only one person had spoken from the government side and one from the Official Opposition, is rather strange, unless they have some reason and plan for doing it. We haven't understood yet, Mr. Speaker, what the reason for that might be, other than - well, the reason is, I guess, and this is what people out there in the street are speculating, and the media, and they will be speculating I'm sure the more often we say it, is that they are doing it because they want to ram it through.

They want to run us out of speakers, speaking time. That is what they are up to. In the hope they can get on to the next stage and then they will do the same thing again, and the next stage. We could stop all that nonsense because somewhere down the road the government is going to say: The Opposition is filibustering and they are not making any contribution to the debate. I can hear it all now, the same old stuff the Minister of Finance when he was Government House Leader used to use on us I don't know how many times. He brought in closure more times I think in the four years he was House Leader than there was in fifteen years, was it? Fifteen times. Fifteen times he brought in closure in the four years he was there. Set a world record.

I say to the Government House Leader, members opposite, if that is your plan then you might as well get on with. Because I can assure you we are going to continue to debate the issue. At the moment, as a matter of fact, we've had one speaker on this issue, and on the other issue, the first bill that came in, the power control act on Thursday, again I'm the only one who has spoken on it and we are on an amendment there, a six-month hoist. It might never come back again, I don't know. I suppose it will come back sometime, but as I understand from the Minister of Mines and Energy, if I can get his attention, perhaps he can tell me now, nodding, he doesn't need to have that power control act in order to proceed with the privatization process, as I understand it. I believe that is what he told me Friday.

DR. GIBBONS: We don't know.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

DR. GIBBONS: We don't know.

MR. SIMMS: Can you tell me? Do you need to have that power control act?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: You need to have that in order to proceed with the rest of the process, like the prospectus and all that stuff, making that public? You need to have both bills?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: What is that?

DR. GIBBONS: By the time any privatization is finished we would need the second one.

MR. SIMMS: By the time any privatization is finished you need the second. By the time you make your prospectus public do you need to have both bills?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: You do. The Minister of Mines and Energy is telling us he really needs both these bills.

MS. VERGE: He said there was no decision made three weeks ago.

MR. SIMMS: If the Minister of Mines and Energy is now telling us you need -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, no, but the minister is being cooperative and helping us understand the process, I say to the minister. I thank the Minister of Mines and Energy for being cooperative. One of the few over on that side of the House who ever cooperates with members of this side. He doesn't always give us straightforward information because a lot of times we've found he didn't know, he wasn't sure. Now he has said we need both bills. That makes me feel a little more relaxed and comfortable because obviously you are not going to get both those bills, unless you bring in closure of course, by next week we will say. It is not likely that would ever occur without closure. Or unless the Government House Leader sits all night and tries it that way.

MR. ROBERTS: It is in the hands of the House.

MR. SIMMS: I must admit to the Government House Leader we were planning some of our strategy based on the understanding we had the other day, that we didn't need Bill No. 2 in order to proceed with the prospectus. Now we are told you do need both bills. So that is going to take quite a while unless you are going to move closure.

So, Mr. Speaker, the reason for moving adjournment at seven o'clock -

MR. MURPHY: I hope they have insurance on their airline tickets.

MR. SIMMS: We don't have any insurance on our airplane tickets, I say to the member for St. John's South. Since he has raised that point, may I, with the approval of the Opposition House Leader and the Chairman of caucus, indicate to him clearly that we have no plans on this side of the House. As a matter of fact, we are quite prepared to proceed and carry on and forget the Easter break; just so the member opposite knows that, and we say it publicly now. So there is no question, no doubt about that. There is no plan B from our perspective, we are going to carry on, but the government adjourns -

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to give us Good Friday.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, we will give you Good Friday, yes.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the reason for the adjournment at seven is that we just thought the government was moving too quickly, rushing to try to run out the numbers, use up the speakers, and all that sort of thing.

MR. BAKER: You are only using up petitions.

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me?

MR. BAKER: You are only using up petitions.

MR. SIMMS: We are only using up petitions. I say to the Minister of Finance, what was his first clue? He really is following the procedure here today.

Of course, up to now we have presented some legitimate petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have another 500?

MR. SIMMS: Well, I don't know if we have 500 but it is probably close to it. We have an obligation to present those petitions. Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister of Finance is not suggesting that we should be derelict in our responsibilities and duties and not present petitions that people give us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you have a desire to debate the other issues?

MR. SIMMS: Oh, we have a desire to debate the other issue under normal rules and procedures, normal House sitting time and all the rest of it, but not if you are going to add five hours onto every sitting day as you have done today, which is equivalent to at least two more sitting days. You are only doing that to try to get us to use up our numbers and that. The minister knows -

MR. BAKER: Use up your petitions.

MR. SIMMS: We don't need to use up our petitions, we have hundreds.

MR. BAKER: It's your duty to present them.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, we will. I say to the Minister of Finance, he doesn't need to encourage us, we will be presenting petitions. I thank him for his encouragement and support.

MS. VERGE: Why don't you present yours?

MR. SULLIVAN: You haven't finished presenting your petitions yet.

MR. SIMMS: I would assume members over there might have petitions to present. Maybe they don't, Mr. Speaker. It wouldn't be unusual to hear that.

So, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the reason for this motion to adjourn at seven o'clock is because of the unusual practice of extending the House sitting, the first day after the debate is called on privatization, on an issue that is receiving, as the Minister of Employment knows, a lot of commentary out there around this Province today. A lot of people are concerned about the Hydro privatization issue. I dare say the workers over at the Barry's fish plant whom I just saw on television there today, not twenty minutes ago, grabbing the Minister of Employment by the arm and scratching his face and everything like that, I bet those people are concerned about Hydro privatization as well.

Now, I'm not sure if they would communicate that concern to the Minister of Employment, and I am not sure if the Minister of Employment would want to be in receipt of their communication. Anyway, it was nice to see the minister again on television in that particular position.

Mr. Speaker, my point is a lot of people are opposed to this Hydro privatization. The government are trying to ram it through, are trying to wear out the Opposition early on in the debate in the hope that the public won't figure out what is going on, or at least the public pressure that has been there over the last couple of months, and which waned a little bit because of the Christmas break, doesn't rise up again.

They don't want to see that happen, for sure, because then they would have all the people opposed to Hydro privatization, they would have all the public servants, they would have all the teachers and all the nurses, everybody else who is upset and enraged with members opposite, they don't want to have all of that stuff coming at them at the one time, I am sure, so they want to try to rush through the Hydro privatization, and they want to get the legislation through so they can get on with issuing the prospectus and try to get those who can afford to buy shares, like the Minister of Education and a few others, to start buying the shares so they can make a good dollar for themselves one day. Mr. Speaker, we don't think that is fair; we think it is very unfair, and I hope that the government might reconsider its tactics and its strategy.

I know how hard it is for members opposite to get to the Premier, but I wonder is there any possibility you might be able to get to the Government House Leader. Is there any chance at all you might be able to beat something into his head, call him to one side and say: Look, Ed, boy, show that you can be a nice fellow to get along with. Show that you're not arrogant and that you do listen, unlike the allegations that are made. Why don't you have some normal sittings in the House for the next couple of weeks and let's see how this thing rides itself out.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) a chance to participate.

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's the bigger issue that we moved the amendment to the first bill for, was to try to get the government to have some public hearings. I have asked questions in the House asking people to do that.

Does anybody else want to speak to this?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Now talk about the bill.

MR. SIMMS: I can't talk about the bill. We are talking about the motion I made to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. The Member for St. John's South is losing track of what is going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) losing track.

MR. SIMMS: Well I have to keep my comments - I am sure the Speaker would intervene and call me to order if I wasn't being relevant to the motion, which is to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.

I say to the Member for St. John's South, if he would talk to his friend and brother-in-law -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What? Now listen.

Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the Member for St. John's South that he relax and cool down, get off that track, get off it altogether. I was trying to draw his attention to his friend and brother-in-law, and the minister's campaign manager for the leadership - that is the minister's campaign manager over there, the Member for St. John's South - I ask him to talk to the minister, because the minister understands that what I am doing here now is debating the motion to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. He understands why I am being so relevant. He understands why I am not talking about the bill or anything else. I am talking about the motion to adjourn at 7:00 p.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: In the view and opinion of the Member for St. John's South I may be talking about nothing, but that's in the eye of the listener, or in the ear of the listener, whatever, in the eye of the beholder.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is a very good point. My friend from Bonavista South said: How would you know I am not saying anything if you don't even know what we are talking about? A moment ago you said, talk about the bill. We are not talking about the bill. We are debating -

MR. MURPHY: If anybody else except the Member for Bonavista South said that it might make some sense.

MR. SIMMS: Never mind the nasty, scurrilous attacks on the individuals. Stick to the issue. The issue is: adjourn at 7:00 p.m.

Now I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, the more I look at the Member for Gander, the former Government House Leader, who will probably go down in the history of this House as one of the more co-operative Government House Leaders in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador -

MS. VERGE: That was when he wasn't bringing in closure.

MR. SIMMS: Except for those fifteen times he brought in closure, other than that. One thing I will say about the former Government House Leader, the Member for Gander, one thing I have to admit, and I heard this from my own House leader, I also had dealings with him when I was the Opposition House Leader myself, and I have to confess and admit that in fact he was very cooperative. He could not always deliver. We always had one little problem on things that we discussed. He agreed with me in this and that and all the rest of it, but within a matter of hours when he got back to me it was obvious he had gone up to see `His Highness' on the eighth floor and `His Highness' said: No way, Winston, Winston, my gosh, Winston we can't do that!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wincie, Wincie.

MR. SIMMS: I can hear him - no no, Winston. I can hear him now. Winston, Winston, Winston, we cannot do this, we cannot agree to anything of this nature.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) unconscionable.

MR. SIMMS: It would be unconscionable, yes, for us to agree to an extra ten minutes sitting or something or to adjourn ten minutes early. No, Winston, that would be unconscionable, we can't do that, Winston.

Anyway, other than that -

MR. TOBIN: Is he a good golfer?

MR. SIMMS: I can't speak from any experience, I can only go by his reputation. If you go by his reputation as a golfer -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I would say he is much better as a Government House Leader when he was....

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Justice, he was much better as a Government House Leader than he is as a golfer, as I understand.

Mr. Speaker, I know that other members on this side of the House are anxious to have a few words in debating the motion to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. I'm not sure procedurally where we go at 7:00 p.m. We just keep debating until the debate is over, even if it is 10:00 p.m. The Government House Leader is nodding.

MR. ROBERTS: As long as there is a motion on the floor of the House, and as long as there are people who want to speak on it (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Finishes. So whenever the debate finishes - I wonder if the Government House Leader could tell me if anyone from his side intends to debate this particular motion.

MR. ROBERTS: I would like to speak (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, well, that would be great. I would look forward to that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Len, make sure he keeps his word, only two or three minutes, an hour at least.

MR. SIMMS: There is a comment from the Member for Grand Bank who has had the privilege of dealing with the Government House Leader in the recent past, the last few months. The question is whether or not the minister would be prepared to keep his word if he said he wanted to speak for two or three moments on this point. The Member for Grand Bank said you had better watch that because you don't know what they are up to, you never know what they are up to. Whether he will keep his word, whether he won't keep his word, who knows. I look forward to the contribution to this debate, the debate on this major issue which is to - what is it? - adjourn at 7:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps if we were all really quiet we might be able to hear what the two - the Member for Gander is advising the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I tell you what, I would be willing to accept a challenge along those lines if the Minister of Finance would be prepared to put his seat on the line, how would that be? Put his position on the line. I'm not sure what the Minister of Finance does with golf. I tell you, if he has the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations as his caddy there is a very good chance he might do alright. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yours is?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: God, is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the Province is in the financial mess that it is in if they can't even figure out their handicaps in golf.

Anyway, the point I'm making, just to repeat for a moment here, just to get it back on track, is that we have a hard time understanding why the government would want to add to the normal sitting hours the day after the debate begins, only the day after with one speaker having spoken from the Official Opposition. The Government House Leader stands up and says, well, we are going to sit until 10:00 o'clock, so from 5:00 until 10:00 is an extra five hours. A normal debating day would be from 3:00 to 5:00 roughly, a couple of hours, so now over the next two days we are going to sit for five hours extra, Monday and Tuesday, and it is the first and second day after the debate was introduced, not two weeks down the road.

MR. ROBERTS: We are being kind to you.

MR. SIMMS: You are kind? How does the minister describe kind in this context? Why do you not give the same opportunity to the people of the Province? Why do you not hold some public hearings?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: We will take the opportunity I assure the minister. The plan probably is to let them talk for three or four days and then we can jump up and say, oh, they are filibustering. All they are doing is tying to stop this so we have no choice but to introduce closure. I can see it coming now. It is just around the corner. I can see them sitting around the Cabinet table and plotting this, saying, here is what we will do. We know what they are going to do. They are going to try to filibuster. They are going to try to drag it out so we have to be prepared to run them out. They have to run out of speakers and the only way for them to run out of speakers is to extend the sitting time, but you would not expect it to occur the very first day after the bill was introduced. That is the problem with it all, Mr. Speaker, it was the very first day. I am pleased to see Your Honour is paying close attention to what I have to say because it is obvious that members opposite are not listening very closely.

When the Government House Leader gets up to speak on the motion perhaps he could tell us why immediately after the introduction of the legislation he added two five hour sittings, Monday and Tuesday, the first and second day? I would like to know that, because that amounts to an extra week of debate, crammed into the very first day and the first week of debate. There is only one purpose for that, Mr. Speaker, that one could see, if you were a parliamentarian, and that is to try to talk out the speakers, or run out of speakers, and to try to ram the bill through, and if necessary, I predict here and now, if necessary one of these evenings soon, if necessary, we will have a repeat performance of an all night sitting, I guess, like we had last year. They ran until 8:00 or 9:00, or whatever it was, until 10:00 o'clock in the morning.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I say to the Member for St. John's South that it will take much more than that. You can try all of those tactics, night sittings and all that stuff to try and wear us out, but we will be here firmly standing to a person and we will speak to this legislation, we will amend the legislation, we will do all these kind of things that we are permitted to do under the rules of the House and which happen quite regularly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: What night? Well, that is up to the government. As a matter of fact it is up to the House to use the words of the Government House Leader, it is up to the House, but I suspect the government will be in a position to influence the House when it wishes.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I did not say all night. We had our strategy. We had two or three members who were here to stay all night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Opposition. We are talking about the Opposition I say to the Member for St. John's South. We did stay all night and you guys stayed all night, or some of you did. I don't know if you all did. As a matter of fact, I don't believe the Premier stayed all that night, come to think of it, now that you mention it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, as were we. You have many more members than we do, so your shifts are probably shorter. All I remember is that the Minister of Finance was in Florida again. Mr. Speaker, all I remember was walking in fresh as a daisy at eight o'clock, fresh as a daisy after a good night's sleep, and listening to the Member for Humber East giving a terrific speech after speaking for hours and hours and hours. My good friend, the former Member for Kilbride, who just left the gallery, was up making all kinds of sense. It was unbelievable, after almost two days of debate, twenty-four hours of debate, that we on this side, with only a couple of members, were making so much sense.

I'll tell you what was even more unbelievable was that members on that side didn't say anything. That made a lot of sense too, I guess, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MS. VERGE: They just sat there like bumps on a log.

MR. SIMMS: That was when you made the most sense, when you didn't say anything, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I'm not quite sure I follow the hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, sorry, sorry! Like I said -

MR. TOBIN: Who is that? Jean and Bonnie you are talking about. Don't be talking about them. Leave them alone, boy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You have another twenty-five minutes.

MR. SIMMS: I'm not speaking for an hour like this. I think we should call a vote before seven o'clock. I mean, there is a chance that the government might support the motion to adjourn at seven. Is there a chance of that? If I were to sit down and the government were to pass the motion to adjourn at seven, we would all be better off, particularly the people of the Province, no doubt. So if I could get some indication from the Government House Leader that he would want to do it, I would be prepared to take my seat and have a vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't trust him, can you?

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, if he gives his word. If he says no, he is not going to do it, well then that is all he has to say, we will just carry on. If he says: Well, maybe we will give it some consideration - my colleagues here are trying to tell me I have another twenty-five minutes to speak. I don't wish to bore the House any longer.

MR. ROBERTS: You've bored the House long enough.

MR. SIMMS: I confess, I say to the Minister of Justice, I've bored the House -

MR. ROBERTS: Unfortunately the hon. gentleman is trying to bore me.

MR. SIMMS: I'm not trying to bore you. No, I cannot say that. I am trying to say something that would make some sense but that's not easy with all the -

MR. TOBIN: I don't think you are being fair to the Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: So, Mr. Speaker, even though I have twenty minutes left to speak I think I will just - I don't know if everybody else intends to have a few words.

