May 9, 1994                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLII  No. 38


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the President of Treasury Board. Can he confirm that contrary to the statements he was making over the weekend, that he was not prepared to meet with the NLTA to further discuss, or hold negotiations, until the NLTA backed off on its instructions to its teachers not to submit the evaluations to the Department of Education, that in fact the President of Treasury Board has backtracked from that position, and has he now said that he is prepared to meet with the President of the NLTA, Peter Sutherland, in an attempt to get negotiations back on track?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, our attempts have been to get negotiations started, not necessarily back on track. There have been meetings held in the last two weeks and there is an exchange of correspondence this morning which indicates to me that we may be meeting in the very near future to pursue some options that we discussed last Thursday night.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just out of curiosity, I wonder if I could ask the President of Treasury Board what transpired in the last little while, the last few hours, to allow this positive, I might say - I agree it is positive to get both sides back together, but what has happened? A lot of damage has been created, I think, because of statements made over the last couple of days by the President of Treasury Board that he would not have such discussions and not go back to the table. Can he give us some indication of what happened over the last, say, twenty-four hours?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the situation is not as the Leader of the Opposition describes it. About a week-and-a-half ago, I guess two weeks ago today, I asked for a meeting with the NLTA. We had such a meeting late at night and the object of that meeting was to determine if there was any way to avoid a strike, and I left that meeting with the view that there probably was no way to avoid a strike. We had a further meeting on Thursday at the request of Mr. Sutherland. I attended that meeting. It was a meeting where we ended with discussing some options that could provide for the resumption, the start of collective bargaining. On Friday, I indicated to Mr. Sutherland that I thought the Thursday night meeting was productive and that the discussions could provide the basis for further negotiation.

However, things were being made difficult by the fact that he was directing his teachers not to provide marks which is, Mr. Speaker, in reality, a job action. I was very concerned, in a collective bargaining sense, that a job action was starting before it was allowed to start. So, Mr. Speaker, I asked the NLTA to change its position with regard to the marks. They've clearly indicated now that they have not changed their position with regard to the marks but, Mr. Speaker, a solution through collective bargaining would be an equally acceptable solution and I have indicated that to them. The situation with the school boards and the NLTA with regard to the marks I guess will become obvious later today and the marks will either be provided or not be provided. The position of the teachers' union is that they not be provided. Mr. Speaker, obviously, they haven't changed their minds so we're now ready to pursue the other options that we discussed on Thursday night. This is a situation that is changing hour by hour and quite a bit has changed in the last day or two.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess I owe the President of Treasury Board a deep apology. I, like many, many other people in this Province thought for certain that I heard the President of Treasury Board over the weekend saying there is no way that he would ever negotiate or go back to talks with the teachers, because they had sent out this directive to their teachers. He is saying now that he never ever said that. Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He is saying he never said that. That's fine, if he says he never said it I'll accept his word. I don't know if the people in the news media will accept it because I think it was they who carried it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) on the way in listening to it.

MR. SIMMS: It was on the news today, apparently.

Anyway, let me get off that angle and just ask them a specific question. The total compensation package of the teachers, NLTA, represents less than a quarter of the total compensation for all public employees. I think he would agree with that - the Member for St. John's South will certainly agree with it, I think. So the question I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board is this: How much of the $44 - $50 million or whatever that amount is, dollars in savings in public sector compensation, do you intend to take from the teachers? Can you tell us that? And can you tell us if in fact it's true that you plan to take about half of what you want, which would amount to $22-$25 million from the existing teachers' contract? Is that a fact?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, again, to comment on the members introduction, I indicated that a job action like this makes it extremely difficult to carry on negotiations, and it certainly does, and I don't mind saying that to anybody.

Mr. Speaker, as to the question that was asked about the amount of compensation, there are two points I would like to make. Number one, the process is not one of government going in and taking something. We are still trying to find a solution through collective bargaining. It is not a matter of government saying: We are going to take this or else. I've pointed out time after time in the last two months that that has not been government's position. Government merely tabled an opening position for negotiations with all unions, and that is a normal thing. It is unfair to go on characterizing an opening position as simply take it or leave it. That is not our position, never has been, and never will be our position.

With regards to the numbers the hon. gentleman is mentioning the answer is no, his numbers are incorrect. We are not asking the NLTA to come up with half or over half of the reduction measures. This is one of the items that is under discussion with the NLTA. Whatever the proportion, whatever affect this has, that what we are asking for, whatever affect that has on the NLTA collective agreement will be similar to the affect on the other units in proportion, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I thank the President of Treasury Board for providing the House with that information, Mr. Speaker. If we had had that information earlier it would have made things much easier. It is better for us to understand what is going on. I still say to him though however that the perception out there was that you had basically said: No way - my way or the doorway. Anyway, we will worry about that in the end. We will have to depend on some other people I suppose to try to decipher that out.

Let me ask him this. He now says that you are not looking for what would amount to $22 million out of the existing teachers' contract. You just said that no way, you are not looking for that kind of money. That is good. Good information to have. Let me ask him this.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He didn't say that.

MR. SIMMS: He didn't say that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, (inaudible), can't trust him.

MR. SIMMS: He said my numbers were wrong.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, but (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Does that mean that they might be looking for more? Oh, I see, okay. Perhaps he could give us an indication of the total amount of compensation from teachers you are looking for. That would be very helpful.

Can the President of Treasury Board answer these couple of simple questions, Mr. Speaker? Has, or have you, the government, the department, or whoever in Treasury Board, whoever is responsible, have you already directed board superintendents to issue lay off notices to teachers covered by the 2 per cent clause, which certainly would be in violation of the current collective agreement? Somebody can answer that. Either the Minister of Education or the hon. the President of Treasury Board.

Secondly, is it a fact that you've already told the NLTA that you will bring in legislation to do away with that 2 per cent clause whether they like it or not? If so, what kind of bargaining would he call that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions there that one of them should be answered by the Minister of Education. Maybe I could answer on his behalf, but there have been no directives given to, as he put it, lay off teachers and so on, none as a result of this happening in the last couple of days; there have been none.

MR. SIMMS: Not lay-offs issued, directives issued, to the board superintendents to issue lay-offs.

MR. BAKER: Because of a response to the mark issue?

MR. SIMMS: No, no, no. (Inaudible) Minister of Education.

MR. BAKER: Oh. I only know about the collective bargaining issue, so I will have to let the Minister of Education answer that one. The other question had to do with -

MR. SIMMS: The 2 per cent clause. Are you going to bring in legislation (inaudible)?

MR. BAKER: - the 2 per cent clause and the three year protection letter.

Mr. Speaker, that is part of what we are now in the process of discussing, through collective bargaining, and I would like to comment on the numbers issue again. That is also part of the negotiation, but I can assure the hon. member and the House that the effects of the compensation reduction and so on will be evenly and proportionately spread, in terms of our request, throughout the public sector.

MR. SIMMS: Can the Minister of Education respond to that directive on the issue of lay-offs?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is coming at this one the wrong way. What we did in the Department of Education was look at the whole system. How many teachers do we need to deliver the curriculum?

Now I have made this perfectly clear to the House on several occasions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. minister in his reply.

MR. DECKER: We looked at the whole system and determined how many teachers were required to deliver the educational programs of the Province. Being aware that there is a 2 per cent rule, we gave an interim allocation of teachers to the boards. In our opinion, we have given sufficient teachers to the boards to do what teachers are supposed to do. If at the end of the day there is a 2 per cent rule in the teachers contract, then we will have to find half-a-dozen or more, or a few more, teachers. If there is no 2 per cent rule in the new contract, then we will continue on with the allocation. I don't understand what all the confusion is about. It is perfectly clear to me.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, one has to question the intent of the minister's answer to that question, because the impact in the teaching profession is that superintendents have indeed issued lay-off notices and intent to discontinue services to great numbers of teachers as a consequence of the initiatives that have been taken by the minister.

I say to the minister that many Level 3 students who received grades in the 40 to 50 per cent range at mid-term have worked very hard to improve their academic standing and are therefore now able in all probability to meet the requirements for graduation. How does the department's contingency plan for potential graduating students assure that these students are fairly treated?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I made that clear when I announced that the department was looking into the option of grading students based on the overall year's performance and their mid-term exams. I also said at that time, recognizing that there are students who will say: on the day my mid-term was written was a bad day and I did not feel up to it, or I did not study as much as I should have, and recognizing that just as the present regulations have an appeal process in for a student who feels he or she did badly, we will make an appeal process available for any student who feels that the system failed him or her. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Many students who were enrolled in honours math 3201 and who wrote a failing test at mid-term switched to math 3203. The academic record for these students will show they do not meet the requirements for graduation. Would the minister comment on the methodology to be used to assure a fair assessment of the knowledge achieved by these students?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to the exception. Now, if all 8000 students were to fit in that category we would have a problem, but chances are there would be such a small number of people it would be very simple to deal with each one on an individual basis. There is no major problem.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the minister's statement the number switching from honours math to academic math is not a small number and it is a persistent problem in the high school system.

Since the minister is directly responsible for the academic and administrative functions of the school system, and since the President of Treasury Board has consistently maintained the Department of Education has no place at the bargaining table between the NLTA and government, how can the minister justify his consent to use the marking system, therefore administrative and academic function, and the evaluation of students as political leverage by the President of Treasury Board?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there may or may not be a strike. If there is a strike, then prior strike, before strike is business as usual, and in business as usual the Department of Education has the right, has the legal right, to ask the school boards at any time to come forward with the marks, evaluation or whatever - the schools act is quite explicit - in the Department of Education until and if there is a strike, and we don't want a strike. Ideally we would like for the students to be able to finish out their term, write their exams and it would be everything as usual but in the event that there is a strike we are doing the prudent thing, Mr. Speaker, we are taking precautions so that the students will be protected. Also, Mr. Speaker, we are very mindful of the teachers in this too. The teachers in their classrooms find themselves in a very difficult situation. The law of the land requires that they would do a certain thing and their union tells them not to do it. I have a lot of sympathy, Mr. Speaker, for a teacher who finds himself -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister.