The Minister of Justice is going to have a word. We will see what he has to say. We will see what the Minister of Justice has to say and maybe the debate will conclude, or maybe it won't. It depends on what he has to say, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, and I thank the House for listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I venture to suggest to the House and to the throngs who are crowding the galleries - in fact, even Bob Aylward has gone off looking for doorknobs somewhere - the hon. Leader of the Opposition managed to empty the galleries of even his own friends. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the hon. gentleman's speech was as telling and as fair and as accurate a summary of his approach to this debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Eloquent, yes; boring, yes; truthful, yes - as eloquent and as boring and as truthful an expression of his party's approach to this entire matter as one could possibly want, because he was over there, could hardly keep his face from breaking into laughter, not at the witticisms from those of us on this side, or even the half witticisms. The hon. gentleman is just making a joke of all this.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't fault his right to do that. What I want to say is that we are not going to be taken in by this kind of charade; nor will the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They know full well what is going on in here.

Before I touch very briefly on that, let me make a preliminary point. It is one that has been made, I believe, by my friend, my predecessor as House Leader, the Member for Gander, the Minister of Finance, all the other titles, and perhaps my successor as House Leader, because the cry of `bring back Baker' goes up frequently from this side as well as from the other side. There is no deadline on this debate. The government has no deadline, no target date.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry? The hon. lady burped. I will come back to that if the hon. lady will but possess her soul in patience. If the hon. lady wants to come into a battle of wits half-armed, as she frequently does, she has to take what she gives. If she doesn't want to get into debate, let her not.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is this: That the government has no deadline. The House may or may not impose a deadline at some point. That is for the House to decide, but the government has no deadline; there is no target date. So if hon. members opposite think for a moment that they are somehow in a fight for the martyr's crown to stymie a deadline that we have set down, they are just as wrong as wrong can be.

What we do have is a legislative program, two very substantial pieces of legislation, both of which stand for second reading, and we are determined to ask the House to do what the House has a right to do, to decide, and the House will decide when the House is ready to decide. The House will decide, and the majority will decide, and we have a mandate to do that. We were sent here to speak for this Province, and the thirty-five of us on this side will speak, and we shall answer, and the people on the other side will.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: We have a mandate to govern this Province, and the government of which I am a part has the support of the majority of the House, and that gives us the right. It gives us the right in democracy; it gives us the right in law; it gives us the right in morality, and we are determined to exercise that right!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with one or two of the points made by my friend the Opposition Leader. He said we are out to wear the Opposition down.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. I find the Opposition very wearing. There are many who find them very shop-worn, but we are not here to try to wear them down. I have no doubt that the Opposition could sit here as long as any of us could, and we have no intention of playing that kind of game with them, now or later.

He also said that our strategy is: "To make them run out of speakers."

Mr. Speaker, I spent many years on the other side of the House, a number of them sitting in the seat now occupied by my friend from Grand Falls. If he really believes that, he is only about one-tenth the tactician which I believe him to be. If every speaker on that side, with the exception of the Opposition Leader, has thirty minutes as a right in a substantive matter, such as a motion for second reading, or an amendment to a motion for second reading. I haven't even tried to do the sums but I could probably find, without even trying, fifteen amendments to a second motion bill, all of which are in order.

You can move a six-month hoist, you can move reasoned amendments, you can move all sorts of amendments. If the hon. gentleman doesn't know how to do them I would be very happy to sit down with him and show him how to do them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: No problem with that. I've no problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of why we have asked the House to sit late tonight. It is really very simple. We have taken the hon. gentleman for Grand Falls at his word. We believe what he says. I don't have the Hansard of his speech last Thursday, because it hasn't been produced yet. He spoke, he will recall, somewhat beyond 5:00 p.m. He went, as I recall, to about 6:00 p.m. or 7:00 p.m. That was fine. The Hansard staff are able to handle only three hours of debate a day so I don't yet have the transcript of that. He did say, and I'm subject to correction - any of my friends on either side, please correct me if I'm wrong - that they were going - this was his speech on the second reading of the EPCA bill and the six-month hoist, that: the Opposition is going to use every parliamentary trick and tactic that they can.

More power to them. I have no problem with that. What I do have here is an extract from that estimable journal, the St. John's Evening Telegram for March 4. Tories - that is members opposite, for those who don't know - Tories say they will use every trick in the book. Now, that is the headline. Maybe they didn't write the headline but let's go on. Here is the story: Newfoundland's Opposition party - now, who is the Opposition party?

AN HON. MEMBER: We are!

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. Now we know who they are. Newfoundland's Opposition party will exhaust every political tactic in the book to delay government's privatization plan for Newfoundland Hydro. The first attempt occurred late Wednesday - I think that is probably a misprint for Thursday, because Wednesday was Private Members' Day - the first attempt occurred late Wednesday, it says here, a half hour before regular closing time when Opposition Leader Len Simms - our humble servant for Grand Falls - informed the House the PCs are requesting an amendment to the legislation known as the six-month hoist. Simms, who had notified some media earlier in the day of his intention - this is not a man who tries to hide his light under a bushel, I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the House. He does not sit in the corner with his face to the wall.

He had - as it says here in this estimable journal - notified some media earlier in the day of his intention, said it basically - "it" being his six-month hoist - basically asked the Legislature to put aside passage of the bill for a period of six months, a startling insight into the obvious, a penetrating insight into the obvious. That is a line I used long before Tom Rideout stole it from me. During the bickering debate on the issue he said the six months would allow the government to better inform the public and hold consultation on what is involved in the Hydro privatization.

Mr. Speaker, what we are faced with is an Opposition which, within their rights, and within the rules of the House, is going, and served fair notice in man fashion, if her ladyship will permit, if not in person fashion, personfully -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East on a point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I got a bit carried away there. I would just like to urge the Government House Leader to clean up his language and get rid of the sexist terms. Please stop calling me a lady, and if he is going to talk about courage, talk about courage.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. lady feels she is not a lady, who am I to quarrel with her? She knows better than I.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I will say, Mr. Speaker, that she is on the verge of making a fool of herself yet again.

Mr. Speaker, let me not be distracted by the ants that cross our paths when we are about better things. The Opposition have told us, very straightforwardly, that they intend to use every parliamentary tactic they can conceive of, and all I have to say for government is, thank heavens they do not have the likes of Steve Neary and myself over there because we would show them how to do it. We have done it many times. We have sat with eight in the Opposition against thirty-four led by Frank Moores.

These were the days when my friend the Opposition Leader was carrying John Lundrigan's bags, not his briefcase, his bags. John Lundrigan had the courage to leave the Moores Cabinet because they broke a commitment to the people of Grand Falls thereby opening the political career for my friend the present Member for Grand Falls. If Frank Moores had kept his word to build the hospital in Grand Falls the present Leader of the Opposition would still be carrying John Lundrigan's bags.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we come back. In an normal day in the routine of this House, in Standing Orders, the four days a week available to the government for our business as opposed to the Wednesday available to private members for their business, there are roughly two to two and a half hours a day. That is what we get. We have been meeting today for five hours and we have not even yet come to the Orders of the Day.

MR. TOBIN: And you will not.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, that may be. My hon. friend says we will not, and he will acknowledge that the Opposition are putting their tactic into force. I say, right on, brother, right on. Right on, I say. Once more into the breach dear friends, once more, brethren and sister, or sistern and brethren as may be the case, or children and parenthen.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a point to all this. You know it was written over the gate of my old college, the University of Toronto, in stone, words which I would comment to my brethren and sistern opposite, `The truth shall make ye free.' I think it is from James. Anyway, I say to my friends, when we got the word from on high, when Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets under each arm and said: Newfoundland's Opposition Party will exhaust every political tactic in the book to delay government's privatization plan for Newfoundland Hydro -

MR. TOBIN: Right.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend for Burin - Placentia West says, right. I agree, right, right on. That is the Opposition's job. I wish they would get on with it instead of fooling around the way they do.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side, being christian lady and gentlemen, said we will accommodate them. We will do our best because this matter should be debated. We believe it is an important one for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we believe the people's House should debate it, so we said what we will do is give them some more time. We will make it possible, and instead of two hours a day of government time we will give them seven hours a day to debate government business. We could go for eight or nine if we wish because it may be that when I move the motion at 10:00 o'clock saying that this House do now adjourn, it may be my friends will rise up and say, no, no, let them debate. We have been here five hours. I have been waiting for my friend for Grand Bank to get on his hind legs and tell us why he is against privatization.

Mr. Speaker, that is all we are trying to do. We are here trying to facilitate the Opposition's job. They need help. By God, they need help, and we are here to give them that help. You wouldn't think of us as helpful.

My friend, the Minister of Finance, isn't some times thought of as helpful by the Opposition, but in addition to playing a mean game of golf, I am told, hitting little white balls with long sticks, my hon. friend is helpful, and he stuck up his hand in the Caucus and said: Give them time. Give them time, Lord.

My friend, the Minister of Health, said it was a matter of mental and psychiatric appeal to give them time. My friend from Harbour Grace said over tonight in the thicket in Harbour Grace they are holding meetings saying: Give the Opposition time to debate; and Shea Heights is in an uproar.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a public meeting in Noddy Bay tonight.

MR. ROBERTS: And in Northeast Crouse, a community that I know very well, in the sovereign district of the Strait of Belle Isle, they are gathered tonight and the resolutions are coming thick and fast.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Revolution in the streets. If only there was a street in Northeast Crouse they would be out in the street demanding it.

I say, for my friend from Eagle River, that down in Williams Harbour or Tub's Harbour tonight they are gathering. What was Coaker's great song? We are coming, Mr. Coaker, and we are 40,000 strong - all of them demanding: Give the Opposition time; and who are we to stand against the public opinion.

MS. VERGE: Give the people time.

MR. ROBERTS: Give the people time. Give the people power, too.

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are here. We believe in debating this issue. Now this House has sat for five hours this day. We will be here, I predict, for another two or three hours. Whenever this motion comes to a vote - and it's not for me; I can speak on it, but every other member can speak - there may be an amendment on this. Maybe there will be an amendment to drop the word `seven' and put in the word `ten' - I think that would be in order - or maybe to change p.m. to a.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you can't do that.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, an amendment is an amendment. An amendment is something that substitutes a proposition, not a preposition, a proposition.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that we are here to give the Opposition time. Obviously if we were in the entertainment business we would all starve to death. They are hardly hanging out of the galleries, I've got to say. The only people who have done well out of this are the Swiss Chalet on our side, and was it Ches's fish and chips on the other side, or was it Marty's? Where were the fish and chips?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The commissionaires were helping to make it a merry Christmas for these gentlemen, and our friend from the Constabulary, who I hope gets hardship pay as well as danger pay to listen to this.

Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is about. We are anxious to call this bill for debate. We believe this is a matter that should be debated by the people's House. It will come to a vote when the House is ready for it to come to a vote. We will come to it when the House is ready for the vote, and we shall discharge our responsibilities and we shall answer for it gladly.

A year ago in this House we heard the same nonsense from hon. members opposite. They got their answer on May 3. They got their answer, and when I was slogging around up there on Mesher Street in Happy Valley, in the cold, where my friend from St. Barbe was up to his whatever in -

AN HON. MEMBER: In lottery tickets.

MR. ROBERTS: In lottery tickets, he says. No, how about Bird Cove, Chuck, slogging around in May month. It was to ask people to give us the right to come in here to speak for them, and people did vote for us.

MS. VERGE: They didn't give you the right to sell Hydro.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador gave the members of this House the right to do whatever the law allows us to do, and whatever we are prepared to stand up and answer for.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador didn't give the crowd opposite the right to spring Sprung on us, and I didn't hear any yip yapping. They didn't even meet the House. They went ahead with guarantee after guarantee on our credit, never met the House first nor last.

AN HON. MEMBER: None of them resigned.

MR. ROBERTS: One resigned. Charlie Power had the courage to do it and the rest were there, if not like sheep, at least like cucumbers, mute, cylindrical, silent and elongated. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition said that we will continue to debate the issue. I marked it down in my own hand, my own little hand that nobody else but me can read let me tell you. One of my secretaries has made a job for herself for life, she can interpret my writing. My colleagues call up and ask - I will not give the woman's name - what has he said this time? I have a few hen tracks here that looks like Robert's writing, and this woman can interpret it. She is going to put in for Sanskrit at Aramaic when it is over. In my own hand I marked down that my friend the Opposition Leader said they are going to continue to debate the issue. Well, I hope so, Mr. Speaker. I wish they would start debating it instead of these tactics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: So, far from trying to ram this bill through - now that is what you would expect the Opposition to say. They have been saying it for years. What was it we were trying to ram through last year? Was it the police bill?

MS. VERGE: The Upper Churchill contract.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the Upper Churchill contract, which of course was debated extensively in this House but never came before this House although it was debated extensively.

MR. HARRIS: I think the one you were trying to ram through last year was the forest one.

MR. ROBERTS: We were trying to ram that through, were we? There is always something. If it is not one thing it is another. If one was the least bit uncharitable - and I am not - if one were the least bit uncharitable one would have to think that perhaps the Opposition are just playing a political game, that they are not here to debate the merits. Here are two pieces of legislation which taken together are as important as any two pieces of legislation that have come before this House since Confederation. Taken together they are, no question. Now, they do not come as a surprise.

MS. VERGE: What about a referendum?

MR. ROBERTS: We do not run this country by referendum, Mr. Speaker, we run this country by the British parliamentary tradition. That is why we are elected here and that is why we will answer here. That is how we run it. We are not running it by referendum. We are not running it by poll. But at least we come to the House - the hon. lady - or if she is not a lady as she tells me, the hon. woman, the hon. person of a feminine gender, the hon. member of a feminine gender, I assume, the hon. member sat in a government and did not have the nerve to come to the House -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: It is somewhere in here. I have written down the number of Sprung guarantees. They sat in Cabinet in secret. There are only fourteen of us around the table now but they had to have the big table, the twenty-three or twenty-four of them, hardly a small group, they sat around and they passed an Order in Council to commit the credit of the Province, bingo-bango. The law in this Province says now, as it has said always, these must be approved by the House, and a month came and went, another month came and went, and a year came and went, the government of which the hon. member was such a prominent part.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: She was an ornament. I might even go so far as to say she was the intellectual giant of that government. I do not think that is stretching it too far. I think the hon. Member for Humber East was perhaps the intellectual giant of the government of which she was a part. She did not leave the Cabinet. I do not know what she said in Cabinet but she certainly did not say anything outside of it. Charlie Power had the courage to leave the Cabinet over the Sprung fiasco. Charlie was a man.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. I was not in Cabinet. I later joined the Cabinet. When finally the call came to him, as to me, we accepted it, and each of us left Cabinet the same way, at the invitation of the people of the Province.

MR. TOBIN: Different circumstances.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, different circumstances. The hon. gentleman - I will not say it as it is probably not parliamentary. He can take it as said.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are determined that the House will debate this bill and that the House will decide whether it wishes to adopt this bill or not. That is why the fifty-one, and as of tomorrow the fifty-two, members of this House are here. We will accept our responsibilities. We have brought legislation before the House, we are anxious to debate it. I could have cut off this debate at any point during the day by simply moving under Standing Order 21 that the Orders of the Day now be read.

MR. TOBIN: No, you can't do it.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman knows as little about that as he knows about most other things. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that. When this motion is decided, be it whenever, should it not be accepted - and it is difficult to adjourn the House at 7:00 p.m., it now being 7:15 p.m. - when this motion is decided, if it is defeated as may be the case -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I was going to speak for two or three minutes but I was so provoked by the hon. gentleman opposite. I was driven to heights of oratory by my hon. friend, the Member of female persuasion for Humber East. She just drove me again as she does frequently. Driven like the pure snow. Purer than the whiter snow.

We will ask the House to debate this bill. I would hope there will be some debate. Because eventually the House is going to have to decide on the bill.

DR. KITCHEN: We haven't had much yet.

MR. ROBERTS: No, we haven't had much yet, have we? My friend the Minister of Health has got it right again. We haven't had much yet. All we've had is smirking. The Opposition Leader the other day could hardly keep a straight face. I will tell you how anxious they are to debate it. When finally the second Opposition leader, the effective Opposition leader, the gentleman for St. John's East, finished, nobody on that side was going to stand to speak. We were all set to call the question.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) 12:00 p.m.

MR. ROBERTS: We were all set to call the question. It was not 12:00 p.m. Eventually the gentleman for Grand Bank stood up manfully, if I may, personfully - not personably, but personfully - and said: Mr. Speaker, I adjourn the debate. That was a contribution.

Mr. Speaker, there may be some doubt as to where the government will stand on this motion that the House adjourn at 7:00 p.m. It being 7:17 p.m. this is a matter of some moment. I will say to my friends on this side that I will ask them to vote against this motion. I don't see how we can adjourn the House at 7:00 p.m. when it is 7:17 p.m. Unless they say they mean 7:00 a.m. We are not going to sit all night. The House will adjourn not later than 10:00 p.m. We will meet tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. If the House is so minded and adopts the motion which I shall move we will sit after 5:00 p.m. and not later than 10:00 p.m. tomorrow.

I hope hon. members opposite use the time to debate. We will call the bill. We want the debate. We want them to tell us why they are against the Hydro sale. They have the bills, it is hardly a new idea. It has been in the public domain for months. We want them to get up and tell us why.

MS. VERGE: Why weren't you listening this afternoon?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I listened to every word, as painful as it may have been, uttered by members opposite. I heard nothing new. I can tell them that simply repeating an argument over and over again doesn't give the argument any more merit. They are going to learn that simply playing this childish game of going out and getting a petition with ten sheets and presenting it ten separate times doesn't add to the merit of the argument. Let them bring out the merits of the argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: We did.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman did. The Leader of the Opposition didn't. The Leader of the Opposition made it clear he doesn't even understand the bill, he doesn't even know what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, when hon. members opposite say something that has to be answered one of us who speaks for the Ministry or one of my colleagues in the back benches will stand and answer. But we are not going to answer the kind of garbage we've been hearing so far.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: We will debate the bill. We have stated our position. The Premier laid it out clearly, succinctly, concisely, completely, accurately, superbly. I would say to my hon. friends, they could do a lot worse when we get out of here at 10:00 p.m. than take the Hansard from Thursday and from Friday and go home and read the Premier's speeches. Then they may understand a little more.

Mr. Speaker, with these few modest words, this small contribution to this debate, this adding just I hope a modicum to the enlightenment levels of the House, what I say is that I shall ask my friends to vote against this motion. This House, it being 7:20 p.m. - damn double vision from these bifocals - when it is 7:20 p.m. we are not going to vote to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. No, sir. So I ask my friends when the time comes to vote against this motion. When that is over and when the petitions are called again and we deal with that, we get to Orders of the Day, we will call the Hydro bill, the privatization bill, and we will look forward to the debate.

With that said, I say to my hon. friends opposite, right on brothers and sister, right on. But remember why we are here, we are here to debate and then to decide. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Having listened to that diatribe from the Minister of Justice I will say that I agree with him on one point and one point only that he made. That is that these bills are probably the two most important bills brought before this House since Confederation. They are important and that is precisely why we are here.

I am not going to enter in any rebuttal of any of the foolishness the hon. Minister of Justice went on with. I quite seriously want to put forward on this opportunity to this House that this is quite a serious matter. Hon. gentlemen opposite may scoff and think that we are here simply trying to delay the business of the House. That is not our objective in this exercise. Our objective here is to give the people of this Province an opportunity to study the proposal put forward by government, to have public meetings on it, to have public hearings on it, whatever is required, to have a plebiscite on it. Why can we not go through that exercise?

Let us realize that what we are talking about here are some of the basic resources of our Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're supposed to be debating now why we are not closing at 7:00 p.m.

MR. WINDSOR: I am debating why we are not closing at 7:00 p.m. I am debating why it is so important that we give the people of this Province every opportunity to be heard - every opportunity to be heard - not to be rushed through in the dark of the night.

I say to my friend, the Minister of Finance, we saw that on December 17, 1992, with the all-night sitting that somebody referred to earlier. At 5:30 a.m. two pieces of legislation were laid on the Table of the House for the first time - the first time we saw them - dealing with tobacco tax amendments and gasoline tax amendments, and by 10:30 a.m. they had been rushed through the House of Assembly.

I already said in this House: I am guilty. I was guilty of allowing that to take place, not taking every opportunity, as we are doing tonight, of stopping that until we had ample time to study those pieces of legislation, and they were faulty, and I would challenge the Minister of Finance to say now, to stand on his feet and tell us they are not faulty, and if they are not, why is he eighteen months and not proclaim them, because he knows full well that he made a mistake then, and to his credit they have not been proclaimed, and we haven't heard anything about his retail sales tax amendments, but I don't want to get into that.

I use that, Mr. Speaker, as an example - a clear example - of when legislation was rushed through this House in the dark of the night, and a mistake was made because proper consideration of that legislation was not given, that the Opposition did not have proper time to research it, to consider the implications. It looked like a pretty routine piece of business - pretty routine - and I read my comments in Hansard, as I got up and spoke, and I believe I may have been the only one who spoke. We recessed the next morning, as the hon. member knows, for Christmas, or later on that morning, and I think I was the only one who spoke. It was just after lunch, 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. we left, and I said: It looks routine enough, but I wish I had more time to consider it and study it; and it does look pretty routine, and there are only a couple of lines that are of any importance there, and I confess I missed them, after an all-night sitting, and having only a couple of hours to look at it.

I think that is why we are taking this position today, not that it's going to be rushed through tonight, but we must have an opportunity for members of the Opposition - we're not experts; neither are members opposite, I say, but we are not experts in this. We need every opportunity, indeed it is our duty and responsibility as elected members of this House to take every opportunity within reason to consider the legislation, to study it in detail, to research it, to consult with anybody and everybody who is in a position of knowledge to assist us in making the right and proper decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: We lost two hours this afternoon.

MR. WINDSOR: We lost two hours this afternoon. We will lose more until the government realizes that we must be given the time that is necessary - and not us - the people of this Province must be given the time necessary to consider, as the Government House Leader said himself a moment ago, perhaps the two most important pieces of legislation brought into this House since Confederation, with the possible exception of the giveaway of the Upper Churchill.

MR. MURPHY: Then why did you filibuster two hours this afternoon?

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the Member for St. John's South, not to filibuster, not to waste time. This has been a useless use, a waste of four or five hours of hon. members' time. I couldn't be more honest than that. It is an absolute waste of time, but there is a reason for it, not just to waste time. It is because we are quite serious in this. There has been a lot of bantering back and forth, but the underlying reason is a good and valid one. This is a very complicated piece of business. Every day we get new information which causes us to look at something else, to look at something else, and try to study through this thing to see, is this a good proposal?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well let's debate it.

MR. WINDSOR: Well let us debate it, but why are we here until 10:00 p.m. every night? Why is it such a rush now to put this through? If government wanted to have it done by next week then we should have been here in early February starting this debate, and having proper debate on it, and giving the people time to study this and consider, and to let us know their views on it.

I am getting calls today from my constituents: Are you going to have a public meeting? Is there going to be a public meeting in Mount Pearl to give us an opportunity to ask questions about this legislation and to make our views known. I say now that my friend the Member for Waterford - Kenmount and I indeed will hold a public meeting very early next week. We will be announcing it tomorrow, I'm announcing it here now. Seven thirty next Tuesday night we will hold a joint meeting in Mount Pearl for the Districts of Mount Pearl and Waterford - Kenmount, so that our constituents, who have called and said: Will you please have a public meeting, will have an opportunity.

MS. VERGE: Is the Member for St. John's South having a public meeting?

MR. MURPHY: Yes.

MR. WINDSOR: We should be all having public meetings. We should be having a plebiscite, something of that nature, perhaps. Why do we not have a select committee? The hon. Member for St. John's South talked about committees of the House and I say to him that I've had some very good experiences with committees of the House, with the public Accounts Committee. My friend for Eagle River will know, and my friend for St. John's South who was vice-chair previously of the Public Accounts Committee. It works extremely well and is doing some very valuable work on behalf of the people of this Province and this House of Assembly.

My friend for Trinity North chairs a committee on public accountancy. We had three days here in this hon. Chamber two weeks ago, three days from 9:00 a.m. till 5:30 p.m., 6:00 p.m., with literally dozens of presentations, very professional presentations, and let me say it was one of the most enjoyable experiences I've ever had as a member of this House. Sitting here in this Chamber listening to all of these professional people coming making their presentations on a proposed piece of legislation. Public accountancy. The bottom line is: Can only chartered accountants do public accountancy, or can certified general accountants and certified management accountants?

Not an earth-shattering thing. Important to those people. But we have a select committee of the House, a select committee that is receiving representations and will come back with a report, by motion of the hon. the Premier, that must report by March 31, by the end of this month, to this hon. House. That is important enough for that kind of an exercise, and all of the other select committees we've had. If that's important enough, surely to God these two piece of legislation are important enough to table them here as a white paper and to appoint a select committee of the House of Assembly to go around this Province and take representations from people and concerned groups.

If they are as the hon. Government House Leader just said two of the most important pieces of legislation ever brought before this House, surely the people have the right to expect that kind of consideration and we, as members, have a responsibility to take that time, and we have a duty to do that. To ensure that constituents who put us here have been given every opportunity to be heard and that we know, when we stand in our place here - I don't do it lightly. Some hon. members of this House look at their leader and stand up or sit down as the case may be. I can assure you I don't do that lightly. When I stand here I represent my conscience and the people who put me here.

I'm not afraid to vote against our caucus. I've never had to, not recently, there were times when I was in Cabinet, and my colleagues will tell you, I didn't agree with Cabinet. I never did resign over it. It wasn't a matter of principle strong enough. I wasn't afraid to stand up in Cabinet and say I don't agree with this, nor am I afraid to stand up in caucus, to my detriment at times. But we do have an open caucus and it is clear that we have a right to do that.

When we stand in our place here it is not something that we should do lightly. We are standing here representing some 13,000, 14,000, 15,000, 18,000 constituents, and we are saying: Here is how I am voting on behalf of these people. It is not the roll of the dice. We should be giving very strong, careful, honest consideration to every question put before this House.

There are many questions that need to be considered before we get into this, before we stand here and vote on it. What are the implications in the long-term? What are the implications on the bond market and the financial community? On the borrowing power of the Province, on the current account of this Province in the long term.

We will debate that when we get into the legislation. I won't get into it tonight. On future negotiations, perhaps, with other jurisdictions, on our energy policy in the future - many, many questions that have to be considered - it is not a simple matter of saying: We are going to sell the house and buy a new one. We are talking about resources here.

Again, I will get into some details later on when we get into debate on the bills, but we are not talking, I say to my friend from St. John's South who said, we agreed with selling Newfoundland Computer Services. Yes, we don't disagree with that. We didn't disagree with selling Burgeo Seafoods. We didn't disagree with selling the mill in Stephenville to Abitibi-Price. We didn't disagree with selling the Marystown shipyard. We have had that on the market for many years - because they are commercial operations. We are not talking about a natural resource. We are talking about a utility here, a natural resource known as our hydroelectric power in this Province. Don't compare that with computer services or a shipyard or a fish plant. That is not apples and apples. It is two completely different things. We are talking about the inheritance of our children here, the right to own and control the hydroelectric resources of this Province, and this government wants to give it away to the private sector at a wholesale price. That is what we are talking about.

So, Mr. Speaker, to get back to the question, we should indeed be given that opportunity. We should not be sitting nights. By all means, call the debate. We will have our two hours debate every day on these pieces of legislation, and over the next two or three weeks we will be given some opportunity, but perhaps the government should do the hon. thing and defer the debate, as my friend the Leader of the Opposition proposed the motion, for six months - if not six months, maybe six weeks - and appoint a select committee of the House, or send members around the Province, as we did with the Meech Lake Accord, to hold meetings at government expense in each of our districts to give people an opportunity, and each of us come back and report, or have a referendum all over the Province.

If these are the most important bills ever brought before the House, why are we afraid to give the people of this Province an opportunity to speak? Let's give them an opportunity to speak, but let's not be sitting here night after night to try to rush this through in the next few days. That is not fair to the people of this Province. It is not fair to future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians whose birthright we are proposing to give away.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to government. I am not worried about sitting nights. I would sit all night. I couldn't care less. I would be quite happy to stay here as long as we have to, but I appeal to government to use some common sense. Give the people of this Province adequate opportunity to consider this matter intelligently and with full knowledge of all of the facts. Give them an opportunity to know exactly what we are doing here. Give them an opportunity to be heard, not by pushing this through in the dark of the night and making the kinds of mistakes that we made on December 17, 1992.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few comments regarding this amendment.

I think it's very important that the people and the representatives here in this House have an opportunity to discuss that bill in full detail and not have it rushed through. I think it is important for the people around the Province, too, to have an opportunity to have input and to understand fully what is happening.

This government has seen the opportunity and the need for CGAs to be able to do audits, and have seen that as a need, and I certainly agree with putting that to committee. I agree with putting the smoking legislation to committee so groups can come in and make presentations here and put forth their views on matters that are very important to the people of this Province, and I find it very difficult to accept that this government hasn't seen the opportunity to give the people of this Province an opportunity for public hearings.

The reason why is because the M-5 Advertising poll showed in this region that 92 per cent of the people who had made a decision were against it, and 80-some per cent had formed an opinion.

The Minister of Mines and Energy today, on CrossTalk received calls from all around this Province, and not one to my knowledge today, called in supporting that; and that is not an orchestrated thing by the Opposition or the Power of the People, that's the gut feeling of people right across this entire Province. Something so strong and so important to the future of this Province deserves to have input from the people. It is disconcerting, it's an insult to the people to ignore them; everything that has happened on this has occurred in secret.

We went into an election last May when discussions were going on on the privatization of Hydro; the Premier and the government kept it secret from the people in the Province. They denied it since last May in the House of Assembly, last August discussions occurred and into the fall, and they flatly denied there was anything happening with the privatization of Hydro. They kept it from the people because they knew the people wouldn't want to hear it; they knew it wouldn`t be in the best interest of the people.

There are many, many, very intelligent people out in the Province, people who want to have some meaningful input in the committees, to voice their opinions on what they feel their rights should be in the future. It is being very unfair and the government will pay a big price for ignoring the rights of people to express their opinion, whether it is in favour or whether it is against this legislation, and many people today have expressed against it and that makes it even more difficult for people to understand why government is trying to run things through. Secret dealings and hiring people to prepare prospectus, all this is going on with denials; information leaking out. How do you expect us and the public to have any trust when they are not being told the full truth?

They have dealt with law firms and they have denied it; the member here tabled in the House information to show that the law firm Chalker, Green and Rowe, was involved, not just the individual. They have denied here in the House any inkling of a public relations or advertising campaign. The Premier has indicated: I would assume Hydro would be undertaking a public relations or advertising campaign. This government has no intention or no plans -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you want to (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If you want to speak, you will have an opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) seven o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: That's why we don't want to stop at seven o'clock because -

AN HON. MEMBER: We have a motion saying stop at seven o'clock; make up your mind boy.

MR. SULLIVAN: - because discussion -

AN HON. MEMBER: You supported the motion to stop at seven o'clock (inaudible), Mr. Speaker -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I clarified at the beginning the reason I want to see it adjourned is because there could be more time for this information to be disseminated and so on and the people have more time to absorb it. We are having public meetings to get input from people in our districts. It happened here in the fall of '92, government couldn't get legislation through fast enough on cable companies and utilities, and then they came back again and realized they made a mistake, they rushed it through and we had no time to debate it.

We pointed out the flaws, we did here in that legislation of December of '92, and they came back into the House again last March and brought in legislation and made it retroactive to January to cover up for the mistakes that they made by allowing the increases to utility companies. There were loopholes in it because it was rushed through, we didn't see it until it was discussed here in the House.

There are very, very, many significant points and very detailed points in Bill 1 and Bill 2; and it is very important that there should be months of public discussion on certain aspects of that bill and I find it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can turn it down a bit if that's the problem; that's no problem, I could turn down the volume. Here, how is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: This government discovered on Hydro, from the public opinion that 92 per cent of those decided are against it. They discovered on denominational education that over 50 per cent were against it, but they have proceeded and they probably may end up going with a referendum. Go out to the people who have these rights, the adherence to these faiths; maybe they will go out to these people with a referendum, who knows? Because they feel it would (inaudible). Now they didn't publicize some of the points, how 37 to 39 per cent, an increase in those who want denominational education, from the last previous poll.

We get back to the topic here. This party is not against privatization. In fact, I know I can speak personally, I believe very strongly in privatizing companies that serve a strong business interest there that are not jeopardizing the public interest here in the Province. I can see it, as the Member for Mount Pearl mentioned, with Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. There are many Crown corporations that could be privatized, but Newfoundland Hydro is not one that should be privatized because it is jeopardizing the future of our children and of our children's children for many years to come.

I am speaking on the motion because I want the opportunity for people across this Province to be able to discuss and to debate. At least I am duly recognized in speaking on it, and that is more than I can say for members on the opposite side of the House.

If the Premier has nothing to hide, why does he bar the Opposition research team from attending a media briefing? What does he have to hide, afraid that we will pick up on some of the points that they are trying to stress; they are trying to sell this deal.

I can assure you the people in Newfoundland, and the people in rural Newfoundland, will pay a very big financial price for the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. They are paying a big price now with the downloading on municipalities. With the elimination of differential rates, we are going to find, for electricity, that after the 700 kilowatt level, I think, increasing rates based upon the cost of putting it into these areas.