MR. DECKER: I have a lot of sympathy, Mr. Speaker, for a teacher who finds himself caught in the middle in that situation too.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Employment and Labour. Under the NCARP program earnings from employment are reported at the end of each quarter and adjustments are then made to the benefits paid out by the NCARP in the following quarter. In some cases people owe money to NCARP which is clawed back from the benefits and in other cases NCARP owes money to the fishermen and plant workers which is paid out by cheque. I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that some people who have returned to temporary and even part-time work have been told that their NCARP payments are now suspended and there will be no reconciliation done until after May 15?

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

MR. GRIMES: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position to either confirm or deny that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the minister that this is a true statement. Many people went to work in the morning and came home for lunch and were told that there was a phone call received from NCARP or DFO telling them that their NCARP payments will be suspended until after May 15. Since this is the case, I would like to ask the minister if he would talk to his cousins in Ottawa and ask them if they would make sure that those surprises are not sprung on those people and allow the process to work, as it was supposed to be done in the beginning, where the payments were made and reconciliations will be looked at, after May 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, everybody understands that the transition from NCARP to the TAGS program will take place in the next few days or so, in the next week, and that to the very best of everyone's ability an orderly transition has been put in place so that problems or difficulties will be kept to an absolute minimum. The officials who are here operating in St. John's, in the Newfoundland region, are doing the very best that they can to make sure that they finish up all obligations under NCARP and begin all new and continuing obligations under TAGS as smoothly as possible.

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

MR. CAREEN: I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Lands. Since our meeting some time ago with local representatives in the area of the Come By Chance refinery and personnel from your department, regarding improvements they needed or they felt that should be made down there, and in light of the fire in recent days at the refinery, has your department stepped in to talk with them about making necessary improvements at a time when it's not in operation, please?

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

MS. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to report that we are. Letters have gone out from me to Mr. Mifflin and from my officials at a different level to officials of that plant at a different level and I expect to be meeting face to face with Mr. Mifflin some time this week.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Minister.

For your information, I don't know if you know, I only heard it a few minutes ago but a person from that company told some local residents there last week that they intend to have the sulphur recovery unit in place when they are ready to start up, so if you could make sure that they have that promise taken care of - because I have been talking to the people down in that area over the past weekend, in between other meetings, and they want to know exactly what is going on - and I urge you again, and I thank you for wanting to get on top of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is your question?

MR. CAREEN: That is a question and a statement. The question is -and she answered in the first place, but I wanted to make sure it was going ahead. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Premier.

As part of the Strategic Economic Plan, the Premier established a separate Department of Tourism and Culture. I would like to ask the Premier: Does he intend to maintain Tourism and Culture as a separate department, or are there any plans in the near future to merge it with the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The policy position on that issue will be announced in the reasonably near future, not in the next few days, or perhaps not even in the next week or two, but not very long from now.

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the department has not had its own minister since February 22. The tourism season is upon us, and many people within the industry are concerned about the absence of a full-time minister. I would like to ask the Premier: When does he plan to appoint the new minister for the Department of Tourism and Culture?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer I just gave is still the same. It hasn't changed in the last thirty seconds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: I am surprised that so many, especially in the front benches, find it laughable when the tourism industry in this Province is one of the engines of growth that this government talks about all the time.

Mr. Speaker, many people throughout the Province are wondering why the Premier has been so slow in appointing a new Minister of Tourism and Culture. I would like to ask the Premier: Isn't the real reason he has not made the appointment the fact that he wants to hold this coveted Cabinet position in front of his caucus members, especially the backbenchers, to make sure they stay in line and give their support to the likes of the Hydro Privatization Bill and the educational reform. Isn't that the real reason, Mr. Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I recommend that the hon. member get a new question writer.

MR. SIMMS: In other words, `yes'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the President of Treasury Board or the Minister of Education, whichever one would be able to answer it best.

Has government responded to the proposal put forward by the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students regarding changes to the student aid program made in the Budget of 1994?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there was some concern expressed by students about the new provincial student loan program. We were waiting to hear from the Federal Government before we had a full meeting with the students.

There is a Student Loan Advisory Committee. We have been working through that committee with the students. Now, it is my understanding that they either met the latter part of this week past, or will be meeting this week coming, but we are consulting with the students on pretty well a daily basis.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I find it laughable, from a minister who didn't even know he had a Student Aid Advisory Committee that he never met with, to say that he has consulted with the students. Consultation is not something that this government is noted for.

Let me ask the minister this: Why are you waiting to discuss this issue with the Federal Government when you can sit down and discuss issues right now on the provincial loan program? For example, what role will the banks play - has that been determined - in determining eligibility for student aid? Can the minister answer that question without consulting with Ottawa?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, to ask what role does the federal government play? is indicative of the kind of government we had for the past seventeen years, when they went off half-cocked and spent our taxpayers' money like drunken sailors. It doesn't give me much comfort that the future generation of young Tories over there is any better than the former generation. They still think exactly the same way, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that at no time, through grant or any other process, did the Province pay for the full education of our people. There was a student loan program in place where students went and borrowed. Now, the Federal Government have made some significant changes to the student loan program. As a result the student loan program will only pay 60 per cent of the cost of tuition for a year. That left a 40 per cent gap. The old grants system that the Province had could cover about 18 per cent of the cost of university tuition, so there was a 22 per cent gap left.

The Province was left with various options. One, we could have left the grants in place, at the rate they were, $20 million per year, and we could have made available to half the number of students that money, and, of course, we would have had half the number of students out. We chose to make available a provincial student loan program to cover that 40 per cent gap, to make a university, post-secondary education available more readily to all of our students. I'm proud of what we did, Mr. Speaker. I take great pride in it, because now it is possible for any Newfoundlander and Labradorian to get a post-secondary education.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister what role the banks would be playing in determining eligibility, and I got a great soliloquy from the minister, dealing with the grants system and the Federal and Provincial Governments. Let me try a simpler question for the minister. How will government deal with students who are refused student loans by the banks because they have a bad credit history, if the banks are going to be involved? Maybe he could answer if the banks are going to be involved, and then answer the question, how will he deal with students who have been denied a loan because of a bad credit history.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has to remember is this. When he asks fifteen or twenty questions I might not get down to all of them. I managed to answer fourteen of his previous questions. The last one he asked was whether the banks would be involved or not. Yes, the banks will be involved, but the student loans division in the department will still remain. The loan will be dealt with within the department. The bad risk is something we are very much aware of. In Nova Scotia, for example, the way it was dealt with, the province actually guarantees bad risks, a very small number of them. We will discuss that with the banks as to whether or not the Province will take responsibility for the very small number of bad loans.

But here is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the day, no student will be refused admission to any institution because of a bad credit record or whatever the case might be. We will make sure the process - and to quote Joey Smallwood some years ago, nobody will be denied an education for the sake of mere money, Mr. Speaker. That still stands.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On May 2, the Minister of Health tabled a discussion paper for board restructuring in northern Newfoundland and Labrador. The minister stated that he was going to distribute that widely to interested groups and individuals in the Northern region of the Province, and he plans to meet with interested parties to discuss that. I ask the minister: Is it part of his plan to hold public hearings so that the people who are mostly affected, the people in that area, will have some input?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the exact format of these meetings hasn't been thought through yet but the basic idea behind it is that anyone who wants to have anything to say about the structuring of boards -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: - in that area will have the opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. member. I hear talking on this side and that side and I can't hear what the minister is saying.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: I will start again, Mr. Speaker. While the details haven't been worked out yet, the intention is quite clear. Anyone who has anything to say on this issue, I would like to hear what they have to say and before we make up our minds we would afford the opportunity. We've identified certain interested groups who have written and certain individuals who have written indicating that they want to participate. I have sent out these discussion papers to all these individuals inviting them, if they wish, to submit their views and also to tell them to me directly. If there are other people who are known, then I would be very glad to meet with them as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think there are roughly 45,000 people served in that area. I'm quite sure they haven't had an opportunity to see a copy.

In one of the proposals, scenario two, it looks at doing a restructuring of Labrador under one board and Northern Newfoundland would depend on the Western region of the Province for certain aspects of secondary health care. Now, there has been a cost analysis done on all five scenarios as they presently affect the current region of northern Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the minister, what effect has his committee or has this study - I know this study hasn't looked at what effect the Northern part, in scenario two, is going to have on the Western region. Are we going to need new beds in Western Memorial? Are we going to face other extended costs and the availability of specialists because of the impact that is not addressed here in this report?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, my understanding after talking with people is this will have a minimal effect on the situation in Western Newfoundland. It will have some, but minimal effect.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a report of the Resource Committee. Our committee has reviewed and approved, without amendment, the estimates of expenditure of the following departments: Fisheries; Forestry and Agriculture; Mines and Energy; Tourism and Culture; and Industry, Trade and Technology.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, report received.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Ratify, Confirm And Adopt An Agreement Between The Government Of Canada And The Government Of The Province Respecting Reciprocal Taxation Of These Governments And Their Agencies".

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will, on tomorrow, ask leave to introduce the following Private Members' resolution:

WHEREAS the government has announced in the Budget Speech its fiscal plan to further reduce the compensation of the public sector employees by an additional $50 million; and

WHEREAS the President of Treasury Board and the government have deliberately poisoned the collective bargaining process through the use of ultimatums; and

WHEREAS honour and trust have disappeared from the collective bargaining process for public employees in this Province; and

WHEREAS the government of the Province deliberately and maliciously displayed a confrontational, dictatorial, and mean-minded attitude towards collective bargaining in recent months; and

WHEREAS the current threats to disruptions in public services are causing severe anxiety for many citizens; and

WHEREAS the threat of public sector strikes is having a profound and negative effect on the Newfoundland economy; therefore

BE IT RESOLVED this House deplore the confrontational approaches of the government in its negotiations with public sector unions, and that this House direct the President of Treasury Board to immediately begin meaningful and constructive negotiations with all public sector unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Where are those Western Memorial Hospital reports?