I feel we are all members of the one Province. We should share in the wealth and share in the misfortunes of this Province on an equal footing - one person, one vote. Each person should be treated equally across this Province, and that is not happening here in this specific instance.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it will be quoted in Hansard.

I find it very disconcerting that the opportunity to have people heard is not being given. I find that coming here to the House of Assembly and having a bill presented one day and expect to have that through within a week, something so important... I haven't seen any legislation that has come to this House since I came here that is as important as Bill No. 1. I haven't seen any as important. Still, the government has seen fit to refer to committee many other important pieces of legislation that mean very much to different individuals, but no piece of legislation is going to have an impact on the people of this Province as Bill No. 1, the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

The government has done nothing whatsoever to allay the people's fears, to be able to explain. There were many unanswered questions today when the minister appeared on CrossTalk this afternoon that they couldn't answer and couldn't address because there is no real answer to give that is in the benefit of the people.

So, once again, it is part of a plan that goes back many years ago. The plan goes back many years ago to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. The preferred option to the Premier didn't work. The preferred option of the financial advisors of the Province was to leave it as it is now. They weren't willing to accept that because they didn't hear from the financial advisors what they wanted to hear, so they set out and chartered their own course to achieve the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

The generations to come will indeed pay the price, and this government will pay the price, for not giving the public an opportunity to give their opinion and to be consulted, and that is not very much to ask - the people of this Province to have a say in electricity that is going into all the homes across this Province.

There are aspects of legislation that impact upon only certain individuals, but this legislation here is impacting upon each and every single person in this Province, and to ignore their wishes, I think, is disastrous. It is insulting to the people, and it shouldn't be permitted to happen, and we will do what we can to voice in the public opinion, to hold public meetings, to express and delay it here in the House anything that we see is not in the best interest of the people. That's our job and we will go to whatever limits we have to do that, and I will personally. I think it should be tabled and we should have the six-month hoist. You should give the public a chance to have input, get it out into the public forum, discuss it, and then come back to the House of Assembly and have a reasonable debate without restrictive time limits that the Government House Leader is trying to impose upon us.

After two days of discussing bills in the fall session of this House the Government House Leader stood up on a Thursday, after two days of discussion, then a private member's day, and said: We are going to night sittings. In the fall in just the third day of discussing bills he brought on a night sitting. That is not fair and reasonable there and it is not reasonable in this case, and we can't support it.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I've listened with some interest to my friends opposite. I don't know that the hon. members are being really sincere with this. I somehow or another feel that they are not really coming clean, I suppose, as the Member for Burin - Placentia West says.

In all honesty, if the members really wanted - and they know at the end at the day we are going to debate Bill No. 1. They know. This afternoon, with all kinds of whatevers, okay, whether petitions or whatever, they stood in their place and took two hours away of solid debate in this House. I suggest to the members opposite that this bill is not a new bill. The people of this Province have been listening now for some time and understanding government's intent to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There has been a tremendous amount of input from the general public through the members opposite, I would suggest, and through some members here, I would suggest, and time and time again the public have had an opportunity to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: The member opposite knows what I'm saying to be correct. He can get on. He knows that the people of this Province for months now have had an opportunity to show - all the Opposition is doing right now is filibustering this piece of legislation at any cost. It is time for the Opposition to act responsibly and take a position, take the pros and cons as the Member for Mount Pearl says. He has a lot of questions. Well then, stand in his place and debate the bill. As the Government House Leader has already said, if they want to amend and delay they can do all of that within the structure of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: The Opposition House Leader knows only too well that they can filibuster this bill within the bill. They can amend it and amend it. But let the motion come forward so the people of this Province understand that we are going to debate the bill. Not foolish and silly display which we saw here today. That does nothing for the members of the Opposition, it does nothing for the members of government, it does nothing for the people of the Province. It does absolutely nothing only waste time, consume time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes - I don't know if he was around even - but when the previous government was here it didn't open the House. They arbitrarily went out without legislation, went in and spent $27 million of the people's money, never asked for legislation. Asked for nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was only a baby.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I don't know what he was. It is time for the Opposition to take some responsibility. Take some responsibility, I say to the Opposition, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. Because what we've seen here today was not in the interest of the people of this Province. It was not. Here we are at 7:49 debating on whether this House should adjourn at 7:00 o'clock. Now, that is how much sense this whole day has meant.

MS. YOUNG: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: The Member for Terra Nova is entirely right. What is going on in this House today is utterly disgraceful. It is terrible and members opposite should be totally ashamed of themselves. What a down and out mockery of the people's parliament. Now, the Member for Humber East sits in her place and hollers referendum. We had a referendum May 3 last year. That was the referendum, and that is all the referendum that the thirty-five members on this side of the House need. That was referendum enough. I remind the Member for Baie Verte that this hon. House member in his household literature during the election - one of the items that I put in that piece of information to my constituents was my responsibility and my stand on privatization. I included Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and I never got one single solitary complaint, not one.

It is much to do about nothing. That is what we are putting up with this evening, Mr. Speaker. This evening we are putting up with immaturity. That is what we are putting up with, and led on by the Leader of the Opposition because he feels that there are a few insignificant political brownie points in this silly display that we saw here this afternoon. Now, I give full credit to the Member for Mount Pearl who wants to debate Bill 1, who wants to stand in his place, who wants to sit down -

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: He is right. That is exactly right I say to the Member for Carbonear. That is why he is gone. He said it openly, I disagree with caucus. He got his message out I say to members opposite. He did not pull any punches. He wants to stand in his place and debate this bill, so he should, and so should every other member. Stand up and debate it and never mind this silly filibuster stuff you are getting on with. Act responsibly I say to members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

What a display by the Member for St. John's South. What a display. The silliness of tonight is as obvious as the nose on the face of the member opposite. Earlier this evening the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations shouted across the House, it is too bad there are not TV cameras in the House so that people could see what is happening here, and I say, it is too bad. It is too bad that the cameras are not in this House to see how this government is trying to ram this piece of legislation down the throats of this House, to force their will upon the assembly here without proper debate or disclosure of information. That is the problem here. Personally as a member of this House I think it is absolutely ridiculous to be forced into a position, to have to stand here at 7:55 in the evening and talk about why we should not close at 7:00 o'clock. As a member of the Opposition what choice do we have? We have none.

Now, the hon. Member for St. John's South has talked about this being much to do about nothing. This debate, the debate on the privatization of Hydro, is much to do about a whole lot. The public have not had an opportunity to discuss fully or in a full disclosure fashion.

The Opposition's arguments and the Premier's arguments on privatization - I ask the hon. Member for St. John's South, where have the public had months and months of opportunity to debate privatization? Tell me where. Where has that debate happened? It was only two days ago that the bill was put before this House. Where are the months and months of debate for the people of the Province to talk about this? Where are they?

MR. MURPHY: The public had the opportunity.

MR. E. BYRNE: The public had the opportunity to do what, I say? The public hasn't had the opportunity to discuss the bill before this House.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for St. John's South, the public has not had an opportunity to debate this motion. The public has not had an opportunity to debate this important bill on privatization; none whatsoever.

I can say to the Member for Harbour Grace that I have talked to some of his constituents and they are not all in favour of privatization of Hydro, as he has lead some of the people in the House to believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get up and debate the bill, my son.

MR. E. BYRNE: I have no problem debating the bill, no problem whatsoever. When the time arises to debate the bill I will stand here and debate the bill, point by point by point by point. But I will not be forced or bullied by the government into debating a bill when they haven't given proper opportunity to the people of the Province to have their say.

As my hon. colleague for Mount Pearl pointed out, a select committee dealing with the right to audit of CGAs and CAs -

MR. MURPHY: It's a Liberal initiative.

MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly, and a worthwhile one. Not to downgrade its importance, but on the issue of privatizing Hydro no select committee of the House travelling the Province, no public input, none whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the people of the Province need more time, that government has not taken their responsibility. I challenge the Member for St. John's South and all hon. members that they, as government members, and particular backbenchers, act responsibly. Force Cabinet to have a look at bringing a committee across the Province for public submissions. Ask Cabinet to do that on behalf of your own constituents. That is what should be done.

Some of the arguments surrounding privatization: We'll get into that when we begin debate on it. We, as a party here, and quite correctly in our opinion and in my opinion, are trying to stall every step of the way on this piece of legislation, for one reason and one reason only: To provide the public of this Province with a greater opportunity to have discussions on this particular piece of legislation that is before this House.

Never before has there been such a dramatic and important piece of legislation in this House - certainly not in the last thirty years - dealing with one of the greatest resources that we have, the hydro resource. In terms of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Farm Products and Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, it is not necessarily a philosophy that we are opposed to. We are very much in favour of it, I would think. I say, on Hydro and our resources, that the pure giveaway of our resources is not something that we are in favour of.

The principles of self-development and self-determination are involved here. I believe that the government is shortsighted in their outlook on this. I firmly believe that. They have not provided full opportunity for people to discuss it.

There is no reason, I say to the hon. Government House Leader, that we should be here until ten o'clock tonight. There is no reason why we should have been here after five o'clock, not one reason at all. The only reason we are here is because the government is not providing ample opportunity for discussion about this very important issue in the public domain and we, as an Opposition Party, believe that we are doing the responsible thing in trying to delay the bill as long as we can in order to allow more public discussion and debate on this very important issue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: I certainly want to have a few words on this as well. What we heard from the Government House Leader this afternoon, a few minutes ago, tonight, and what we heard from the Member for St. John's South I believe tells us what this day is all about. I have been in this Legislature, I say to the Minister of Health, for twelve or thirteen years and it is probably the second or third time that I have seen Speaker's rulings having to be challenged. I see, Mr. Speaker, in the last little while, since we came to this Chamber - no, actually it was up in the old House, since government changed in 1989, when government challenged the ruling of the then Speaker, the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde when he was in the Chair. The government challenged his ruling, and today we have to challenge a ruling, and I believe that dictates the sensitivity of this issue we are involved in. That tells us, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this issue and it tells us the type of debate that we can get involved in.

I want to say that it is important when we get involved in this debate, and leading up to this debate, that all members, whether they be members of government, members of the official Opposition, or the member of the NDP, that it is important that the Chair protect the rights of all members when we get into a debate of this nature, because what we are involved in here, and leading up to this - and I make no apology to the Government House Leader or anyone else, I make no apology to do everything I can within the rules of the House - at all times let me say that I will keep within the rules of the House, but I will make no apology for doing everything I can to prevent the passage of this piece of legislation.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You certainly do. But I want to make it clear that everything that I will do will be within the realm of the rules of this Legislature. And I will not apologize for what happened today, Mr. Speaker, and I hope we will keep this going. Because the Government House Leader got up and the Member for St. John's South and they made reference to who was not debating the bill. Well how can we debate the bill, Mr. Speaker, when the Government House Leader or the Government did not call the bill. How can you debate it when it has not been called.

MR. ROBERTS: Debate the bill? We have not got to Orders of the Day yet.

MR. TOBIN: There you go, Mr. Speaker. But only because we are here acting, Mr. Speaker, on the request of our constituents. I have petitions, Mr. Speaker. I have over 2,200 signatures here on petitions.

MR. ROBERTS: Table them.

MR. TOBIN: I will, Mr. Speaker. They are petitions from my own district, some names from the Grand Bank District, Fortune-Hermitage District, and I will be presenting them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Right on!

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, because I asked for them, they are there because I got a call at my home on Saturday, and the person asked me if he could drop in to see me and I said, well I am going to be in the Lewin's Cove area where he lives within another couple of hours and I will drop into your home. I went in and I met with him and he presented it to me and explained his concerns.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I did not.

MR. ROBERTS: Did you have a cigarette?

MR. TOBIN: No, I did not. I do not smoke nor drink on the Burin Peninsula. Because as my colleague from Grand Bank once said, if you are caught having a drink or caught with a cigarette on the Burin Peninsula you could get the cuffs put on you since that Minister of Justice came to power.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that we are in here today -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there will be nothing left in Grand Bank to drink if the Minister of Justice has his way.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Grand Bank (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have recognized the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. If the two House Leaders want to carry on a conversation they can do so outside of the House.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to present petitions which we had every right to do I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You said a few moments ago when you were in the debate that you could have got up today and move that we move to Orders of the Day. How could you do that if we were on Petitions? Would you not be taking away my right to present petitions if you did that? You cannot do it, I say to the Minister of Justice. You think you can take the House on your back but you cannot.

I will do everything I can to prevent this piece of legislation from going through because I think it is a bad piece of legislation. I think it is a sell-out, Mr. Speaker, of the right of every man, woman and child in this Province. I believe that very sincerely. At the same time every time I travel throughout my district, no matter where I go, there are people coming up to me and talking about the Hydro deal as well as other issues. Why are they doing that? Because they know the Hydro sale is an issue, number one, and because they know this government is hell-bent on ridding itself of it.

I wish the Member for St. John's South would come back in the Legislature. He stands up and advocates privatizing everything. Mr. Speaker, I have not heard the Member for St. John's South express his feelings and his beliefs on the privatization of the St. John's dockyard when it was mentioned a few ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: I have not heard the Member for St. John's South having the courage to stand up and tell us what his position is on the privatization of the St. John's dockyard. He has not opened his mouth because the union members in the St. John's dockyard have come out foursquare against it, as I understand it, so if this member is so hell-bent on privatization of all things he would have got up tonight and said he advocates the privatization. Well, let the Member for St. John's South know, let his constituents know, where he stands on the privatization of the St. John's dockyard. Have the courage, I say to him. I know, Mr. Speaker, he is out there somewhere listening. Just tell us where he stands.

I say something else, Mr. Speaker, that I for one am not against privatization. There are many cases where I believe very strongly in privatization. If there is anyone in this House who supports the privatization of such things as Computer Services and others it is me because I believe there is a role for it to play, but what we are privatizing here is not a Crown Corporation per se, it is a utility company that holds the water rights, that holds the utility power for the people of this Province. It is owned by the taxpayers, and how someone can come to this House and vote to privatize Newfoundland Hydro when at the same time we are voting to increase the cost of electricity to your constituents is beyond me.

I say the people of Port au Port, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford to pay for electricity power. I say the men and women of Eagle River cannot afford to pay for increased power, nor can the families on the Burin Peninsula, or the Bonavista Peninsula, or the Northern Peninsula, nor anywhere in this Province, can afford to pay more. How can a fisherman from Eagle River, if I could use that as an example, who is not making any money from selling fish because of the NCARP package and the mismanagement of our resources, look at a government who is trying to take away the UI?

Last week in the federal Budget we had the Minister of Finance sock it to the UI people in this Province, drive up the number of weeks you have to work to qualify for your UI, reduce the number of weeks you can draw your UI, so how can these people in this Province be expected to pay more for electricity rates? How can the people of Carbonear be asked to pay more for electricity rates in this Province? The Premier told me that. The Premier told the whole Province that the cost of electricity is going to go up. The Premier went out and told the world.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I say to the Member for Carbonear, what the Premier said is if we sell Hydro, yes, there will be an increase to the consumer. That is what the Premier said, but how can members opposite vote when their constituents have to pay more for electricity? How can members opposite vote to give away something that has been ours for decades? How can the Member for Stephenville, Mr. Speaker, vote to give away the resources of this Province because there are no guarantees, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out several times, that they will be protected. This is a big sham and it was cooked up to sell to Fortis. The Minister of Justice who was a shareholder of Fortis at the time, they wanted to buy. All the shareholders of Fortis wanted to buy Hydro, of which the Minister of Justice was a shareholder, they wanted to buy Hydro. The Minister of Justice and his shareholder buddies wanted to buy Hydro I would suspect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Fortis wanted to buy Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a reason why we should not sell Hydro?

MR. TOBIN: I am telling you why you should not sell Hydro. We told you all the time why you should not sell Hydro. There are a lot of reasons why we should not sell Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name one.

MR. TOBIN: Because electricity rates are going to go to the sky and the people of the Province cannot afford to pay it. That is one reason why we should not sell Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no one raised taxes more in this Province.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He is the man who said we were not the highest taxed in Canada. Remember?

MR. TOBIN: There is nobody who raised taxes more in this Province than that minister. There is only one person in that government that could be a worse Finance minister than the Minister of Health and that is the present Minister of Education, because between you and the Minister of Education you closed half the hospitals around, and now he has started to cut the school system, so there are lots of reasons.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health was kicked out of the Tory Party out in Corner Brook a number of years ago, Mr. Speaker, I thought all of that stuff went away, but he came back.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: From the time he was kicked out until he came back and the books hit him on the head. The books fell on his head during that period.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They were not the books of the Province either.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, why would I sell Hydro? Well I would tell the hon. member here are all of the reasons, I say to the Minister of Health here's all the reasons why Hydro shouldn't be sold, look. Do you want me to start naming some for you?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't tell him all the secrets. Don't tell him, he doesn't know see. He does not know.