Petitions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place today to present a petition on behalf of 194 residents and constituents of the Minister of Education, from the communities of Englee, Bide Arm, Roddickton, and so on. A copy of the petition has been sent to the minister. This is the original. I have been asked to present the petition, and I am proud and pleased to be able to do it. I will read the prayer of the petition:

`In the Throne Speech on February 28, 1994, the government stated that it will introduce legislation to reform the Province's education system in accordance with Adjusting the Course, Part I. Thus, government has made official its intent to restructure the denominational school system. Such action will be in violation of the Constitution.

We, the undersigned, call upon the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to: 1) reverse the decision; 2) in the event the legislation proceeds, to allow a free vote in the House of Assembly; 3) We ask the Members of the House of Assembly to vote against any legislation that violates the constitutional rights of the Pentecostal class of people.'

Mr. Speaker, this petition expresses the views, of course, of many people in the Province. We have heard similar petitions over the last number of months. We have certainly heard news stories and coverage of public meetings where parents of the Pentecostal systems, as well as parents and children of the Catholic educational system, in particular, express similar concerns.

We have expressed reservations in this House on behalf of those people who are protected under the Constitution about the government's intent to pursue aggressively or arbitrarily a move that would see the removal of constitutional rights of classes of people. As a matter of fact, I believe the government - or at least I thought the government - had come to its senses about a week or so ago, and finally recognized that route would be a very costly one and the possibilities at the end of that road were that they would run into a dead end after spending millions of dollars. So it seemed as if they had taken another look at it and, in an attempt, through the use of Phil Warren, former Minister of Education, and a lawyer by the name of Browne, I think it was, Dennis Browne, Chairman of the Labour Relations Board, a former Liberal campaign manager, a former constituent of mine - through their efforts, Mr. Warren's in particular, I suspect, it looked like they may be moving back on track, and government did present some modifications, or changes, which would allow for denominational education to stay in many parts of the Province, and it looked like we may finally have a way of resolving this without confrontation and get the much needed educational reforms that all of us have sought in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we hear - if the Minister of Education is being quoted out of context, well, then I wish he would stand in the House and correct it or clarify it. I could not believe my ears with the reports. Mr. Decker, the Minister of Education is quoted as saying that it doesn't look like this is going to go anywhere, and all that kind of thing. I was really disappointed to hear that because only a few days before that it looked like there was a way.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I was very disappointed. We don't need this issue, I say to the Member for Fogo, to win the next election. You watch out for the next election. It won't have anything to do with the denominational education reforms, you wait and see. We don't need to do anything, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker - members on that side are doing it all for us and we appreciate that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, back to the important issue, I say to the Member for Fogo, the education reform issue. In view of the fact there is only five minutes to speak to the petition, I wish he wouldn't interrupt me because I do want to try to express the views of these people in the few limited minutes we have.

I say to the Minister of Education, I hope he speaks to this petition because I would like to see him clarify exactly what it is that's going on - whether the media reports which say that the Minister of Education has now thrown a damper on this thing again are accurate, which would not surprise me because the Minister of Education has occasionally gotten himself into controversy and hot water because of statements and then spent three months trying to clarify his statements. So I hope he speaks to this and clarifies for these petitioners who happen to be constituents of his, all from the district of the Strait of Belle Isle, from the communities I mentioned, Englee, Bide Arm, and Roddickton.

I hope he speaks to it and has something positive and encouraging to offer to his constituents and to the thousands of others around this Province who want to see education reform take place, but they don't want to see their constitutional rights attacked, as was the intention of the government at least six months ago when they talked about adjusting the course.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of the rights of the citizens who have petitioned the House, and to say to this hon. House that many of us were very disappointed a few days ago when we heard the minister categorically and without any conditions attached, say that the negotiations between the church authorities and the Province to get a consensual agreement had indeed broken down. To hear the minister say that after months and months of dialogue, he was now determined to pursue his interpretation of what he believes to be the right approach, and while we, on this side, believe that there has to be many, many reforms in the educational system we also believe, and our party campaigned on the premise that they should be consensual agreements reached to implement reform. We were very pleased, in fact, we were very delighted, a few days ago when we found out that Dr. Phil Warren, whom I have known for many, many years, and Mr. Dennis Browne were involved in the negotiations.

I said to somebody at that time that with the involvement of Dr. Warren, having known him many years and knowing of his compromising approaches and ability to be able to find the common ground between groups which don't seem to see eye to eye on issues, we thought for sure we would have our best chance to reach a consensual agreement. However, each step forward that we make in resolving these difficulties, we seem to go one step backwards.

I say to the minister today, let's have real dialogue, let's involve outside groups, Dr. Phil Warren or anybody else that we can find in this Province so that we don't have our students, our parents and everybody else involved in three or four years of political wrangling, of legal problems. In all that process, for whatever reason we arrive at that process, the people who will be most seriously affected are the young children. While we struggle here or while the government struggles and the churches struggle to find some way, the people who are most directly affected by our inability to find a consensual agreement are the children of this Province. So therefore, we implore the minister and the government, go out, find the people who can seek the common ground and let's get an agreement reached that is going to meet the educational needs of the youth of this Province in the next decades. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern have another -

MR. J. BYRNE: No.

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

MR. DECKER: I want to say a few words to this petition which was presented by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this government has been very reasonable, very understanding in our discussions with the churches in our desire to reform education in this Province. I believe we've put forward a model which will be renowned throughout North America. It will, by far, be the best educational system in all of North America and I would put it up against anything in the world.

The key to the model that we have put forward is that it is first and foremost a denominational system of education. Now, it is an inter-denominational system in most cases. One of the basics of any democracy in the world is freedom of religion and very often this freedom of religion has been interpreted to be freedom from religion. So that if any person - supposing ninety-nine people in a particular school, if ninety-nine people in a school are of a certain religion and want certain religious rights and one person says, `no' then, Mr. Speaker, the school is no longer allowed to offer their religious course and this, of course, is freedom from religion.

We have put forward a model for religion for educational reform which will give true freedom of religion, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a model that we should be proud of and I'm quite happy. Now, the unfortunate thing about this is that we have not yet been able to reach consent from the churches. We don't have consensus. I believe we have bent over backwards; we've done everything in our power. The hon. member talks about Dr. Phil Warren, his good friend and mine, and it is a known fact that Dr. Warren may be of a different temperament from mine and Dr. Warren - if there is a compromise, my friend and former colleague, Dr. Warren, could find it. However, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, even he was unable to find that compromise. So it still doesn't exist. Now, here we are - talks haven't completely broken off. We're still available to talk to the churches. I heard Mr. Fallon say over the weekend on the media, if he was quoted properly, that I probably misinterpreted the tone of his last letter. Well, if I misinterpreted it, let's sit down and explain it to me. Maybe I was wrong on my interpretation and we're certainly open to see - we'll sit down and if I made a mistake, we'll certainly interpret the letter the way it should be interpreted.

So the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is this, that we are trying our utmost to reach consensus. We have said that we would prefer to make these reforms with the full blessing and the consensus with the churches. However, if we don't reach consensus then we feel that it is our obligation to the people of this Province to go ahead and find some way to reform the system anyway. Well, we're trying to do that. But what I have not heard members on the other side of the House say is, what they would do in the event of not reaching a consensus. I hear them get up and say, it is our policy that we should reform the system only after we reach consensus. They admit that the system should be reformed; they admit that the system is not performing as it should; they admit that the whole world and all of North America is making reforms, and they are saying they would do it by consensus. What they have not said, Mr. Speaker - and I'm hoping the hon. member at some future time in this House when he gets the opportunity, will get up and tell us what he would do if he were in a position where they did not reach a consensus.

It is alright to take the easy political route and try to be all things to all people, to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds. It is alright to say that, but what would they do when they reach such a time? Would they let the system alone and be the worst, the most under-performing system in all of North America? Or would they go ahead and live up to their obligation as government, if they happened to be - and God forbid - if they happened to be government in this Province?

It is not good enough to say: We would do it by consensus. They have to answer the question: What would they do if they did not reach consensus? I haven't heard them say that yet, Mr. Speaker, and I'm hoping that before the day is out I will hear them say it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern have a petition?

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I'm pleased to rise and present a petition on behalf of thirty-six residents of Pilly's Island, Beaumont, South Brook and Robert's Arm area. The petition has to do with the privatization of Hydro and the prayer of the petition is as follows:

`We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, who wish to avail themselves of their right thus to present a grievance common to the House of Assembly in certain assurance that the House will therefore provide a remedy, we submit;

Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.' Mr. Speaker, I have, of course, signed the petition.

The Premier and the government have continually said that the reason why they wish to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is to reduce the debt of the Province. By privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, of course, we would not only be reducing the debt of the Province but we would also be reducing the assets of the Province by much more than we would be reducing the debt. Where is the logic and common sense in this move? I ask the Premier, who is not here in the House right now, where is the fairness and balance in selling something off, giving it away, and reducing our assets by much more than we would be reducing our debt? And for whose benefit? There would be very few people who would benefit from the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro compared to the numbers of people in this Province who would lose.

Over the past month to six weeks, or whatever, since this has been ongoing, debated in the House, I have listened to the debate very closely. I have mentioned once or twice that I'm still very interested in hearing what many of the members opposite have to say on this privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. A few have gotten up and spoken in favour of it, of course, but there is a great number over there who have not spoken yet on this issue and it is because they are being muzzled by the Premier. If they are not being muzzled, if they don't have the guts and gumption to get up and speak on this issue, let their constituents know where they stand on this and don't go hiding behind the Premier's muzzling of individuals.

I'm sure there is a number over there who are in favour of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro but I'm sure there is a good number over there who are not. As I said before, those members' constituents want to hear. They want their views represented in this House. There is 80 per cent, I believe now, of the decided vote against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and I have some suspicions that the 80 per cent is gradually increasing. It is probably closer to 90 per cent at this point in time.

We have seen the Premier and the government opposite spend tens of thousands of dollars on the ads in the paper and on the radio with respect to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, trying to convince the public that their views are wrong. It is not working. If anything it is working against the government on this issue. The government recently, too, have backed off on the promotion of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. You don't see as many ads in the paper, you don't hear as much on the radio these days on that. I have to ask the question: Why are they backing off on the advertising of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Is it because it is finally starting to sink in that the majority of the people of this Province are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, last week we were discussing Bill No. 2 which dealt with the privatization of Hydro, actually, and the six-month hoist, and again no one spoke opposite on that very important issue. Also, when this issue first came to the floor and was made public I had to question it. Should I, as a Conservative, oppose such an endeavour, of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Because being a Conservative of course we should be looking at those things. I've looked at the NLCS situation and the Farm Products, and I'm still waiting for the facts and figures to know if I should or should not support the privatization of those enterprises.

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a utility and a monopoly. It is quite a different situation than compared to any other commercial enterprise. Of course we have Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. We have people and companies in private industry that are in that business selling computers, in the information fields, information technology, which is the way of the future I (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. J. BYRNE: - firmly believe that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm glad today to stand and support the petition put forward by my hon. colleague for St. John's East Extern. I'm pleased to support the petition on behalf of the people who signed it.

The Hydro privatization just won't go away. It is here to stay and people want to have their say on it. It is without a doubt one of the most major items that has come to this Province over the past number of years, and as the Government House Leader spoke on earlier, one of the most important pieces of legislation brought forward to this House of Assembly in recent times. People are still asking a lot of questions about it, people are still concerned about it, and people are still in doubt with a lot of exactly what Hydro privatization means.

There have been several meetings held throughout the Province, mostly by members on this side of the House, in regards to the privatization issue. People have been coming out and voicing their concerns and asking their questions. We are trying our best to give the answers and we are still getting calls for meetings. As a matter of fact I had a request last week to have a meeting in another part of my district next week in regards to the Hydro privatization bill. We have it scheduled; I believe it is for next Monday night. Because like I said before, people are still asking questions and people have concerns. I had a meeting back in - must be a couple of months ago now in my district when first the privatization bill came before the House. People were out and now they are still asking for more meetings. There certainly is a concern out there.

I guess one of the most important items that has been brought forward is the fact that the Premier went on Province-wide television and told the people of the Province more or less that if they didn't want the privatization or they didn't agree with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, that it wouldn't be. Then he comes back to the House a few days after and says he is proceeding as planned. I guess the doubt is not so much in the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro as the doubt is in (inaudible) exactly the Premier is telling the truth when he does try to tell the truth to the people of this Province.

The public relations campaign that has been going on is mostly one-sided. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on trying to push the government side, the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. There is no opportunity there for the other side to have their say. It is all what the government thinks is right and more or less once again trying to push down the throat of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the fact that this is a good deal, when there are many people who say it is not. Again, the people are getting the opportunity through the government dollars to only hear one side.

I question sometimes, as many others have, about the importance of other people's opinions in a democratic society and how important it is that everybody get the chance to have their say. It seems like if they don't agree with what the government wants to do they are not going to get the chance to have their say, and that the Premier and some of his colleagues are more or less going to bash the likes of the Power of the People and those other groups, and more or less that their opinions and their concerns don't matter because they don't agree with what the government plans to do. Therefore the only way that we can handle it is to lash out at those people and tell them that they don't know what they are talking about.

Then we go outside this Province and bring in people from outside, such as Mr. Comeau from Nova Scotia, to try to push and to go along with - and he is welcomed with open arms because he agrees with what the government is at. I think he should go back and review what happened in Nova Scotia before he comes over trying to tell us what to do with our Hydro. He should go back and review what it has done to the Province of Nova Scotia. Just last week we saw how the people over there are under such stress and they are getting upset and they even come into the Legislature over there. They didn't even get to read out their Budget because the people have been sick of being pushed down.

The same thing is going to happen in Newfoundland, I would say, Mr. Speaker, in regards to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and all the other things that this government is trying to force on the people.

This privatization issue was never mentioned during the campaign of last year. I think the Member for St. John's South had it in his literature, but that was about the only mention about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro last year during the election campaign, so the people were hoodwinked; it was a cover up; it was a hidden agenda by the Premier and his colleagues. They knew what they wanted to do, but they didn't mention it because they knew if they brought everything out forward that they would be sitting on this side of the House. Still, they come along and never mention the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and then they come out and offer it to the people just like it's a good deal.

They say that Newfoundlanders would be given the first opportunity to buy the shares. I have to wonder sometimes what Newfoundlanders will buy the shares in Newfoundland Hydro. I guess it won't be the many people who are unemployed in this Province.

Then I wonder why some people haven't spoken out on the issue, especially on the other side of the House, and I raised a question earlier today in Question Period that received some laughter from the other side of the House, and I was intrigued by the fact. Then we wonder why many of the members don't speak on it. Well, they don't speak on any issue so why should they start to speak on this issue when they are not allowed to speak on any other issue that comes up before this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Nobody on this side has spoken to the petition. I would like to say a few words, having heard the malevolent whines of the gentleman from St. Mary's - The Capes.

This petition prays that the House address the issue of privatization. We on this side believe that is a message that should be heard; the House should address it. Accordingly, I move -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You should withdraw it.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Grand Bank is dyspeptic. I would have thought he had a good weekend. He shouldn't be dyspeptic. He should be his normal, jovial self. He should not be dyspeptic. My hon. friend from St. John's East is being pathetic, not dyspeptic.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from St. John's East had his convention on the weekend. It was down, as I recall, in a phone booth on the waterfront.

Mr. Speaker, let me move, pursuant to the Standing Orders, that the Orders of the Day now be read, and we will give the House the opportunity to carry on. It will be the tenth day of debate on the Electrical Power Control Act.

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

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Your Honour's consideration in this matter. The Government House Leader rose to speak to the petition. Then he gets up and makes a motion that we move to Orders of the Day. Really, be up front.

If the minister wants to rise in his place and move that we move to Orders of the Day, why does he do -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is dyspeptic.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Dyspeptic.

MR. ROBERTS: It's not a bad word, is it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know what it is, antiseptic, or oral-septic, or some kind of septic.

The minister should be more up front than that, to rise in his place, saying he was going to speak to the petition and then making a motion that we move to Orders of the Day.

You are going to have to bring the Government House Leader to order, Mr. Speaker. He can't be allowed to take the place on his back and go on like this day after day after day. He can't be allowed to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, I simply cite Standing Order 21, which says: A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.

I believe I was in order when I made the motion. Should Your Honour rule otherwise, sobeit, but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, one of the rules of the House is that when a member is recognized by Your Honour, he or she has the floor. I commend it to my friends opposite. From time to time they might find it useful.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion to be in order, and accordingly I would ask Your Honour to rule upon the point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognized the hon. Government House Leader, not for any particular purpose, but there have been two speakers, I believe, on this side, including the member presenting the motion.

MR. SIMMS: He said he wanted to speak on the petition, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: In any event, I didn't hear him say that he wanted to speak to the petition. I think he said he had a few words to say.

In any event, Order 21 clearly states that the motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House, and that would include the reading of petitions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, but my view of it would be that the motion for reading the Orders of the Day takes preference over the ordinary business of the House, and it certainly has been used in the past to foreshorten petitions.

I believe it was decided on by a previous Speaker in December of 1984 as well, so I would rule that the motion is in order and I would now, accordingly, put it.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker, that's fine but I believe that we should take a look at it for a couple of minutes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. In any event the motion is that the Orders of the Day be now read.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, for now with Orders of the Day could we call Order No. 5, Bill No. 2? My friend from Eagle River has the floor. I understand he has very few minutes left but I'm sure that he will say more in those few minutes than gentlemen opposite have said in the ten days that they've consumed on this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I understand I just have a couple of minutes to have a few words on this very important issue, Mr. Speaker. I was going to talk on last Thursday about the second historic anniversary of the day but since it's now Monday and that historic anniversary has passed I'd like to say a couple of words, Mr. Speaker, on the significance of this particular piece of legislation.

I'm sure all hon. members were all very, very distressed on Thursday when the Premier rose in his place to indicate that the credit rating for the Province had been down-graded, Mr. Speaker. I guess if there wasn't one thing up to last Thursday that should have hit home to all hon. members in this House and to all people in this Province about the need to revitalize our private sector and the need to be able to get some cash into the coffers of the Minister of Finance and the need to be able to improve our credit rating was the fact that Standard and Poor's have now said that Newfoundland is now going to be down-graded, for the first time ever, below the A level.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very serious issue indeed and I would like to ask all hon. members to look at this particular aspect of it because there is absolutely no doubt in our minds over here - that's one of the prime reasons why we undertook to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, one of the prime reasons why we undertook to put this piece of important legislation in place. As on opening day, when the Government House Leader indicated that these two pieces of legislation are by far the most important since Confederation. It was only last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Province were told how important these were. They are so fundamental to restoring our financial integrity, they are so fundamental to trying to find the scarce dollars that we must have to meet the pressing needs of our social services, our health care, our education system and all other services that the people of this Province have taken for granted.

So, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to be able to stand here and support this initiative. I think it is something that is going to be recognized in many, many days and years to come, as a very much watershed piece of legislation because it was during these times when we talked about revitalizing our economy, when we talked about getting the private sector going, when we talked about taking our responsibility, as far as disposing of assets that the government are involved in and returning them to the private sector because there's no longer a public policy for service being provided, Mr. Speaker.

That's the kind of initiative that I believe the people of this Province are welcoming. They are welcoming, in our time of financial crisis, a stewardship of the Province by this government that is taking a look at our assets, taking a look at our role in the private sector and saying to the people in this Province, now is the time to move forward. Now is the time to take advantage of an opportunity to get some very much needed cash for our government and to provide the services. A chance to be able to show the credit rating agencies of the world that indeed we are being courageous, imaginative and willing to put in place the kinds of financial policy that indeed will give us the respect that everybody wants and be able to maintain our standards of living that everybody so much cherishes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that my time is up for today. I will certainly look forward to having another opportunity to further elaborate on the points that I just raised. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members must think twice about what they are saying in this House at this particular time because all ears of the financial market, and indeed the people of the Province, are upon us, and they want us to carry on with the kind of responsible government that they gave us with a resounding election victory last year.