MR. A. SNOW: Enlighten him!

MR. TOBIN: But rural electricity rates will increase, subsidies will disappear, the private utility company is not the best way to deliver a reasonable electricity supply to customers at a reasonable cost. The Province's credit rating will not improve and could well decline in the future if the loss of some our major assets as the Nova Scotia Government has experienced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the short term revenue from the sale will be far less than the assets are worth, I say to the member. A major level for the future economic development will have to be lost to the Province. Mr. Speaker, a new Hydro could gain effective management control of the Upper Churchill. Municipalities will lose much needed revenue for several years because of a tax holiday. Do you want me to go on I say to the minister? Do you want me to go on? That's the reasons why -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) information on the sale of it.

MR. TOBIN: - and, Mr. Speaker, we have a Minister of Mines and Energy who does not even know the sale is underway. He does not even know there is a sale underway, I say to the member. Now that is what we got. We have the Premier, Mr. Speaker, who some years ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I didn't. I said the credit rating could go down as our resources disappear the same which has happened in Nova Scotia. There were going to be no lay-offs in Nova Scotia either were there? Now there are 400 jobs gone. What I said is the credit rating could go down as we give away our resources because the same thing happened in Nova Scotia. I base my premise, Mr. Speaker, on what happened in Nova Scotia. Once they sold Nova Scotia Hydro, sold the resources, it didn't mean anything in terms of balancing the Budget. The Premier said here, for one year. What did the financial institutes say, I say to the member opposite? I will tell you what they said in a minute. It is here somewhere what was said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I give one word of advice to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and that is, stay quiet. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and you should be the last one to shout that across the House, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, anyone who wants to stoop to the depths and live under the rocks with the snakes will say anything. You would never dirt your feet, I say to the member opposite.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member that he should give up that. There is nobody who wins in that situation - nobody - and it is not something that should be practised.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Right. I agree with the Minister of Health.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: For once in your life.

MR. TOBIN: No, I agree with him all the time because I am expecting the Minister of Health to get up tomorrow, in this House, and announce that the Burin Peninsula Health Care Board will remain in place by the people of the Burin Peninsula, for the people of the Burin Peninsula, and that there will be no changes or downgrading of services.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health wouldn't do that. He went down there and listened to the people. They told him loud and clear what they had to say, and I am sure the Minister of Health will listen to what the people had to say, and act upon it. There is no way he would go against the wishes of the people - no way.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What effect is this Hydro going to have on that hospital board, do you think now? Tell us.

MR. TOBIN: No, I don't think it is going to have any effect. We would have had no credit rating left if you had stayed as Minister of Finance; there would be no credit rating left if you had stayed as Minister of Finance, none, none whatsoever left if you had been the Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is he looking for, what does he want?

MS. VERGE: Moodys, oh look, here it is.

MR. TOBIN: Now I have it, Mr. Speaker, what I was looking for earlier. An official of Standard and Poor's, one of the Province's own credit rating agencies was quoted as saying: As of this time we don't foresee ourselves changing the rating as a result of diversification or divestiture. An official of the Dominion Bond Rating Services was quoted as saying: We will always consider Newfoundland Hydro to be self-sustaining, so we are excluding its debt from our debt calculations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: But the Premier said it would.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, what happened in Nova Scotia when they sold their hydro power, what happened to their credit rating? It went down. When Nova Scotia sold theirs, Mr. Speaker, -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was downgraded by 2 credit ratings.

MR. TOBIN: What is that? I think the Member for Port au Port spoke, but I am not sure who it was, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it wasn't, it wasn't, it was North.

MR. TOBIN: What, St. John's North?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Ask him when he is going to present his petitions.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the question; when is the Member for St. John's North going to stand and present his petitions? That's the question. They are in favour of everything this government is doing too, aren't they?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Only three in the north against Hydro.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We are not talking about Hydro, it is not Hydro we are talking about with you.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, we understand they can only do that.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, he is the only member in the House remaining a member of the 500 Club.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that right?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well that's it, you are the only one.

MR. TOBIN: You are the only one in the House I say, I know there are not that many left in it, when I said you were the only one in the House, Mr. Speaker, beside the Minister of Health. I really find that funny you know. You look at the list of the 500 Club when they sent them out, I wasn't one of them. I couldn't afford it. Did you look at it? Mr. Speaker, here he was, sitting as a Liberal member in Newfoundland and a member of the 500 Club in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, he could before privatization, there is no doubt about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and they went out in the House. We weren't really sure. We figured it was him, and I got up and said there is a certain member here who is a member of the 500 Club. I didn't make reference to anyone. A point of order he got up on, the Member for St. John's North. He said: Mr. Speaker, he is accusing me of being a member of the 500 Club; and I said: Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned the man's name - never said a word. So if that's not self admission, I don't know what you would call it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That's only because he gave me a deal.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It seems to be a trait with some of them to confess.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and then you mention a briefcase. Then you throw out a briefcase. The Member for Kilbride came here and mentioned a briefcase one day, someone had a briefcase, and the Minister of Development got up. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Development wasn't on our list at all for the briefcase.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I said, the Member for St. John's North got up on the 500 Club and said that I was accusing him, and when we mentioned the briefcase, the Minister of Development got up and said: It's not me.

We were not after the Minister of Development, so there are two briefcases, and I hope you don't run into one another over there, because if one falls it could break the locks off the other one, I would suspect; but I wouldn't dare make any accusations as to who would have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hurry up, it will soon be seven o'clock.

MR. TOBIN: It will soon be seven o'clock. No, Mr. Speaker, it won't. It's a long time before seven o'clock. Do I have to speak until seven o'clock tomorrow morning?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the greatest contribution ever the Minister of Education made to education is right now. He's asleep - and if you could only keep him there. Whatever he had for his supper, if you could give it to him on a continuous basis -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The teachers and the church leaders would love to see him asleep.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He must think it's a Cabinet meeting, does he?

MR. TOBIN: No, actually I'm beginning to believe he walks in his sleep, talks in his sleep, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, he said that again, with his eyes closed. So his actions, his decisions and his discussions all take place in his sleep. No wonder the education system is in the mess it is in.

Now, before I sit down, I have to tell you one story about the Minister of Education. I told the Minister of Finance this evening. About two week ago, I guess, I happened to be spending the weekend up in my cabin. It was on a Sunday morning, a beautiful morning, the sun was shining. I was out sitting down in the living room having a cup of coffee, listening to some good Irish music. My son, who is ten years old, was in his bedroom watching television, and he came out and said: Dad, that buddy who has education all fooled up, is on Straight Talk. I had an idea who he was talking about, but I wasn't sure. So I went in, Mr. Speaker, and heard the hon. minister. He said: That buddy who has education all fooled up, is on Straight Talk. I said: Well, that's the best description I have ever heard.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That would be good, you and Rex.

MR. TOBIN: That's true. That would be a combination.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, my half hour to speak on this is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is not. By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: One more story.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How about the water you had the weekend.

MR. TOBIN: Can't tell any more stories, Mr. Speaker.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I can't hear what he is saying, Mr. Speaker. I can't hear what the Member for Eagle River is saying. But one thing I can tell you is that he has been awfully quiet pending that Cabinet shuffle. He has been awfully quiet leading up to that Cabinet shuffle, Mr. Speaker. The day the Cabinet shuffle is made and he is not in it, which he won't be, then I think all hell breaks loose. I think all hell breaks loose then, Mr. Speaker.

Do you know what is going to happen? Instead of us standing up from here and pointing at the Premier about selling Hydro, he will be up behind the Premier's back pointing at him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Glenn, if he doesn't get voted to Cabinet this time, there will be enough water come out of the (inaudible) generation site.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, he will be generating electricity because he ain't going in Cabinet. Not a chance, I say to the Member for Eagle River. There is no way the Minister of Justice would sit around the Cabinet table with you being a representative from Labrador. No way, Mr. Speaker!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: I said I do not think that you would ever be satisfied to sit at a Cabinet table with the Member for Eagle River.

MR. ROBERTS: Why not?

MR. TOBIN: Because he would be fighting for -

MR. ROBERTS: He would be an ornament at the Cabinet table.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Justice if he does not think there are enough ornaments in Cabinet now without having more?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: All I will say to the Minister of Justice is that he is going to have his chance to stand up - he had his chance, and when we get to the motion, we probably will get to it this week, we may and we may not, but I will say one thing to the Minister of Justice, that if he treats the Member for Eagle River the way he treated the people of the Burin Peninsula last year in Cabinet when he took the money that was allocated for the Burin Peninsula Highway and brought it to Labrador -

MR. ROBERTS: What?

MR. TOBIN: What? The paper went up recommending the money for the Burin Peninsula Highway and you took it. You fought in Cabinet and said the money should not go down on the Burin Peninsula, it should go to Labrador. I say one thing, Mr. Speaker, I was not surprised because that minister when he was Minister of Health came to the Burin Peninsula and told the people they were not getting a new hospital and an improved ambulance service to Clarenville would serve them well. That is when he was Minister of Health. He was down in the motel or St. Gabriel's Hall someplace.

AN HON. MEMBER: They should spend money on the highway down there.

MR. TOBIN: Sure, they should spend money on the highway in Labrador but they should not take it from someplace else. I say one thing to the Member for Eagle River, that if the Member for Menihek and the Member for Naskaupi, if they wanted to pool their money together they could build a highway for Labrador. But I have to say to the Member for St. John's South before I sit down, have the courage to stand up and tell us whether or not you support the privatization of the St. John's dockyard because you have squirmed away from that, you have crawled away from that and you have refused to touch it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I should get another half hour.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I will be back. I shall return.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, to sit here and not participate in this debate - which is the ultimate in absurdity really - to think that we are here at the behest of the Opposition debating as to whether we are going to close at 7:00 p.m. - at 8:30 in the evening is certainly something that the people of the Province should hold the Opposition to task for - I think that the type of activity that they will participate in, here in the House, is beyond comprehension. We have the business of the people of the House to participate in and we have the business of the people of the Province - some very, very difficult issues, some issues of which there's a lot of concern, issues of which there's a lot of misinformation, perpetrated by those who do not know and issues of concern to all of us.

We as a government here - the Opposition would have the people of the Province think that we are out to do wrong, we are out to attempt to do some disservice to the Province because we hold a majority in this parliamentary democracy, Mr. Speaker. I certainly feel that we should take them to task for thinking that we are here for anything but trying to offer to the people of the Province what we consider to be a proposal which we see to be in their best interest and we bring it forward as such, Mr. Speaker, and we would have the political courage, is the word that's sometimes used in describing the act of taking initiatives that don't always meet with instant public approval.

It is a tremendous thing to offer to the people of the Province, stadiums; when you don't even have the water to put in the ice rink as was offered by the hon. members Opposite during the election in 1989; and swimming pools in places where there wasn't running water. It is another thing to take a look at an issue such as this and put it forward in such a way that the people of the Province can look at the facts, not look at the rhetoric, and decide for themselves as to whether they should or should not support it.

Now each and every individual that I've spoken to over the weekend in the district, in Port aux Basques, who asked me about the issue - and it's obvious when you get under their skin, Mr. Speaker, because they can't help but pick at you when you talk - but anyway, Mr. Speaker, the thing that I do want to say, anyone that I've spoken to, once they're given the other side of the story, Mr. Speaker, they tell me: Gee, that's not the way that the Opposition is putting it, and I say: well listen to what the Opposition have to say, they have some valid points. Listen to what we have to say and I'm sure that based on a weighing of the facts and the rhetoric, you'll probably choose the facts every time and support this imitative to privatize Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one only has to look at - what does it take to offer to the people of the Province, courage? I got a few little quotes for hon. members opposite, something that they rarely do, they usually quote themselves and say: I said this and I said that. Well lets throw out a little quote here by Samuel Johnson and it says, "courage is a quality so necessary for maintaining virtue that it is always respected even when it is associated with vice."

Now I respect the hon. members courage in putting forward half the stories, so to speak, on the issue of Hydro, of dealing with the rhetoric, of dealing with the emotional argument, of getting away from the issue of whether this is in the best interest of the Province. I would submit to hon. members opposite, were they in the Cabinet, were they successful in winning the election, this imitative would probably be there for them to deal with in a similar manner to the way it is being dealt with now.

Mr. Speaker, let's take another look at the issue of courage - that which we are doing here tonight - I think it takes a lot of courage on the part of the Opposition to put themselves forward as the alternative to the government which sits on this side of the House by purporting to offer to the people of the Province a motion that we close at seven o'clock at eight-thirty in the evening. Now, the absurdity strikes me as being the kind of thing that would give all of us in Parliament a black eye. It would strike, I think, anyone in the public as being certainly something that they would look at and say: Politicians in general are there to impede the regular and normal process of government, and they are there to prevent things from happening.

In this case, the terms that are often put forward as adding to the disrespect to the institution of Parliament are epitomized by the activities of the Opposition.

Now, let's look at what they are doing here tonight. To offer a quote by Thomas Browne who said, "It is a brave act of valour to despise death, but where life is more terrible than death, it is then the truest valour to dare to live." I would say that is what we are suffering here tonight, Mr. Speaker. We are daring to live and put up with the issue that the Opposition has brought forward, namely as to whether we should shut down at seven o'clock at eight-thirty in the evening. It is something that is totally beyond comprehension, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have a public meeting in your district.

MR. RAMSAY: I will have a public meeting in my district and I would invite you to come, Sir.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Yes, you come on anytime to my district. I have no problem whatsoever with that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as opposed to being sidetracked by the hon. member opposite, I think we should look at the issue of Newfoundland Hydro and weigh the factors that anyone who is sitting around the table making a decision on this would look at in trying to decide: Is this a good deal for the Province? Is it a good deal for the people of the Province? Really, we probably shouldn't be talking about it because on a point of relevance to the issue of whether we should have closed at seven, which really is what we are debating here, how could we legitimately talk about anything other than when we should close.

So following the lead of the hon. members opposite - not that I am easily led - certainly I think that activity such as theirs would lead one to act in like manner, and offer back to you what you have offered to us in the substance of the debate. The substance of the debate, with respect to the seven o'clock tactic, is one and only one, and that is that you have decided, as a caucus, to impede the normal progress of government business. Therefore this issue of offering to the House whether we were going to close at seven o'clock, and carry that on in perpetuity until ten o'clock in the evening, is certainly one where we have to take a look at the Opposition and see just what you are offering to the people of the Province as an alternative to what we are offering over here.

You say: Don't privatize Hydro. We say we think we should privatize Hydro.

MS. VERGE: Why?

MR. RAMSAY: Well, we ask you the question: Why not?

MS. VERGE: We have given you lots of reasons.

MR. RAMSAY: Oh, but your reasons are faulty because they are based on false premises. The majority of the rationale that you use in Opposition are such that you hold your heart in your hand and say: The water rights will be lost forever. Some of your advocates who advocate on your behalf in the public will say similar things. They will say things such as all of the expertise that was used to negotiate Hydro deals in the past with the province of Quebec will be lost in perpetuity. We will lose all of these people who negotiated the Hydro deals. You speak of things such as the fact that the Hydro employees may experience some efficiencies in the future if in fact they find ways of doing more with less. You would say that is the wrong thing because they are going to lose jobs but in general if efficiencies are realized in the future then we would all be in favour of it, I think, because it should in effect be the kind of issue which when dealing with them pass along lower rates to the hon. members opposite in paying their light bills and should, in effect, pass along lower rates to all of us, and other rate payers throughout the Province.

If there are efficiencies to be realized then they should be realized. There is no doubt about it. The way electrical utilities are performing throughout North America these days, and the rest of the country, if we are left with a hydro utility that does not operate efficiently, then I do not think you people would support the people who run it as an inefficient utility. Now, you might maintain that it is certainly efficient now but maybe there are efficiencies that can be found in the future. Never say never. Never say there are not improvements that can be made. There are possibly improvements that can be made in your dealing with the issue. You have done a very good job, and I applaud you all for it, in having riled up the people with a lack of information and getting them to call into the open line shows and say: I don't like this, boy, because they are going to take something away from us. That is wrong. I agree with Ms Verge and I agree with this one and that one, and I agree with Mr. Vetter and all of this stuff.

That is fine. But as soon as you ask the people out there why, they are at a blank as to the reasons why they are following that lead. It is the emotional triggers that you people are using without offering the facts. Once the facts are out there and offered to the people then the people will decide. If down the road that you were proven right and we as a caucus and a government over here were proven wrong, then I submit that the people should decide if - and that is but one of the issues that the people of the Province will decide the next general election on.

Why would it be too late? If in fact it is so worthwhile. Unless it is going to grow in value. If you as a government wanted to buy it back I'm certain - if you think that it is not going to grow in value and this sort of thing, I'm sure that you as a government could go and try and buy it back, if you felt that strongly about it, if it is such an initiative. You should certainly be able to do so.

It is easy to avoid economic reality when you are in the Opposition because you don't have to own up to the facts, you don't have to own up to the financial reality of the fiscal situation of the Province. When that is saddled on your shoulders your arguments take certainly a back seat to the facts as presented to the people of the Province. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would think that based on that kind of issue we should be able to debate the facts of the privatization bills and not debate a silly motion as to whether we should shut down for 7:00 p.m. or 8:00 p.m., which is one of the silly tactics -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

MR. RAMSAY: Like I say, there is the absurdity. I would love to debate it, but the Opposition has prevented us as a government from raising the issue in the proper order and course of business here in the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the Opposition really shall die on their own sword. They've put forward a position and they've now found themselves caught, having put forward this 7:00 p.m. motion, on into 10:00 p.m., and they are showing the people of the Province the absurdity in their position, and offering to the people of the Province the fact that they just really do not have an alternative.

Just think of it. Maybe one of these days the hon. members opposite will probably be such that they will tell their grandchildren: I will tell you one - we had a debate in the House of Assembly one night, and do you know what we debated? We debated whether we were going to close it at 7:00 p.m., until 10:00 p.m. Just think of it. They will say: Is that what you did for a living? Did you go there and represent the people of your district and say that you were going to go on and on, and three hours after the fact of the time in which you were supposed to be dealing with something, you decided to put the motion forward and say: Yes, at 10:00 p.m. we decided that we weren't going to shut down at 7:00 p.m.

Maybe there is a rule in parliamentary practice, in Beauchesne or something somewhere, that an absurdity should not be able to be debated. That an issue like this which is presupposed by the fact that the time has passed shouldn't be able to be handled. Maybe if you can look through the journals of the House I am sure that members of parliament, in a provincial parliament of our great nation of Canada, should not be able to debate as to whether we are going to shut down at 7:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. It certainly is absurd, it certainly is a matter that we would ask Your Honour to check and see if this could certainly be rectified. Because I think it is an abuse of the privileges of the House, not at all unlike the abuse that the hon. members have wreaked upon the petitioners.

Those petitioners who think that they are signing petitions that are going to be dutifully presented here by the Opposition are being used as a political tool for the Opposition to delay the proceedings of the House. I think that those petitioners would be extremely upset to think that they signed documents for presentation by hon. members opposite, and to be abused by the Opposition as tools for their political games when the people of the areas that they represent, and the people of the Province who signed these petitions say to themselves: Well, it's going to be raised in the House. When they find that they were nothing but another tactic in the bag of tricks of the hon. Opposition, it is certainly something that should be looked into, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, with that I will certainly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: It's amazing when you get under their skin that they just really can't keep quiet when you're speaking. I know; I do it myself from time to time. I give them a little bit of a dig here and there, you know, the worms and the other issues that we deal with here, but I think really the people of the Province have to look at, number one, the fact that the Opposition have impeded the proceedings of the House. If government has to answer for the Hydro privatization bill then let us answer for it, Mr. Speaker. We are game for it, and let the hon. Opposition do their part in impeding, but let the people of the Province know that we have tried to bring it forward for decision and consideration. We have tried to bring it forward for proper and thorough debate here in this House, and I would submit that the Opposition have impeded us already and we haven't even gotten into the debate very much yet. Honourable members on this side who want the opportunity to be able to debate the issue are being prevented and impeded from doing so by the hon. members of the Opposition.

Also, the petitioners who signed petitions put forward by members of the Opposition, I would think, and in some cases put forward very, very justly and with an issue of concern by their constituents, by our constituents, thinking that it is going to be presented in a manner of respect, for the fact of petitioning is one that we owe our creation as a Province of this great nation to. It was through the petitioning, the ability of people of the Province to petition, that we are now part of this great nation of Canada, and to think that they would abuse the sensibilities of petitioners, and abuse the rights for these petitioners to be heard in other than the fact of them using it as a tactic, a parliamentary tactic, I think it is abhorrent and should certainly be looked into. Maybe the Speaker could certainly bring forward an opinion as to whether the use of petitions as such should be curtailed and curbed.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that you could certainly make a precedent here. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition said today, sometimes it is for the Speaker to not necessarily follow the precedents of the past but to set precedent himself, and I would think on that issue that it certainly would be a wise ruling of the Speaker to avoid accepting the abuse of petitioners of this wonderful House of Assembly where the issues should be heard forthwith and without being impeded improperly by the Opposition. Sure, they can use the parliamentary practices and tactics, but certainly one would have to look at the tactics that they have used, and say to themselves that they have really done themselves and the people of the Province a disservice by preventing this issue from being heard, by preventing the time of the House from being used properly in debating the issue at hand. Go and do your research; bring your facts back, and we will debate you any day.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I am happy to stand here this evening and have a few comments on this particular motion. I have to say, first off we talk about abuse by the Member for LaPoile - it is too bad he left so quickly there - abuse of the Opposition. All I could do was sit back and think about abuse of democracy, and I can tell you right now that you people are abusing the system totally when you don't give people a chance to have a say on probably the biggest issue ever to hit this Province - no public input whatsoever.

This Friday at seven o'clock I am going to do what I have been asked to do the last few weeks now. You people all say that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, we won't be pushed off like you people have been pushed off, anyway. At least I will have my own say.

I will go to the people of my district. I will tell them when the meeting is on. They will come; they will have a chance to ask questions. I will give both sides of it. As far as privatization of Hydro, I will give your version as much as I can, which I don't like and I will give our version and you are all invited to come, so anybody who wants to come into the Baie Verte - White Bay district, come and sit in on the meeting and if you don't think I am giving both sides or version, come out and you stand up and we will see that you get it out first.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: You can stay at my house, no problem. I invite the Member for St. John's South to come out, stay at my house and attend the meeting. He can stay at the house, if he wants to come out to our meeting and get both sides. I will tell you on privatization in general before I go on and that is why I said both sides.

As the member said earlier we were just talking about Computer Services that somebody mentioned a bit earlier. Just earlier this week, I had the privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products put forward, and I can tell the hon. member over here right now as applauding that, the privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products, I am looking at all of that right now and everything that's coming in, and I will have a look at both sides again, and I did it with this issue also and we also did it with Computer Services and I can tell you right here now, that those three do not match in this way.

You are talking about Computer Services and you are talking about Newfoundland Farm Products; you are talking about Hydro that is a utility of this Province, it is a birthright and we are about to make the biggest mistake since Churchill Falls by this motion you are putting forward now on this Hydro bill. The second challenge is, for all of you to give the chance to speak and never mind the rhetoric and the foolishness that went on here earlier because I think it is a load of bull - I don't know if I can use that word, I don't know if I can or not but I just did. Never mind that, but to sit back in your seats and never mind the foolishness and the rhetoric and the jokes by the House Leader which - I mean a charade; if he says charade in my district, they will run him out of town. What's a charade? This is no charade. You talk about tactics, charade, there is supposed to be a charade, not a charade.

MR. ROBERTS: It is supposed to be (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If you think it's a charade, we haven't started to charade you yet because we are going to continue this and I don't care what tactics you talk about, I will use any tactic I can to do what you people have missed out on and that is giving the people a chance to have a say, and if we can put this off for another week or another month, hopefully another year maybe somebody over there will push it off like they did with Fortis, because this is a wrong thing for this Province and you talk about grandchildren and future generations, you know, you are going to be the group that is going to sit back when you are in opposition in three years time and talk about the big booboo you made again. The second one, you did one in the 60s and you are about to do the second major booboo again within weeks, and within three years, when you change and you look over here from the other side, we are going to be reminding you of that the same as we are reminding you about Churchill Falls because things are happening on this issue, that is going to come to the forefront and the question I have to ask you is: why are you afraid to put it to the public?

Why, won't somebody over there have the gall to stand up and answer that question? If you think it is such a great thing, then do consultation, go out and have those meetings we are having. One committee, I mean, you waste so much money what's wrong with one more committee? I mean, you are sending electoral boundaries around twice, why not cancel one of those and give it to this committee for Hydro and let them go around once? That's all we are asking; that's a simple thing; and tactics? You talk about tactics, I will use any tactic that I can use and I haven't even figured them out yet, we haven't been around here long enough but if I can find one I will use it. I will use any tactic to delay, cancel or ruin this move. I will do any of them. I haven't found them all yet but we will before this is all over; but at least the people of my district will know that we have given them every opportunity to have a say here. I mean, I was asked, not for me to come out but I was asked could we get government members to come out or the energy minister to come out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: If he is, he should be a critic, that would be the best place for him because he is not saying anything. He doesn't know about anything else so he should be asking the questions. He couldn't answer the questions, he is in the right place now anyway, he is moving closer.

MR. MURPHY: I told you, (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, well you can use your rhetoric and that is a little foolish; a lot of childishness comes from that side and when we talk about childishness we have the Member for St. John's South. I mean, I couldn'd believe it sometimes how low they would stoop with some of the comments from the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to the hon. member over here about her husband, I mean, that type of foolishness, you know. And if you think this is not serious enough, I will stay here till five tomorrow morning or right on till June, if I have to; there is no foolishness here, this is a serious, serious issue and that's the way I am handling it, and if we have to throw a joke in for a little bit of humour at three o'clock in the morning, maybe we will do that, but for the most part, 99 per cent of the time, we should stick to the issue and talk about it every chance we get. This particular tactic of moving on for 7:00 p.m. adjournment, well, if this gives me a chance to speak on Hydro for another little while, then that is great. If we have another little tactic to use tomorrow night I will do the same thing again.

Every minute, every thirty seconds that we can scrape together to talk about Hydro, then we are going to do it, each and every one of us. We are committed to it. I put a challenge to you again, each and every one of you, and all heart and soul that you keep talking about over there, you have some backbone, to have a little bit of backbone and stand up and really say what you think of Hydro.

You may be kicked out here by our illustrious Leader over here but don't be afraid. Stand up. Go talk to people in your district. I tell you to go talk to people in your district If you have to come back here and say: Premier, I'm sorry, my district is against it, I've been studying it since and I can't agree with this move, it is going to be detrimental to this Province, stand up in your seat over there. He is not going to crucify you. Stand up and say what you have to say.

Because I do not believe, not for one minute, that every single one of you over there agrees with that. You all stood up tonight, some of you there - especially the Member for St. John's South. He can hardly keep the smile off his face. Honestly believe it was like a brainwash, he was like he was computerized, he was just standing there: This is what the Premier told me to say and I'm going to say it. I don't really believe it. Because you didn't believe what you were saying there tonight. You didn't believe it. I challenge you to come down to Baie Verte - White Bay and stand up in my District and say you believe it. You come down there and try to say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: You don't believe it, not for one minute.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) stand up in his own district!

MR. SHELLEY: Stand up there. Let me see the public meetings that are going to go ahead in your own district. Do it for yourself. You were elected by your constituents. You weren't elected by this Premier, you were elected by the people in your district, so stand up and speak for them. Whatever that means, so be it. Have the gall to do it.

I will tell you something else typical about this government and this issue. I don't want to bring too many of them up now because there are too many of them to talk about. You talk about ATVs, denominational educational. I can't think of one issue where you guys haven't tried to ram something through and without any consultation. When have you gone to sit down to talk to the average Newfoundlander before you've done it? You set up these committees, or you get your five wise men from the Premier. When have you done it?

Then the Member for St. John's South stands up and says: We got a mandate to go ahead with the privatization on May 3 to go through with this. I don't know what province you were in when you said it. You might have been in Nova Scotia. What province did you talk about it? There is not a man or woman over there who can stand and tell me that on May 3, especially the Member for St. John's South -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Hold on, Harvey. Hang on, Harvey. There is not a member over there, especially the Member for St. John's South, who can stand up with any truth in his bones whatsoever and tell me that you on May 3 when you won the election said you won on a mandate to privatize Hydro. If you say that -

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

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Again I say to the hon. member that in my campaign literature on May 3, one of the things that I had printed in there, loud and clear, for the people in the riding of St. John's South, was how much I advocated the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now, let the member know that.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Well, how relieved am I to hear that. Because you might have had -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I was just about to ask you, I would like to see it. It must be fine print on the bottom. Because I can tell you one thing, that it certainly wasn't known in this Province about the privatization of Hydro. Not one murmur. Not only that, but after I came into this House, and I'm being as honest as I can with you here today - I would like to find the Hansard of the day - but when we asked about the privatization of Hydro the Minister of Mines and Energy stood and said: There is no privatization of Hydro, there are no talks going on. We find out after it is all there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Don't tell me that the agenda during that election was about Hydro. It certainly wasn't and there is no member over there who can tell me the difference. When this election was going ahead the big thing was the attack on the teachers, we're going to get the teachers. So who's it going to be? Me, the illustrious or the teachers going to run this Province? That was the issue and then what happened behind all of that? Hydro, denominational education -

AN HON. MEMBER: Teachers lost.

MR. SHELLEY: - teachers lost? Maybe they did lose at that particular election but they didn't lose because that part is not finished yet as you're soon going to find and get a taste of that one.

You talk about democracy, I mean this is your chance to get out there and let some people have their say on this. Go out and call your meetings now. I'd like to see next week, before this all goes through and say, there's a meeting out in my district. A Liberal MHA - let's see who's got the gall to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Invite the Minister of Education down to talk to them.

MS. VERGE: A meeting in St. John's Centre.

MR. SHELLEY: St. John's Centre, that'll be a nice one. I'd attend those and by the way, since I challenged all of you guys, if you do have a meeting in your districts, I'll surely - if I'm around - I'd certainly like to attend, maybe give my side like you would be giving yours, like I just asked you to do the same thing in ours.

Some of the things that strike you, real quickly - not to get into the specifics of this particular bill right now but the Churchill -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I mean you got to keep saying that. Can somebody guarantee us over there, that you're sure - I'm not sure if you know about this bill yet. You all sit back and pretend you know it all. We're still learning, we're still studying it. Can somebody over there stand and guarantee me that in two, three or four years from now, after this Hydro privatization goes through, that Churchill Falls will not be on the next chopping block? Can somebody guarantee us that?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, well if you can't guarantee it then aren't you - so the Member for St. John's South said he can't guarantee us that Churchill Falls will not be gone totally to the private sector, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh my, now we'll hear it all. So if you can't guarantee it -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: - and don't you believe that Churchill Falls has a great potential and that we are probably giving up that chance? Do you agree with that?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well now you're starting to come around, now we're starting to get it all. That's the typical process.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I wish that everybody would take it in their soul, sit back, think about it, not listen to the rhetoric of the House Leader here tonight or especially the Member for St. John's South, just search your soul a little bit - especially you guys sitting in the back-benches there, worrying about Cabinet positions or whatever you're worrying about, get up and have the gall to speak out loud on your own. Say what you really believe but before you do it, go and ask your constituents about this one issue and if you're not hearing it, it's because you're not talking about it and you're not listening.

How many of you have been out in your district and people have approached you on it? How many people have been asked about it? Stand up, don't stay too close to the front desk here. Get out on your own. You were elected by people. You weren't elected by Cabinet or a dictatorship. Go out and listen to the people who have something to say here and remember that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I am forced to rise this evening in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I had the pleasure to attend a national conference in Alberta representing the Deputy Premier, Mr. Baker. Mr. Speaker, that conference was on reinventing government and took a look at a number of aspects of parliamentary democracy in Canada. In particular, Mr. Speaker, it talked about the role of parliament and the role of an elected member. That conference was represented by all political parties at all levels of government in the country. Preston Manning, Leader of the Reform Party was there; Peter Milliken from the House Leaders in Ottawa was there, Mr. Speaker. One of the things that was heavily debated was the role of parliament. The House of Commons and provincial parliaments were talked about extensively. There is absolutely no doubt on the submissions that were made to the conference by a Professor Hilton from the University of Lethbridge, from other very expert opinions all across this country on the role of parliament.

All the submissions that were made show clearly that the people of this country have lost a lot of confidence, a tremendous amount of confidence, in parliament itself, and they've lost a tremendous amount of confidence in the members of parliament and indeed the politicians of the provincial Legislatures.

One of the reasons why they have lost confidence in parliament is because of things like we have witnessed here today. I submit that the people of this country and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would be shocked to know that since 2:00 p.m. today we have had absolutely nothing happen in this parliament other than childish political games being played with the people's business. That is the truth. It is total and unequivocal obstruction and people don't want to see that. They are paying very high dollars to see the parliament of this Province work.

They want to see the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say on the merits of this legislation that it is wrong. They want that person to do that. That is what his job is mandated to do under the Constitution. They are supposed to do that, and we want them to do that. The government needs a strong Opposition to point out the weaknesses in our legislation and our laws that we propose to make. What we have seen here today is absolutely nothing on that level, but all-encompassing small political games, where people are trying one-upmanship on whether they can have a rule in their favour on a technicality under the rules of order.