With that I close these comments.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 2 that we are supposed to be debating here will revise the Electrical Power Control Act to extend the existing law by providing for the planning, allocation, and relocation of electrical power and power emergencies. Actually, part of this bill is alright, but there are other parts that have to do with privatizing Hydro and for that reason I cannot support it, nor can the people of the District of Placentia who have spoken to me all along, that they cannot support a thing that is planning to sell one of their own assets out from under them.

Now, the Member for Eagle River earlier, I do have to make a comment on it - when I saw the Premier here the other day reading out what Standard and Poor's had to say, and I am an easy going man, but I did not like the way Standard and Poor's have put the handcuffs on Newfoundland, because we all know when you are downgraded to a B, God knows, whoever the government is in this Province of ours, what they will have to do again to get back up to an A rating.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: The government did it over the years. The sad part about it is, what do we have to do to get back up? It would have to be more than Hydro to get back up. They have put the handcuffs on us, them, outside this Legislature and far, far away.

As a Newfoundlander I do not like to be interfered with by them, no matter who is across there. I felt a kinship with the Premier the other day when he had to read that out. I really did.

AN HON. MEMBER: I will not tell him.

MR. CAREEN: You can tell him. I do not care who tells who. I do not go around ratting and talking inside doors and windows. What I have to say anybody can hear, but when others downgrade us, and God knows what we have to do to get back up again, it is going to cost us to borrow and borrow, because that is the realm we are into.

MR. TOBIN: No economic policy is the problem.

MR. CAREEN: That is part of it, but we are sick and tired of saying that because it lands on deaf ears. There are some people over there and the only thing that stays in their head longer than an hour is a head cold. You cannot continue on and prate and try to make suggestions when they are not listening.

The credit rating has really affected this Province and the proposal of the sale of Hydro is only a short-term effect that will have extremely long-term, painful, repercussions for the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here is the culprit coming now.

MR. CAREEN: That is part of the gang.

In all seriousness I cannot, nor the people, who supported me overwhelmingly there a while ago, cannot support a measure that will not have long-term benefits for this Province, and those who can invest will largely be people from outside this Province. We all know that the poor devils on social services cannot invest in such a sale for private shareholders, neither can the people who will be on the TAGS when it is all settled down, nor the thousands who will be thrown on the heap when they cannot avail of the TAGS program, nor the people who are trying to scratch a living out of Newfoundland and Labrador now. They will not be able to invest in such a private enterprise when Hydro is gone. Neither will the people of this Province, and people I know personally in the District of Placentia, who when NCARP came out signed in for Option 1, for training within the industry, and while that was never afforded to those people, training was never afforded, they have been penalized and penalized going back for months.

One hundred and eighty-odd dollars a month some of these people are being penalized for. Because they opted for option one and it was never provided. We are working on getting that reinstated, that money that those people lost, and we will get it. They will get it. Because it is theirs. They did the honest thing.

They cannot invest. They will not be investing in Hydro. If the majority of shares of this enterprise when it is privatized, and if our people can't take advantage of it, I'm not for it. I'm dead against it. The people I talk to of all walks of life in this Province, those who phone and those I meet, from all districts, I support them, as I've supported and stood here in this same position to support the position taken by the hon. and the fair and gutsy man for Pleasantville. Newfoundlanders like people who stand on their feet, stand on their hind legs and stand up against numbers. Here there are not very many, sad to say. They've turned into metal men.

I said that to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who was a great man out there in the field attacking those - them! - who were interfering with the people of this Province. He has been silent as well. While he is not here with us physically, at this present moment I will not say anything about the gentleman. We all admired what he was doing two years ago.

This bill that is - the word "planning" is highlighted here, and planning, from what I see in this bill, is to sell one of our last important resources out from underneath the people of this Province. It should not go ahead, ever. We should have public meetings on it. Let people know, let them know the proper way. Go into their homes, areas, and talk to them and make sure. If the government doesn't believe the polls that have been taken out all over this Island and into Labrador, they can't go on for years because they are trying to - in a game of charade to get it sold by any other means. It should be shelved, postponed, taken back, thrown in the garbage, this bill.

Because the other problems within this Province cannot be taken of if the people inside this building here are spending time on a bill that can be taken care of at a later date. The problems in the District of Placentia and other districts are very numerous. We have strikes looming on the horizon. We have people trying to scratch a living in a place where it is getting more difficult to scratch a living. We have the federal government in its changes taking $262 million out of the economy of this Province by toying a little bit with the UI changes. Making it longer -

AN HON. MEMBER: Two hundred and sixty-two million dollars a year.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, $262 million a year. Making it less money for a shorter period of time, and making it harder to get, for people of this Province who are having a difficult time getting what it was under the past system. The business people are not saying anything. Because people who are drawing UIC in this Province we know are not investing. They can't. That money is being spent. Stores, convenience stores, all kinds of stores. That money is being spent. I didn't hear the president of the St. John's Board of Trade open his yap about it once.

We are losing because every action has a reaction, and the reaction that we are getting from the feds in some of their decisions - it might be a slight cold in Ontario when their changes are made, but it is a raging flu when it hits here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. CAREEN: Carried. Thank you. No, this Bill No. 2.

If they delete the items here that take in Hydro, no sweat at all, we support it, but I cannot, ever, proceed with supporting anything that has to do with the sale of Newfoundland Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. CAREEN: You heard the reasons why. You heard them for weeks and weeks and weeks. Now, I am saying, shelve them. There is another fellow who can't keep anything in his head longer than an hour. He doesn't even know about phone calls - phone calls that were made over five decades ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I can read. It was well-publicized at the time, my friend, the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, the call went out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I understand what the Member for Eagle River had to say about trying to revitalize. Wherever you stand or sit in this Legislature, what happens in our Province is very important, because if it is not important to any of us, then it isn't much odds, we shouldn't be here, regardless.

What I am saying is that I, personally, will be satisfied with the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro five minutes, guaranteed, after Ontario Hydro and Quebec Hydro privatize theirs - only after that time - because they are the mechanisms of growth within their provinces. They brag about them. They boast about them. And we, who have an asset here, are willing to let it go for short-term gain to some people who will gain in the long run, while the majority of the people of this Province will lose.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I am not in favour of it. I know members opposite who are not in favour of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: On Hydro?

MR. CAREEN: On Hydro. I know them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.

MR. CAREEN: No, Sir, because I don't betray a trust. People who know me over there know I am that way - know that for a fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I said it; you should have been listening. You should have been listening, because the Lord gave us two ears and one tongue, which means you should be listening twice as much as you are speaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I think it sometimes, too, hon. minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I told you. The Member for Fogo has - what they said years ago about empty barrels really brings it out here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) here if you don't listen.

MR. CAREEN: They don't listen.

The Member for Fogo will have a chance to speak. He has been beating his gums in here for years, and when I sit down he will get a chance again.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the money they spent on advertising.

MR. CAREEN: There is no money. Yes, all the money on advertising, lawyers, consultants -

AN HON. MEMBER: Friends.

MR. CAREEN: Friends, oh yes, their friends, not the friends of the people of this Province - never the friends of the people of this Province who count the most.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) your friends.

MR. CAREEN: No, not that way. It never was that way. If the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations wants to speak, he should get over in his own seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You will have your chance. Get up. You talk about anybody selling out anybody, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations knows about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: What? The patronages?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, I wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole. He disgusts me. He sold out the teachers, and now he wants to sell out Hydro. Well, it's amazing! He has a face on him like a robber's horse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Oh, man! Minister, outside this Legislature you seem like a decent man. Why don't you act decently when you are in here?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: The clock is ticking on the minister opposite. He has loftier ambitions. He will be gone before the next provincial election.

This bill - Hydro, planning. The word in it, "planning" - is planning to sell us all out. For those reasons I cannot agree and I thank you very much.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today to say a few words on An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador, part two of the equation to sell out Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm sure it is the unanimous decision of members opposite to sell it out.

The purpose of the Electrical Power Resources Act is to provide for the supply and management of all power produced in the Province. I guess the Premier has his own agenda for what he wants to do with the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hidden agenda.

MR. MANNING: - his own hidden agenda, I should say, Mr. Speaker, for what he plans to do with the Electrical Power Resources Act of the Province.

He believes that this piece of legislation will give him the opportunity to take back I guess the millions of dollars going out to Quebec - the $800 million, I believe, going to Quebec every year, while Newfoundland receives an insulting $8 million. The Premier in his own guise believes that because of these two bills being passed in the House that he will be able to gain control or get back some of the power, I guess, that relates to Hydro Quebec and bring it back into Newfoundland and Labrador's power.

This is only the Premier's own estimation that he can do that. I believe the people of the Province don't want the Premier and this government to take a chance on that, and therefore they are speaking out and trying to have public meetings, trying to have public hearings, trying to have a referendum. But this government keeps repeating: No, no, no. Why? Because this was a hidden agenda by this government in the May election of last year. It was never mentioned and they wanted to continue on and see if they could sell out Newfoundland and Labrador through the whim of the Premier.

The Premier went on Province-wide TV a few weeks ago and said that if the people of this Province were against these bills, if they were against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that he would not proceed with it. I say to the Premier that the people are against it, 80 per cent of the people are against it. Independent polls have shown that 80 per cent of the Province is against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, but still the Premier stood up in the House last week saying he plans to continue on and push it forward even though the people are against it.

Some members on the opposite side of the House and many members on this side have had public meetings in their districts to learn that the people are against it. People are asking questions. People are concerned about the future of this Province, the future of the children of this Province. They are not concerned about a couple of year's time; they are concerned about the future beyond that. Last week one of the bond rating agencies said that it would be a good idea, maybe, to look at it. They are only concerned about the next year's credit rating or the year after that, two years.