Not one minute have we seen with constructive debate on the issue of whether we should privatize Hydro or whether the proposal that we put forward has certain elements in it that should not be carried forward. That is the kind of thing that people want to see. They want to see our members of the House of Assembly take their job seriously. If it means sitting all night, nobody has any problem with that. We are not saying over here that there has to be a date in place, a magic time when this has got to be finished or not finished. We want to see a constructive debate on the issue. I think the people of this Province must be told that for five, six, seven hours so far today we have not had one constructive comment made in this House by the Opposition who are demanding - that is the irony I guess of it all - they are here demanding that they be given time to debate and constructively tell us what is wrong with our bill, but not on one occasion have they done that. As a matter of fact, they have put every kind of parliamentary stumbling block in place to see that we don't even have the bill on the floor for debate.

That is an abuse, I would submit, of parliamentary privilege, and it is something that is long overdue in this House to reform the rules and Standing Orders so that we don't allow this. We've seen petitions today used for the sole purpose of being able to obstruct the business of the House. Petitions should not be allowed to do that. They should be done away with at least to give the person who is submitting it maybe five minutes to state their case or table the petition. But petitions should not be used when you take one sheet of a petition and present it, and then five minutes after another member takes another sheet of the same petition and represents this as a grass roots representation of disgust or opposition to a particular piece of legislation. That is not what petitions are for. They should never be used that way, Mr. Speaker. They are obviously being used for a partisan, political purpose here today. People want to see constructive criticism.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to touch on the role of the member. I listened to members opposite and I know not all of them have had any time understanding the role of Parliament from an academic point of view, but you know, there are two roles to being a member of Parliament. There is one role where you just become a delegate of the people, where you just hold up your finger and whatever the people say you do. Now, that is one role. You go to public opinion, you do a survey, and whatever the people want, you do. That is one way that you can be a member of Parliament or a member of the Legislature, but, Mr. Speaker, that is not a very good way to totally carry out your duties as a member of the people.

There are times when there are issues about which you know the level of information is just not available to people so they can make a solid judgement. We have seen issues like that. We have seen issues where there have been some moral implications to the issue, like the issue of capital punishment. You would find, if you took a poll on capital punishment, that the vast majority of people feel that for certain crimes there should be a capital punishment sentence put in place. If you went then and asked the people again, would they be the ones who would do the awful deed if they were in the position, you will find something else. So just because you have a question on capital punishment to put to the House, and the people out there overwhelming say you should do it, that doesn't mean you come in here and jump up and carry out the wishes of that constituency, because they may not be in the best interests of society.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what a member of this House should do, not unlike any other member, is try and mix the two, where you use your own judgement because you use the merits that you bring to this House. People in my riding, not unlike the people in Fortune - Hermitage or Naskaupi or any other riding, have elected people because of certain credentials. They have elected them to do a job. They elected them to be able to put their trust in them and be able to go in there knowing that they are going to approach an issue on the basis of reason, on the basis of a constructive criticism. They are going to bring their merits to the table to bear on the issues of the day.

I know from my people, when I go back - not unlike what happened under the Meech Lake Accord or under the Charlottetown Accord, when you go to them on issues like that, they would clearly tell you: I don't know what you are doing here asking me what you should do, I gave you a mandate to do something. I elected you. That is why we elect people, Mr. Speaker, to represent people so they can bring their own judgement to bear.

This is a situation that we have here today, we have a situation where we are expected to lead. The people of Eagle River, I believe, have trust in their member. I believe the people have trust in the Member for Gander or the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle, Mr. Speaker. They have trust knowing that they are in here. The people of this Province have no fear - there is not a record, there is not an issue in this Province in the last five years where the people can clearly say: You did us wrong, you intentionally tried to hurt us, you intentionally did something that was not in our best interests. Mr. Speaker, we have not done that. If we had done that, we wouldn't have gotten elected again in 1993 as we did in 1989. People don't elect people if they have absolutely no trust in them. They returned us to the seat of government because we were able to exercise good, solid judgement and good government for the people by bringing our merits and our expertise to the table, Mr. Speaker. This issue is no different.

I want to also submit to the members over there who are so quick to jump up and say to the members over here on the back benches and particularly those who just got in here this past election and they haven't been used to the mannerisms that they usually get on with, and that is saying to the people: Get up and speak up and be there and have the courage and the intestinal fortitude to do what the Premier won't allow you to do. I mean, it is so brave.

Let's look at the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister of Treasury Board, when he was in that Cabinet. When he wouldn't allow the House of Assembly to be open. He wouldn't allow the people's business to be done. He wouldn't insist on parliament being able to exercise what it is there for. He wouldn't be prepared to allow one hour's debate on any issues of the day. That is the record of the Leader of the Opposition. Now he wants the House closed again so he can go for more public debate. When it came to that infamous issue - and I know that the Member for Mount Pearl said earlier today he spoke up alright. He spoke up in Cabinet and he spoke up in caucus. But you can see the record, the record speaks for itself, never was there a time, not once in all the days that he spent inside that Cabinet room or inside that caucus room, that he was the one who got out and said: We must open this House of Assembly. We must give the people a chance to have their issues debated. We must not allow the Orders in Council for millions of dollars of taxpayers money to be spent on a grossly misguided project like the Sprung project.

This is the kind of leadership that they've given to us. The Member for Grand Bank was a member of the Cabinet. Not once in all the years that he was there did he come out to the people of this Province and say: Mr. Premier, this is not good enough, let's open the House of Assembly, let's have the people's business debated, let's have the democratic process take its course, let's have the laws made on the floor of the House, not in an Order in Council. Here is the Member for Grand Bank now trying to go out to the people as this great democrat.

Here is the Member for Humber East, Minister of Justice in the previous government, somebody who is supposed to have conviction towards the democratic process, somebody who is supposed to bring to the table the kind of commitment, the kind of impartial expertise and impartial submissions. You can look at the record, you can look at the ten years that she was inside that Cabinet room, and you will not see one time where she said to the premier of the day: We must open the House of Assembly, we must give the people's business a chance to be done, we must be able to put the money bills through the House of Assembly and not through Order in Council. Not one time.

Here we have other members over there. The Member for Burin - Placentia West, the great Minister of the day in Social Services that everybody knew was there. The old `flick the Bic' himself. He was the one who was so up there now pounding his chest: You should get up and say this to the Premier. What an example he sought. Every time you saw him on t.v. he was chasing around the premier trying to get to his shoes, trying to get around with that lighter: Want another Cuban, Mr. Premier, want another White Owl, Mr. Premier, want another big one, Mr. Premier, no problem, Mr. Premier, here it is. Light her up again. That was his role. He wasn't there demanding that the House of Assembly be open.

He was there: Mr. Premier, yes, we are going down to the Burin Peninsula to meet all your fans. Yes, you are going down there because you are loved by the people on the Burin Peninsula. He goes down to the highway and the Premier says: Mr. Member, what are those people doing there? Why are they carrying the guns? Oh, Mr. Premier, that's nothing, that's the welcoming committee, Mr. Premier, that's the welcoming committee. Why are they pointing them at me, Mr. Member? Oh well, I guess it is time to get back on the bus, Mr. Premier, it is time to get back on the bus.

Yes, Mr. Premier, no problem, no problem, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of example that the people of this Province now are looking to, the same mouths that were over there a few short years ago, saying the people's business was secondary to their own personal, political agenda. The same people who said we are going to use the iron curtain behind which we will write the dollar signs on the cheques and pass those bills with Orders in Council, the same members, the Member for Humber East, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for Grand Bank, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, all of these members who are now the front bench of the Opposition and I know, it is not lost on the people.

The people in my riding are saying to me: what kind of faces do these people have? Who do they think they are fooling? Who do they think they are coming out and trying to fool with the kind of mannerisms that they have, Mr. Speaker? It is time that the people on the Opposition realized that if you are going to take government one day, if you are going to put yourself out as a logical alternative to this government, you are not going to do it on the basis of partisan, political trickery and the obstructionist kind of tactics that we have seen today and I am sure we will see as long as this session continues. That's not how you portray yourself and be able to tell the people that you are an alternative to the good government that we have given to the people for five years and for many more years to come. That's not the kind of leadership that they expect from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

It is not the kind of leadership they expect from a veteran of twelve or fourteen years in the Member for Grand Bank or the Member for Burin - Placentia West, or the Member for Mount Pearl; that's not the kinds of things that the people are looking for; sure, they want to have some concerns raised, they want to have some criticisms levelled at the government, Mr. Speaker, but what we have seen here today, all day, is absolutely nothing to enhance the image of this hon. House, absolutely nothing to enhance the image of the hon. members in this House and absolutely nothing to further the political agenda of the members opposite I would submit.

I am not always one to give any advice to the Opposition, they can do whatever they want, but I do believe that the institution that we have here, of which we are so proud to be a part of, a country which we are so proud to be a member of, that the institution has to be protected. The institution has to rise above the political games and trickery that we have seen here in this hon. House, so, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make those submissions here this afternoon because I am here as somebody who is giving all of his time and all of his energies to try to change things for the better, for the people of this Province.

We are challenging the issues of the day like they were never challenged before and I am proud to be here as a member of this government to see the education issue challenged head on; to see the economy and the investment opportunities out there, trying to attract business to this Province of ours so our people can have jobs and our children can have all the qualities of education and medical care which we are so accustomed to.

I am proud to be here challenging the right of government not to be involved in certain private enterprise. We have no role in raising chickens, we have no role in doing computer services in this day and age, we have no role in mining or real estate or any other things of that nature, Mr. Speaker.

I would submit that the time has come where we have no business in the electrical business or in the generation of electricity or the selling of electricity or the servicing of electricity, that's something that private enterprise can do; that's something that the people out there who have expertise can carry on; our role is to protect the consumer, our role is to protect the people to see that they don't have exorbitant increases in their rates and we are going to exercise that role.

We are going to mandate the Public Utilities Board to make sure that they give scrutiny to all the cases put before them, and to ascertain whether these rate increases that they are requesting are valid or not, and I am sure that process will work. That process has worked for the telephone company, which is a monopoly for the sake of the last eighteen months or so where we saw another company that is attempting to get into that business, but we have seen the telephone company as a big monopoly in a utility that for the last number of years has seen good quality of service and excellent service.

We have seen it in Labrador where they have taken $500,000 and put a telephone service into Williams Harbour, a community of about thirty-five families. That's a private company that is out there doing that. They are doing that because they are able to circulate the increases that they get in the other areas where they make money and subsidize the areas where they know there is still a very real need, but they will never recover that full investment; but that is the kind of judgement that they have brought to bear, and they have brought it to bear because the people, through their government, have demanded that they look at the merits of the case and they also look at investing in the people who cannot afford to pay as they go, and that is the way this country has been built.

I can understand that people would have a philosophical basis for disagreeing with this. There are many people out there who do not believe that there should be a role for private enterprise in anything. There are some out there who adhere to the total communist philosophy and say that Karl Marx is their hero, and that is fine and dandy. If people in this country want to adhere to that particular philosophy, and they want to say that there is no role for government, they want to be a total socialist in their viewpoint, well that is fine. We understand. It is a free country; but I submit to those people, don't hide behind the emotions of people.

Don't go out there putting straw men up and say that your rates are going to increase 50, 60, or 70 per cent. Don't go out there saying that you are going to have nothing left of Hydro; that there is going to be 500 or 600 jobs gone as a result of this transaction. Don't go out fearmongering. Stand up for your principles. Stand up for your philosophy and you will be admired for it, but there is no admiration for anybody who hides behind the emotions of the people who can least afford to be able to answer, and the least afford to be able to ascertain all the facts of the matter, and that is what we are seeing here today. We are seeing the Opposition and other people who have a particular philosophical bent who are rushing ahead, and the game plan is simple: We hope to be able to get to them first so we can bamboozle with all the misinformation. We hope to be able to reach the masses first so that we can inundate them with all the misinformation and hopefully by the time that you get to them they will be so fixated in their view, they will be so entrenched in their position, they will be so hard then to have to change, that they will rise up and revolt against the people and the government, but that has not happened. That has not happened on any number of issues in the past five years, and I submit it will not happen on this issue either.

The people of this Province have to be given more credit. The people of this Province, the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are not like they used to be thirty-five, forty-five or fifty years ago. They know a fraud when they see one. They know. The people of Eagle River know that they are not going to be sacrificed. They do not have a member in there who is going to sell them out. They do not have a member in there who is going to mislead them, who is going to carry them down the garden path.

They know the difference to that, and when they see the buffoonery that we have seen here today, and the kinds of extreme opinions being cast about this Province by members opposite, and other members in the general public, when they see that kind of thing it is even more encouraging to them to know that they have somebody elected there, like the people of St. John's South do, who know that their member is in here ascertaining the true facts of the matter, and that he is going to meet his people, look them straight in the eye, knowing that he is in there doing his best for the people in that area, and knowing that he is going to stand up and be counted if it happens to hurt them.

We are in a position today where this Province is really hurting. We are in a Province today where we have to really grapple with the financial aspects of our governing that we have not seen before.

Down in my own riding where we have just opened a chronic care facility, every day we see the admiration and the views that are expressed to me by the people. They are saying to me that it is time they got the facility because it was so needed. They wanted to have it there and they have it there now, but we cannot continue to provide the chronic care facilities, the small schools program, or the other surgical units for our people if we cannot pay for them. It is not lost on the people anymore. They know that government has been spending beyond its means for too many years. They know when they see the big federal government, one of the G7 in this world, having to cut back so drastically in their programs. They know that governments cannot do what they were always able to do.

They know now that hard choices have to be made and they are out there saying to me: we want to have our education standards, we want to have our health care standards. We are here now talking about people who are saying they may go on strike, Mr. Speaker, because they are not able to get more money. We may go on strike and sacrifice the things we are trying to build, but that is not the kind of thing that people want. They want to maintain the facilities that we have, as I just mentioned, but they know that we have to find money. We cannot sit back and have a Cadillac in the driveway with no gas to put into it. We cannot have a situation where we have the assets but we are not able to operate them, we are not able to run them. We cannot sit back having our chronic care facility and our high technology and surgical procedures at the Health Sciences Complex and not have the money to operate them. That would be doing a very, very great injustice to our people and they do not deserve that.

I submit it is time that we looked, and this is what the people are giving us credit for. We are looking at our assets. We are saying with sound judgement and with good reason, constructively saying, what things can the private sector do that we are not doing now and which will give us some kind of cash to be able to meet our financial commitments in health care, education, and other social services?

The Minister of Social Services is now having to grapple with another big demand in being able to give people a basic income so that they will be able to feed their families. Those are the kind of demands that are on this government. We are seeing these demands on the Minister of Social Services, on the Minister of Health, on the Minister of Education, and on the Minister of Justice. They are saying to us, look around you, look at where you can save some money from your own expenditures, and we have done that. Look at where you can cut out a program that does not work, and we have done that. We have trimmed the civil service to the core, Mr. Speaker, and they are now saying it is time to look at some of your assets and see if you cannot find some money to keep those things that we hold so dear.

That is what we are doing with Hydro and I submit to the people of this Province that we are doing nothing more than being good stewards of their affairs. We are doing nothing more than bringing our strongest commitment possible, and our commitment is for good government, and to be able to keep our standard of living in this great Province, but at the same time not shy away from the challenges that are there before us. It is only those who challenge the system that will change the system and make it better so that our people can continue to admire the process we have and the leadership we put our trust in.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that will be the record of the day when we go back to the people in three or four years time and that record will hold us strong, Mr. Speaker, that will hold us strong. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that all members of this House should not be using parliament and should not be using this House of Assembly for their partisan political furtherance. They should not be using their positions as a member of the House of Assembly to purely look at whether they are going to move ahead in the polls a point or two.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. DUMARESQUE: They should be looking, Mr. Speaker, at the best possible government for this people and that's what we're going to continue to prove day by day, month after month, year by year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say that I enjoyed listening to the preacher from The World Tomorrow over there on the other side. I think the fellow is living in a dream world as well as many of the other people who are sitting back there in the benches. When I hear the hon. members get up and talk about wasting time in the House, I'm surprised that everybody over there is taking part in the debate and spending more time on wasting time then the people over here on this side of the House.

The Member for St. John's South, Mr. Speaker, continues to interrupt and shout accusations across the floor. I always remember the first time he rolled into Charleston, the fish plant in Charleston when he was working with FPI. At that time he was following another Mr. Wells, a Mr. Bill Wells and Victor Young, and he was tight to the rear end as he was walking up the steps, Mr. Speaker, and if they had stopped, there would have been no member over there from St. John's South wearing glasses or grey hair tonight, I can assure you. I see you now walking up over the steps. He's doing the same thing, Mr. Speaker, he's playing the same agenda here tonight, he's playing the same agenda here now.