I say today that if we sell Newfoundland Hydro, yes, we may be better off next year, we may be better off for half of the following year, but what about the years beyond that? What about ten years time, fifteen years time, twenty years time? I say we can't sell out what we have now, the last resource that we have, for gain for a couple of years. I plan to stay around Newfoundland longer than two years. I'm sure some members opposite don't intend to stay around that long. This is short-term gain for long-term pain, I say, Mr. Speaker. I'm afraid that if we sell out this last natural resource that we have, the people of this Province will pay dearly for decades to come, and I say it is a shame.

Mr. Speaker, people are concerned that electricity rates will rise. I say they will. We have to remember what happened in Nova Scotia. The electricity rates rose over there and they'll rise here. The people of this Province can't afford to pay one more dollar, Mr. Speaker, on their electricity bills, not one more dollar. This government is going to continue on with this regardless of what the people say. I guess that's the part that really upsets the people most, is that they have not had a chance to have their say. The people of this Province have not had a chance to have public hearings with the people who make the decisions. They've had public hearings with members opposite, they've had public hearings with several members of the Opposition but they haven't had the chance to have public hearings with the people who make the decisions in this Province. Why? I ask, why? I can't get the answer why. I ask why the people in the back benches don't speak out; I ask why the ministers don't speak out. Is it because there's a Cabinet shuffle coming? Is it because there's a Cabinet position open? It was laughable earlier today in Question Period but I say to the people opposite that the reason they are not speaking out is because of that coveted Cabinet position. I say that's a shame, because we will pay dearly in the years ahead for their taking care of themselves.

Members opposite, Hydro, if it is sold, and it will be -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: - if the government proceeds with the legislation on Newfoundland Hydro, it can't be reversed. I say to the minister opposite, that is something I'd like to stress, it cannot be reversed. If we change the education system in this Province and we don't like it, next year we can change it back again.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. MANNING: If we bring in regulations for the use of ATVs, or whatever the case may be, and we don't like it, we can change it again. If we bring in changes to any piece of legislation here that the Province doesn't like, or it is proven in a couple of years time it wasn't the right thing to do, we can change it back again by bringing it back to this House. But if we privatize Newfoundland Hydro, Mr. Speaker, it's a done deal, it's a finished deal. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, as he shouts from the other side about the defender of the people -the defender of the fishermen and plant workers of this Province, where is he now? when the future of every Newfoundlander, every man, woman and child in this Province, is at stake because of the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and the minister sits silent and does what he's told. I ask what's wrong? There's something wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Fisherpersons' Association.

MR. MANNING: The Fisherpersons' Association - we should have a Hydro persons' association that would affect everybody in this Province, but the minister decides he is not going to speak on that.

We talked about the rural benefit. The people of this Province have enjoyed the rural benefit over the past couple of years. Under this new privatization, Mr. Speaker, the rural benefit will be phased out over a period of time and that will increase the light bills in rural Newfoundland to exorbitant heights over the next few years, and I say that's a shame. People in rural Newfoundland are suffering enough, Mr. Speaker. They are suffering enough because of the cod moratorium, they are suffering enough because of the situation of the economy, they are suffering enough because of unemployment in rural Newfoundland. The many people who have to now be on social services and the like, are suffering enough. I say, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot be allowed to suffer any more and I say that the government should not continue with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Through the discussions on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, it has been said that we can buy shares, that Newfoundlanders will be given the first opportunity to purchase shares in Newfoundland Hydro. I ask members opposite, Mr. Speaker: Who is going to buy the shares in Newfoundland Hydro? Is it the thousands of people in this Province now who are suffering because of the cod moratorium -are they going to buy shares? Is it the thousands of people who have been forced on social assistance in this Province because of the economic policies of this government - are they going to be buying shares? Is it the thousands of people who have given up looking for work in this Province - are they going to buy shares? I say not.

The people, who are going to buy shares, Mr. Speaker, are the people outside of this Province. Newfoundland Hydro will be controlled by people on Bay Street and in other parts of the country because the people of Newfoundland cannot afford to buy shares at this time. Now there are some people, Mr. Speaker, who can afford to buy shares. There are a few, but then, there are lots of other opportunities on the market for people to buy shares. I don't agree that this is a golden opportunity for Newfoundlanders to buy shares because there are lots of opportunities. This is a golden opportunity to sell out one of our last natural resources. I say it's a shame that people are being offered to buy shares in this Province - when they are having trouble putting food on the table, are having trouble putting clothes on the children to send them to school, and they're going to offer them shares in Newfoundland Hydro. Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province haven't had an opportunity to have their say. I tell the Premier and his government that they should go out in this Province and invite people to have their say, and the only way they can do that is to have public hearings.

I have been asked to have a public meeting in my district next week. I had one a couple of months ago, and people came out to the meeting. I have another coming up next Tuesday night, in another part of my district, to discuss the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

MR. EFFORD: I think they're more worried about the fish up there than they are about Hydro. It's too bad you're not discussing that.

MR. MANNING: As a matter of fact, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I am waiting until the House closes this evening and I am heading out into my district for a meeting on the new TAGS program, another schemozzle by your cousins in Ottawa.

We are going to talk about TAGS, and we are going to talk about Hydro, but I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, at least I am going out into my district to talk to the people. Where is the public meeting you held on Newfoundland Hydro? the defender of the people.

MR. TOBIN: He had his chance on the fisheries the other day when there was a vote taken in this House, when he voted with the government on a private member's resolution.

MR. MANNING: You had a chance the other day, Mr. Minister, to vote on a private member's resolution brought before this House, but you sat down as you do now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: You sit down now, because you have - the defender of the people, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the defender of the little guy, where are you now when the people need you most?

He was there to speak out for the fishermen and plant workers, and I have to say, with all honesty, as I watched it on TV from outside this Chamber, I was proud of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at the time, for speaking out for the fisherpersons and plant workers, because it affected the people in my district. But I ask: Where is he now? Because Newfoundland Hydro affects every man, woman and child in this Province, and still you sit and don't open your mouth, Mr. Minister. Why? Because you have to do what you are told. There is a Cabinet shuffle coming up, and you have to do what you are told, right?

MR. EFFORD: I am worried about where my next meal will be coming from!

MR. MANNING: No, you're not worried about where your next meal will be coming from, but there are a lot of Newfoundlanders worried.

This is only a part of the poor economic policy of this government. My question is: Do we have to decide here, in the next few weeks, about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro?

MR. EFFORD: We should be talking about the future of the Province.

MR. MANNING: We are talking about part of the future. It is all part of a puzzle. We have to talk about Newfoundland Hydro; we have to talk about the fishery; we have to talk about educational reform; we have to talk about the teachers' strike. Anything you can come up with, we have to talk about, that concerns the people of the districts of this Province.

Newfoundland Hydro is an important issue that we talk about. That is not to say it is more important than any other issue, but we have to talk about it. We have to discuss it, but we don't say, sell one and save something else.

We have a very important topic on the discussion papers here that has to do with the future of this Province. We look back on decisions that were made years ago and we are still paying for them. Our children will pay for them for years to come. We signed the deal back in the 1960s that we will be paying for until the year 2041. Until 2041 we will be paying for decisions that were made here before. Why? Because Mr. Smallwood at the time - and I give all respect to Mr. Smallwood - that he made a decision that he thought was in the best interest of this Province, and I have no problem with that, but like I said here before in the House, Mr. Smallwood got bad advice at that time. Who from, I wonder? We don't have to go too far to see who he got bad advice from. They are here in this House today. But the one thing we won't be able to say about the Premier of today is that he got bad advice, because he listens to no one else; he only listens to himself. Look in mirror. Should I sell Newfoundland Hydro, Clyde? Yes, yes. That's it. That's the way she goes.

He won't listen to the people. He won't go out into the Province and talk to the people. He hides from the people. There are no public hearings being held in this Province. There is not a chance of a referendum - not a chance for the people of this Province to have their say on Newfoundland Hydro.

Now, the first thing that government members will come up with is that they have a right, as the government of this Province, to give away our last natural resource. Well, I say to the members opposite, you do not have a right. You have a privilege to govern this Province - not a right, a privilege, and your privilege will be taken away in three years time, I say, if you keep on the road you are on now.

The people of this Province haven't had an opportunity to have their say on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Why? Because the people across the floor from us didn't go out and let them have their say. Have a referendum, I say. Have a free vote in the House of Assembly, I say to the Premier. Have a free vote where the members opposite can get up and say what is on their minds and speak freely without having to be persecuted afterwards. Don't hold a Cabinet position open in front of their eyes and make them make up their minds on what they want to do with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

The people of this Province are hurting, Mr. Speaker, because the economic policies of this government are not in touch with, especially, rural Newfoundland. I represent a rural district and I can't see one positive thing that this government has done in the past year for rural Newfoundland. Now they are talking about going out and upsetting our education system. Our teachers may be on the streets tomorrow. Our people in Grade XII, Level III students here, their future is on hold. Still this government proceeds to keep on confronting the people of this Province. If it is not the teachers today it is the fishermen tomorrow, it is the plant workers.

The new TAGS program that was announced is a schemozzle again, I say, Mr. Speaker. There are very few people who will be able to partake of that program for five years. But why - the Minister of Human Resources and Development, Lloyd Axworthy, and the Minister of Fisheries came into the Province and announced the TAGS program. A fellow out at the airport told me the other day, they never even shut off the plane, they kept her started. They just came in, five minutes, here you go, out again, we are gone. They kept her warmed up. They didn't even shut her down when they came into the Province, because they were on the run, Mr. Speaker.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are on the run now. Their front benches are on the run, the back benches are on the run, and they are on the run. We are on the hustle, they are on the run, I say. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has, over the past few weeks, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro; I say the Premier has because it is his pet - selling his side of the story to the people of this Province. We all received our little fliers in the mail. The people have heard the radio ads; we've seen the newspaper ads, as they try to sell their side of the story. I ask once again: Where is the opportunity for the people of this Province to give their side?

Instead of all one-sided propaganda, why not sell both sides of the story and then let people decide? Let them have an informed opinion. Let the people of this Province hear both sides of the story, the pros and the cons of both sides, and then let them sit down and make up a decision based on what they have heard on both sides of the story. The problem is, the government here is only trying to sell one side of the story, their side. And if anybody speaks out - and I mentioned Power of the People, or any of those groups that speak out - they don't know what they are talking about. The first thing is they don't know what they are talking about because they don't agree with what the government plans to do.

We have a right to express our opinion. I say, don't stifle the people when they try to express their opinion. When you bring this up, the members opposite say: They expressed their opinion on May 3 1993. Sure they did, and I agree, the people spoke on May 3 1993. But they spoke on a hidden agenda of this government. Where did Premier Wells speak about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro in the twenty-eight days that he was campaigning before May 3 last year? Where, I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, did he speak of it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: He never spoke of it, never in your district. He never spoke of it in your district, Sir. You were elected because you stood up for the people. The reason you are going to go down is because you are not standing up for the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) last Saturday night.

MR. MANNING: You should have been at the dinner in Gander on Saturday night, I say to the minister. You should have been at the revival.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, When did the Premier speak of the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? The Premier never spoke because it was part of his hidden agenda, the same hidden agenda that includes the changes to the education system in this Province that he agreed last year, before the election, would be done in consultation with the churches of this Province. When they received the mandate from the people they proceeded with their own agenda on the education systems. They proceeded with their own agenda on Newfoundland Hydro. None of this was discussed during the election.

Then the government feels free to stand up and say: We have a mandate from the people of this Province. They have no mandate from the people of this Province for what they are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever. They never mentioned it. It was never spoken about. The Premier is off on his own little tangent effort to try and bring forth what he believes will be the way of straightening out Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, this Province now needs something that this government is not giving us, and that is hope. Hope in the future. Hope that there is something better tomorrow, something better for our children, and something better for our children's children, and not been selling out everything we have. We are famous for that in Newfoundland, sell-out, close it down, pass it on to someone else and they will make the bucks off it, Mr. Speaker. We have people all over this country who are making dollars off Newfoundland and Labrador while our people sit here and continuously try to struggle to make a living. I say the time has come when we stand on our own two feet, and that is why when the poll was taken in Newfoundland and Labrador 80 per cent of the people of this Province spoke out and said, no, to the sale of Newfoundland Hydro.

Like I mentioned before, the Premier went on TV and said if the people were against it he would not proceed with it, but then that does not matter because they do not agree with him. I say if he wanted to clear up some mistruths or misleading statements he made I say, Mr. Speaker, we are being mislead. We are being led down the garden path by the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and we will pay for it for years to come, and I say that is wrong.

We are giving away one of our most important resources under the Privatization Act and that is our water. Now, people will argue that the water is not included. Well, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if we sell away the distribution rights what is the good of having the water in Labrador if we do not own the distribution of it? You cannot take the water from Labrador and use it if you cannot distribute it across this Province. We are selling the distribution right therefore we are selling our water. We are not selling our water under the (inaudible) we are selling control of our water and that is more important than anything.

I say that the people of this Province have not been informed enough. The people want answers to their questions and they want more information because they cannot see why this is a good deal, and if the Premier and his colleagues are not prepared to put the facts on the table for the people of this Province I say they should scrap the deal. I say they should scrap the Hydro Privatization Bill and send it back from whence it came.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province are concerned about who is going to benefit from the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Is it the taxpayers and the ratepayers of this Province who are out in all areas? Are they going to benefit? No, Mr. Speaker, they will not benefit. Will the people who come behind us benefit? No, they will not benefit either. The people who will benefit will be the major investors from outside this Province who come in and buy up the shares. Right now they say they can only buy up to 20 per cent, well that is fine, but what happens two or three years down the road when two or three of those 20 per cent people get together and end up owing 60 per cent. They are then going to come down to Newfoundland and tell us, they are not going to ask us, they are going to tell us how much they are going to charge us for our electricity. We will have no choice.

What will the Public Utilities Board be able to say to a private company who comes from outside this Province, who controls everything we have, and tells us what we are going to pay for our electricity rates? Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Hydro will be the only way that we can get electricity in this Province so they are going to tell us what to do. We are not going to tell them. The Public Utilities Board is going to be useless with regards to setting electricity rates in this Province.

Under the present system the Public Utilities Board serves a great cause, for the simple reason it is there and it more or less blocks, whenever it can, or at least it gets both sides of the issue when it comes to raising electricity rates, but the Public Utilities Board will have no say when this Newfoundland Hydro is owned by 60 or 70 per cent outside this Province. The people of this Province cannot afford to buy it, Mr. Speaker, and why should be buy it, we own it. We own Newfoundland Hydro so why should be buy it?

The Premier knows, Mr. Speaker, that he is in a bind on this issue. When he goes out around this Province now, he got people from all walks of life coming after him because he knows he's in a bind on this issue. That's why he's more or less putting it on hold or semi-hold, I should say and trying to buy some time and hoping that people will forget. In two to three weeks time when these bills come before the House of Assembly to be discussed or to be voted on I should say, the Premier thinks that it will go away, that people will forget about it. Well I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier is sadly mistaken if he thinks that the people are going to forget about what he plans to do with Newfoundland Hydro. The Premier has become a target for people. Once again they're trying to sell out - people are trying to hold on, trudge along here and live in Newfoundland. I say the economic policies of this government add up to one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that's resettlement. Resettlement is a word I'm sure that some members opposite don't like to hear but it's a word that this government is using in all its economic policies - but the one thing I say about the last resettlement program that we had, the Premier of the day told us that he was going to resettle us but the Premier of the day, the Premier present is not telling us. He plans to do what he likes.

Mr. Speaker, I say that it's time that the government of the day went out - had an opportunity to go out and talk to people of this Province, have public hearings, let the people have a say on these two important bills. As mentioned before, the most important pieces of legislation ever brought before this House in recent time and the people will not have a chance to have their say when the deal is done and I say, Mr. Speaker, that's wrong. That's wrong for the people who elected this government, who put faith in this government a little over a year ago today and that's wrong. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that it's wrong for him to sit down and not open his mouth either when this deal is being sold away. He stood up and spoke out when the time was right, he stood up and spoke out and people were proud of him but people are not to proud of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation these days when he sits down and does exactly what he's told by the Premier, nothing, `don't open your mouth, John.'

MR. EFFORD: Are you finished?

MR. MANNING: No, I'm not finished. I say, Mr. Speaker, the only people finished are on that side of the House. We're just beginning. We're not finished, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, we're only beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've only just begun.

MR. MANNING: We've only just begun, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I say finished will be stamped on your forehead before it is stamped on mine.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Fragile will be probably stamped on him too.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I say finished is going to be stamped on your forehead, Mr. Minster, before it's stamped on mine.

I'm not against privatization, Mr. Speaker. I come from a family business that agrees with privatization, agrees with good competitive industries and good competitive business all around this Province. There's nothing wrong with healthy competition but I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, why privatize Newfoundland Hydro? There's no one here to compete with us. It's not competing with anybody else. We're getting the best bang for the buck now. If we sell it off and somebody else runs it, somebody else tells us what we're going to pay for electricity in this Province. So why even sell it? I say it's a shame that this government doesn't hold a referendum on it in this Province. It's a shame that there's not a free vote held in the House of Assembly because I'm sure that there are members opposite who don't agree with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro but still, Mr. Speaker, they can't have a chance to have their say because they have been told under guard that they must follow the line and especially be quiet now.

The Premier told them all to be quiet, not to talk about this because it could interfere with something later. Therefore they decided not to talk about it but, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province will talk about it in a couple of years time when they have the opportunity to mark pass or fail on the report card of this government. Then I guess most members opposite or some of the members opposite are not to worried about that because they don't plan to be here anyway. Mr. Speaker, it's too bad that we're going to stand by now and - it seems like we can do nothing in regards to trying to stop the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. It's too bad that we stand here and our last natural resource is sold away by the same people, Mr. Speaker, who I say sold away another part of that major resource in the sale of Upper Churchill back in the late 1960s.

I say, Mr. Speaker, it's time that this Province - and this Province will speak out and they're trying to speak out but they're being stifled by this government. They're not having the opportunity to have their say but they will continue to try and we will continue to try. The thing about it is they will be reminded every month of the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. They will be reminded every month when they receive their electricity bill in the mail, and the people of the Province will not forget, over the next couple of years, as their electricity rates increase and the life in Newfoundland and Labrador gets much more difficult because of the revenue coming in and what has to be paid out, and we will have no say in what we pay for electricity in a few year's time. I say that is wrong. It is not fair to the people of this Province. It is not fair to the people, who elected this government, who were under the impression - did not know about the planned privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Like I said before, it was part of a hidden agenda of this government, and I think it is wrong, and I think the Premier should at least have public hearings -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make some comments on Bill 2, "An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador".

Mr. Speaker, there are parts of this bill, as speakers before me have said, that the members on this side don't have any problem with whatsoever. Part III, I don't think you will find anybody over on this side of the House who can't support Part III of Bill 2.

Part II, with some amendments, some changes, I think most of us could live with what is happening in Part II of this bill. Some minor changes, some minor wording there to be changed, especially as it relates to the power produced by the paper companies, should be changed, should be clarified.

Another part there, it looks to the right to access power from the Upper Churchill Falls, if the Premier feels, and he is much more in tune to what is happening in the courts and with the laws of this nation and the constitution than I am, and if he feels that he can go forward and win in a court of law, convince the Supreme Court of Canada, that would give us more control of the power in Upper Churchill, or take back power, there is nobody over here who would dispute that. Not a person here on this side would dispute it. In fact, we would encourage him to go forward and do that, as long as he's got a realistic chance. When you look at what has happened in the past, I am not sure you would have a realistic chance. When you look at, I think it was two occasions that we went before the Supreme Court of Canada looking to do exactly the same thing, and on both occasions we came out seven to nothing - shutout - both occasions.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier feels, in his wisdom, that if we put this act into place that it would give him leverage, and that some amendments can be made in section 2 of this act, you don't have to touch section 3, we can live with some of that. We can live with it, but we can't support Part I of this act, an act to support the electrical resources power act.