I don't know where the hon. members are coming from on the other side, especially the hon. members who are representing rural areas. I refer to the Member for Trinity North, the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for Bonavista North. I talked to a lot of people from those districts, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you that when they get up and they tap their desks here in this House, that they are not representing the wishes of their people. They're not representing the wishes of their constituents.

It was only Thursday night, in fact, myself and the Member for Trinity North attended a joint council meeting down in his district and I had five of those badges and the five of them went to members from his district. They all came up and wanted a badge. They didn't want a badge to carry home for their kids to put on their school bag, they put it on there in the hall and wore it home. So, Mr. Speaker, when those people get up to speak I can assure you they are not representing their constituents, they're representing their leader.

I have a little documentation here, a little letter to the editor, Mr. Speaker, that just goes to prove exactly what I said. I won't read it all but it's written by a fisherman from Bonavista, just to show you what the people on the other side, the back-benchers, what they're saying out when they're talking to other people and what they're saying here in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all.

MR. FITZGERALD: Do you want it all read? I think the story deserves to be read, Mr. Speaker, and it's a catching title, it's called, `Just a Bunch of Puppets.'

Dear Editor: Please allow me space in your paper to express my views on a couple of important issues that are crucial to the people of rural Newfoundland. First, there is a proposal from the Liberal Government to reform our social programs. Mr. Wells is proposing to implement a program known as ISP because he feels that we fishermen and all seasonal workers, are too lazy, uneducated and too comfortable living on UI to go out and get one of those imaginable jobs that he's always talking about. He wants to abolish fishermen's UI altogether and increase the qualifying period for all seasonal workers from ten weeks up to twenty weeks and in turn decrease the benefit period to twenty weeks. Now, with the downturn in the fishery, how in the name of Clyde are they going to qualify for UI? So in effect Wells is really proposing to eliminate UI for all seasonal workers and reduce us all to welfare.

As if that was not bad enough I now hear that the federal government is consulting with the provincial government on a new program to replace NCARP in May. Can you imagine our fate being left in the hands of Clyde Wells? I can only say, God help us. With the actions of Clyde Wells on important issues facing the Province such as ISP - and it is strange, he goes on to say - Hydro and the educational system I am beginning to believe that Wells is in effect the reincarnation of a dictator who once ruled Germany. The people of Germany had to live in fear of Adolph Hitler and the people in Newfoundland are living in fear of a dictatorship being led by this Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: I'm reading from the paper, hon. member: I look at the Premier as being a dictator because regardless of the issue, or how much objection is voiced on the issue, it is still going to be Clyde's way or no way. The Cabinet ministers and all other members of the Liberal government are not any better than the Premier. The government members are all a bunch of puppets, each having their strings pulled by the almighty Clyde. Let me give you an example of a puppet.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, the inshore fisherman, goes on to say: While attending a conference in Clarenville sponsored by the Inshore Fishermen's Committee three weeks ago I had the fortune to be sitting across the table from Doug Oldford, MHA for Trinity North. Being placed in this position I could not resist questioning Mr. Oldford about the ISP and to my surprise he admitted that in fact he did not agree with certain portions of the proposal. Among them were the requirement for twenty weeks to qualify for UI and the abolishment of the fishermen's UI. Having told me this I asked him why he would not come out in public with a statement about the Income Support Program. He told me he had never seen any reason to do so. So I challenged him to be a true representative of the people. Show some integrity and come forth with a statement to the media stating how he felt about the ISP. He told me he would within one week.

That was three weeks ago and still no statement. I guess Clyde got to him too. So now I am keeping my side of the deal. I told him that if he did not make a statement that I would make one and let the people know just what kind of people we have representing us in the Newfoundland Legislature today. There is one thing that all elected - and this is the paragraph, Mr. Speaker, this is the paragraph that sums it up right here, this is what we've been saying, and he has it here in a nutshell, he goes on to say - there is one thing that all elected representatives must keep in mind, and that is, they were elected to represent the best interests of the public and not their almighty leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is what is happening over there, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Looking for a Cabinet post, that is all.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, well, the Member for Bellevue last weekend, we attended an income support program in Clarenville, which Dr. Doug House the great author of that wonderful program attended. I understand there were other members invited but myself and the hon. member were the only two people who had enough interest to attend.

AN HON. MEMBER: What hon. member?

MR. FITZGERALD: The hon. the Member for Bellevue. He was approached at the time, and his comment was - and I give him every bit of credit in the world. He did come forward. Like other members who were invited didn't have the encouragement to do, or didn't have the will to do, or didn't care what the people said. The Member for Bellevue did show up and he listened. When he was asked what he thought of the program his comment was - and I believe, and he can correct me if I'm wrong - that: I'm here today to listen. It was only a proposal that was put forward. We'll have a chance to listen, and at the end of the day we will either vote for it or against it, but I'm here today to listen.

Mr. Speaker, he was reminded, as I remind all other members, this bill here, once it goes forward and it is brought to the House, it is too late. The damage is already done, Mr. Speaker, and you haven't consulted your electorate.

I haven't been around politics as long as the people on the other side. In fact, my memory is not as long as the memory of the member from Eagle River who got up. I think this is probably your second term, is it? He went back to days gone by. He talked about the Sprung greenhouse. He talked about all the things that happened in years gone by.

I remember those governments as well. I remember we had a Premier who went around and was part of the people for a number of terms. He was there getting his picture taken with the ladies and with the young people. People could relate to him, and they went out and supported him because he was one of the people. Then, all of the sudden, he started wearing long fur coats and smoking big cigars and not listening to the people. They sent him a message the next time around, and that is what is going to happen to this government here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that, wearing long fur coats and smoking big cigars?

MR. FITZGERALD: You know who it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was Brian A.

MR. FITZGERALD: We had a government up in Ottawa who didn't listen to the people, turned its back on the people, followed its own agenda. Everybody behind him were tapping the desks like they are doing here. Wonderful man! Forgot their people. The people again spoke very loudly. They went out, Mr. Speaker, and they told them that they must listen to the people.

So when the Member for Eagle River stands up and says they have to make those decisions - and he almost went on to say that it doesn't matter what the electorate says, because I know what is best. You gave me the mandate to come in here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I sit in the House of Assembly, there is no need of me going back to ask you anymore. That is the shame of this bill, Mr. Speaker! That is the shame of it?

Then you talk about petitions. Everybody who got up on the other side spoke about petitions. It was a charade. I forget what the hon. Minister of Justice called it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A `charade.' A `charade.'

MR. FITZGERALD: The hon. Minister of Justice called it a `charade.' It was a charade, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what it was, they said.

I can tell you, when I went down to Bonavista, Mr. Speaker, and called a meeting and invited people to come out and explain the Income Support Program, we weren't fearmongering. We had the book, it was passed around and people could read it for themselves. All we did was provide a little bit of information and did what you people are not doing, listened to the people. That is what is not being done, I say, Mr. Speaker, over there, and that is why this bill should be stalled. We should use every tactic possible to make sure that the people have a chance to come forward.

I guess everybody has a reason for wanting to stall something. My reason is that we are going down to my district again, and I am sure that the hall there will be occupied by people from Trinity North and from Terra Nova, probably as far away as Bellevue. They will come down because they have concerns and they have members who are not listening to their people when they get up in this House, knock on the desks and support their Premier, and haven't got the backbone to stand up.

So what I say to you, and I say it very briefly, Mr. Speaker, is: If anybody over there on that side of the House right now think they are going to be elected, because the Minister of Justice says it is good for Newfoundland and it is good for everybody else because they say so, I am afraid that we will see a lot of new faces sitting on this side of the House when we come back again after the next election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: So listen to your people, speak for your people when you get here. That is why you were elected on May 3. You weren't elected on the agenda to come out and privatize Hydro.

The Member for St. John's South said he included it in his literature. I believe him. I believe that he did. I believe the member when he says that. I am sure that he did include it, but I can assure you that it wasn't part of the Liberal agenda to get elected.

The Income Support Program -

MR. SIMMS: I asked about it during the election and they denied it.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was also raised here shortly after the House opened, if I recall, and everybody denied it as well at that particular time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I admitted that you probably did. I have no reason to believe that you didn't. I am sure that you did, but the Liberal government didn't make it part of their platform at that time.

I remember what happened to me. I ran in Bonavista South in 1989 and I lost by eighteen votes. I can assure you that those eighteen votes, or the 200 more that I would have picked up, were shot down because at that time Mr. Crosbie and the federal government even talked about, they were just saying they may fool around with unemployment insurance, and unemployment insurance in my district is no different than unemployment insurance in any other rural Newfoundland district. It is part of the people's livelihood when they go out and work at seasonal jobs. The unemployment insurance is part of their budget when they go out to buy groceries, and I suppose when they clothe their children, or be allowed to send them back to school, and if you go out and take that kind of thing from the people in rural Newfoundland then you are not going to be there the next time around, I can assure you. You will be there, but you won't be coming back here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get into the text of my speech I would like to first of all find out from members opposite if they intend to have a vote at ten o'clock.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: You intend to have a vote at ten o'clock. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: If not we could debate this tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: You have something else tomorrow?

MR. SIMMS: Unless the minister wants us to carry on.

MR. ROBERTS: Don't tempt him.

MR. BAKER: I could go on for quite some time - probably do the Budget Speech.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening, and taking note of what has been said in this debate so far, and I am struck by a number of things, first of all, the absolute lack of any kind of vision that members opposite have - a total, absolute lack of vision.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much vision does it take (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, I would say to members opposite - and this is a very serious comment - that one of the major reasons why we have gotten into such a mess as we are in now is that past governments, of all political stripes, have simply thought no further than the end of their noses, have not looked ahead any more than a few days, and certainly not beyond the next election.

We just heard the Member for Bonavista South make the case for unemployment insurance, and not to make any change at all in unemployment insurance. The reason he gave was quite simply that he would be afraid he would alienate a few voters. Now, Mr. Speaker, what leadership, what vision for the future.

The hon. member, I am sure, must understand that whatever benefits we have must be paid for, and that if we are not paying for benefits eventually we are going to lose them. The surest way to disaster in this Province is to continue to make promises that can't be kept, to continue to make financial commitments that can never be met. The surest way to disaster.

Mr. Speaker, we've had enough of that in the last twenty years in this Province. Far too much of it. Commitments made in terms of an unemployment insurance system that cannot be funded at the level of commitments. Commitments being made to pension plans that cannot be funded and the commitments made through collective bargaining and commitments made otherwise outside of collective bargaining to pacify a few voters, and putting an unmanageable financial burden on the people down the road.

That is the kind of short-term thinking that has got us in a mess, that is the kind of short-term thinking that bankrupted New Zealand a few years ago. It is the kind of short-term thinking that has caused us now to pay - thirty-five cents of every tax dollar that is collected by the federal government goes to pay interest on a debt that was built up with no thought for tomorrow, and the only thought being for the next election, and to avoid alienating a few voters.

A recipe for disaster. What do we do? Do we keep doing that? Do we keep that same philosophy as expounded by the Member for Bonavista South, and twenty years from now 100 per cent of every tax dollar collected by the federal government goes to pay interest on the debt, and there is not one cent left over to provide services? Is that where we are going? Is that what you want us to do?

I would like to think that we have a little more vision than that. That we have a little more concern for the future of the Province, a little more concern for the future of the country, than that. I would like to think that we are a little more than politicians who only think about the voter or the few voters they might alienate and risk the future of the Province simply for that. I would like to think that we've got far beyond that in the last couple of years. It is that same kind of short-term thinking that members opposite have been exemplifying in their statements here today. The same kind of thinking that has created the emergency situation in this country that we've been experiencing for the last couple of years.

They would spend us into bankruptcy. All they are concerned about is a few comments they might get. They can't handle criticism so they don't want to generate any criticism. What we should do is respond to the needs as they come, respond day by day, promise to make payments here, there and everywhere, assuming that some government down the road will bail us out of our commitments. The time is gone for that kind of thinking and that is the kind of short-term thinking I'm hearing from members opposite.

We are now debating a motion, and that motion is that we adjourn almost three hours ago. What a magnificent accomplishment by members opposite. I'm sure they are sitting there smugly grinning about this magnificent thing that they've accomplished tonight. They've got us here debating for the last four hours on whether the House should adjourn at 7:00 p.m. I hope you are proud of your accomplishments, I really do, I hope you are proud of your accomplishment tonight.

We should be debating Hydro here. This is an attempt by members opposite to prevent any debate on the privatization of Hydro. I hope you are happy of that position too. I hope you can stand up to the public comment - the Member for Bonavista South, if you are worried about short-term public comment, I hope you can stand up to the short-term public comment about you not wanting to debate, about you not wanting to participate in a debate on the privatization of Hydro, about using every parliamentary trick which you can come up with to prevent even debating the issue. I hope you can stand up to that kind of criticism.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I am leaving that up to the Member for Humber East to have the meeting in Gander about Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the real debate is about the privatization of Hydro. It's about the bill that would allow this privatization to occur and, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has outlined the benefits to the Province of this particular action. The fact that we have brought this bill to the House to privatize a corporation that has been in existence for quite a number of years, that is a Crown corporation that was put together in the first place to develop hydro resources that the private sector at that time could not accomplish, could not put together the money to accomplish that task and they were put together to do this and they accomplished it; but now, because part of Hydro no longer serves the public policy objective, we have decided to go ahead and privatize Hydro, it is simply that.

Mr. Speaker, the long-term benefits from this privatization should be obvious and they have been pointed out. First of all, and I only have a couple of minutes. First of all, we remove $1 billion of debt from our books. Now if members opposite think that that's not significant, removing $1 billion of debt from our books, I can understand that, because they put billions and billions of dollars onto our debt and didn't care while they were doing it. They weren't the least bit concerned about the level of debt that they put on the backs of the people of this Province, and I can understand why they are not concerned about that now. I can also understand why they are not concerned about the long-term effects of the money that the government will get from this privatization, the fact that this will allow us to not go to the market and borrow money. This will allow us to free up tax dollars that otherwise would be spent on interest payments. This allows us to free up tax dollars to provide services to people in this Province and we are very concerned about providing services for people in this Province.

We are thinking long term; we are thinking ten, fifteen, twenty years down the road and we have some major tasks to accomplish in that time. We need money. We need money to solve the horrendous problem in our pension plans, created by and large by members opposite and also by previous governments to them, but certainly encouraged and built by members opposite, we now have to solve that problem and I don't where members opposite think that we are going to get the money to do that.

Commitments made by previous governments to pay out huge sums of money that they made no attempt to assure that funding would be in place for; that's one of the major problems, that we now have to solve, that members opposite are responsible for the largest part of this. I know that previous to 1980, monies were taken to build roads and so on. The previous government then, of Mr. Smallwood, back in the early seventies, is partly to blame, but also the government of Mr. Moores. In 1980 when they put the pension plan in place they didn't properly fund it, so now we are stuck in the nineties with pension plans, that unless we put huge sums of money into them, will go bankrupt and there will be no money to pay the pensions; it is as simple as that. That is one of the problems that members opposite have helped create that now we have to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I see it is getting close to ten o'clock. I will finish what I have to say, and I would pass it over to my friend, the Government House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I should point out that the Speaker has the responsibility for order in the House, and pointing out matters of order. I am just going to raise with both House leaders whether or not it is in order for us, at ten o'clock roughly, to vote on a motion to adjourn at 7:00 p.m. An appropriate amendment might be in order, I would suggest. Maybe we could vote on it, but I leave it to the parties to be guided by it.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as absurd as it may be in a logical sense, it is no more illogical than many things that parliament does, with all respect to the parliament of which we are part.

The motion was put properly, it has been debated, and the House is now ready for the question. My submission would be that the motion should be put and the House should decide. Otherwise the only other way around it would be at 6:55 p.m. Your Honour would have to stop the debate to put the motion and Your Honour, in my submission, has no right to stop the debate in that way.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to hear the hon. Opposition House Leader but the problem would be, hypothetically, if it were to pass, that it be passed (inaudible) -

MR. ROBERTS: I don't think Your Honour need worry about that.

MR. SPEAKER: - possibility of something that we know elsewhere.

Anyway, if the Opposition -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible) okay, fine.

I will put the motion that the House do adjourn at 7:00 p.m.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion the `nays' have it.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't think we need divide unless the hon. members -

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak for yourself!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will move the adjournment of the debate. The House has not yet got to Orders of the Day. The Opposition has presumably achieved its goal, and so be it. The House will meet at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow and we shall ask the House to sit again tomorrow night. We shall not sit beyond 10:00 p.m. When we get to Orders of the Day tomorrow - if we get to Orders of the Day tomorrow - we shall ask the House to debate the privatization bill, Bill No. 1 if memory serves me correctly.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m., and that the House do now adjourn.

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