There is a very good reason why we can't support it, and the reason is because it refers right back to Bill 1, the act of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that is something that we, over here on this side of the House... We went out, listened to our constituents before we made up our minds if we were going to support it or not, went out, listened to our people, the people who elected us, the people who sent us here in this House, and when we stand up and speak, we speak on behalf of those people. When we bring forward our thoughts and our ideas and our concerns, they are the same thoughts and ideas and concerns that were expressed to us out in the little towns and communities of rural Newfoundland. They are their thoughts and ideas, and that is why we can't support Part I of Bill 2, and that is why we can't support the act of privatization, which is Bill 1.

Mr. Speaker, the cost of electricity, (inaudible) raised by $25 million per year, and that is the government's figures. Everybody else out there, the people who are putting forward figures, and are analyzing this sale, feel it would be much, much greater than that. In fact, some people are estimating as much as $50 million - twice the amount of money that the government is saying the act of privatization will cost the rate payers of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, when government members speak - and there are a few of them over there from time to time who have been flushed out to get up and speak on the privatization act - they get up and talk about the rights of Newfoundlanders to be able to go out and buy 20 per cent shares in the sale of Hydro. No problem with that - if the people in Newfoundland and Labrador wanted to go out and buy shares in a utility, we don't have to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, they can go down on Water Street and purchase shares in Fortis Inc., which is a utility. They can purchase shares down there today.

MR. EFFORD: What!

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not allowed.

MR. FITZGERALD: It is allowed, yes, sure it is allowed. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - I suppose he can't relate to the people out there in rural Newfoundland and Labrador because he continues to say how successful a businessman he is. I'm sure he has been successful over the years. In celebrating that success he has lost touch with the common people out there. Every time he stands up and speaks he talks about the numbers that elected him here into the House of Assembly - and they were impressive numbers. Mr. Speaker, the minister, himself, was an impressive fellow then. He was out there with the people. But he has changed as well.

The shame of it all, when I watched him a couple of weeks ago being interviewed by Rex Murphy, he continued to call Rex Murphy his friend. Almost every time he commented he said: `My friend, Rex, we've known each other for a long time, you are my friend.' In other words, don't ask too hard questions now. Don't put me in the hot seat, don't put me in a position where I may have to disclose what I think of the Premier. Mr. Murphy, ask me some easy questions. Then on the end of it I think Rex Murphy asked him: `Mr. Minister, do you support your Premier?'

He hung his head in shame - didn't know what to do. In fact, it was an embarrassment to him, didn't want to disclose the Premier because he was slapped on the wrist, made a mistake a few months ago or a year, two years ago, got slapped on the wrist for it; came back into the fold again. Last March, the Premier said: Well, maybe I should give him another chance. The people in Port de Grave went out and voted for him. He is suffering over there, he is bleeding. He wants to get back into the decision-making process. Maybe I should give him another chance.'

His answer was: `I support all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.' He didn't say: I support the Premier - `I support all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.' What a weak comeback for this great champion of the people who was out there jumping from boat to boat a few years ago! Ordinarily, if you go to a fish plant and they have a watchman on nighttime and they have to go out and visit the draggers, on a stormy night there are always two for fear that one person would fall down between the boats and be hurt. The champion of the people was there himself jumping from boat to boat, out there talking with everybody, telling them what a great fellow he was, and how he was going to improve their case.

All the negative legislation that is coming forward now through the government on the other side of the House, all the negative things that are coming down from Ottawa, the same gentleman now speaks out in support of the whole thing. No wonder - over the weekend in Newfoundland and Labrador we had this giant revival meeting in Gander where over 450 people - in fact, I went to look for a ticket on Saturday night and the manager of the hotel told me: I don't think we can sell one extra ticket because we don't have enough food here to feed anybody else. All those people came forward and I think that is a good indication of what they were trying to tell the people here.

It is a good indication of what they think of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, a good indication of what they think of the legislation being brought in from the other side, and it is surprising how many people there were interested in running in the new district of Port de Grave. That's the one district that everybody talked about, the one place where everybody wants to run, because they can see there is a very good chance there, especially when the minister got up the other day in the House and talked about all the people from Upper Island Cove who were in his office. They took that as a slight, him saying: My office is full of the people from Upper Island Cove.

Well, he has to go back to Upper Island Cove the next time around and knock on doors there, and look for their support, because the next time around that is one of the communities that is going to be involved in his district. And they don't forget that - they know what is being said, and they listen.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the shares of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, sure, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can go out and afford to buy shares, and he probably will invest some money there, whether it's in a blind trust or whatever. I am sure that he will do very well, but the common Newfoundlander out there today who is trying to find a job, who is trying to find out if his job is going to be there next year, if he is fortunate enough to have one, those people are not going out and buying shares in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I can assure you of that, because they don't have the resources to do that. Those people are struggling to put bread and butter on the table, they are struggling to educate their families, they are struggling to feed their families, and when September rolls around, instead of going out and buying shares, a lot of them have to count their money to go out and buy clothes and be able to put their children back in school, not buy shares.

Mr. Speaker, this privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a dream of two people. I suppose the Premier wants to make amends for what has happened in the past, and I can understand that. If I made a mistake in the past, I would want to make amends, too, especially if I thought I was the Messiah of Newfoundland and Labrador. I haven't made any mistakes - yes, I have, `Bill'. I have made a couple of mistakes in the past, sure. I am only human. I will make mistakes in the future. I can understand that part of the Premier. I can understand him wanting to go out and make amends, and take his case to Ottawa and come back a hero, and if that happened, we would all be there to support him, but he is not doing it very convincingly. He is not doing it very convincingly, and we fear that it will cost us a lot of money and we will end up right back where we are today.

Mr. Speaker, many people have come forward to express their views on the privatization of Hydro. We don't have to get into the figures because all hon. members in the House know the figures. They know the results of the polls that have been done by both sides. They have been done by independent people. The meetings that have been held in our districts, some of them haven't been attended by thousands of people, but everybody that has come out has come out in support of the stand that we have taken on this side. They have come out and said, slow down the process.

Mr. Speaker, right now, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is in full control of what is happening with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - full control, and by the look of this report, this glossy report that was put out, a pretty blue colour, handed out on Wednesday - I don't know what it cost, but I am sure it must have cost a fair dollar to print - shows that the people who are running Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro up until now haven't been doing such a bad job. In fact, I will just read the first paragraph, the President's Message. It says:

`In 1993, Hydro continued its commitment of service to customers through the dedicated effort of employees, and by further improvements to generation and transmission facilities. Record production and consistently strong financial results reflected our success. Hydro pledged not to increase electrical rates in 1993, and this objective was achieved by our employees carefully controlling costs.'

That is the first paragraph of the President's report, and if you look at some facts and figures over in the financial review and analysis pages, you will find out that those same people aren't doing such a bad job. The long-term debt of this company has been reduced by $69 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't you get tired talking about that, do you?

MR. FITZGERALD: It is the figures of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We know it hurts for people on the opposite side to hear this, but it is true. These are not our figures. If they were then I am sure we would hear lots of people shouting from the other side asking if we had been talking to Mr. Cyril Abery or somebody else who has spoken out against this. The total revenue has increased by $3.7 million. Operations and administration: It goes on to say that operations and administration costs were $107.9 million in 1993, a decrease of $0.6 million from 1992.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, this Crown corporation, is not in such bad shape.

MR. ROBERTS: We are not selling it because it is in bad shape.

MR. WOODFORD: We realize that, and that is the reason why we want to keep it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. EFFORD: Is that the only reason you would sell it, because it was in bad shape?

MR. FITZGERALD: If it is such a wonderful thing, why don't we keep it? People on Open Line shows continue to call in and tell us their concerns. We have all taken part in that process of calling in, but now it seems that everybody from the other side who can recognize a voice that is calling in, says that it was always orchestrated. They have taken away the decency from those souls because they have taken a stand; they have come out in public and ridiculed them. They have been referred to as characters, they don't know what they are talking about, they don't have their facts straight.

Mr. Speaker, if they don't have their facts straight, then I suggest to people on the other side, the government members who continue to speak out in favour of this Hydro privatization bill, might be able to give us the facts so that we can all change our minds. We can do that over here, Mr. Speaker. We are big enough to change our minds, I can assure you.

The Premier, in his debate on one of the television shows, stated that he wouldn't go through with the act of privatization; he wouldn't privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro if it were against the wishes of the people. I even have his quote here. It was on March 24, on CBC TV: `No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it controls in the House of Assembly to put through laws that they can't maintain adequate public support for, and by adequate I mean essentially majority support in the Province. If the majority of the people in this Province end up being opposed to Hydro I would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation to privatize Hydro.'

Another quote, Mr. Speaker, from the leader of the government of the day stating that he would not push it through the Legislature if the people of the day were opposed to it. Well, I ask the government of the day, How much more proof do they want? What does it take to convince the people on the other side that the majority of the people in Newfoundland and Labrador are against this act of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? What does it take, Mr. Speaker?

Occasionally, we get a shout from the other side that we are all socialists over here, and we should be sitting down with the Member for St. John's East because we do not agree with privatization. Those again, Mr. Speaker, are comments that don't relate to us over here because we do agree with privatization. We agree with privatization where we show it is a positive thing for the people, and where we can show it will benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people who elected us here to bring their views and opinions to the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, a private company with no competition is an monopoly and I fear that those people without competition will be allowed, like any other monopoly, to bring in all the increases in the sale of Hydro to our people, be able to increase the rates any time that they see fit, Mr. Speaker, any time that they see fit, go back to the Public Utilities Board, look for a rate increase because they've had x-number of expenses, it'll be granted to them, no competition. The people who will end up paying for it will be the poor people out in Newfoundland and Labrador, like I said, who are struggling today to find a job and to look after the bare necessities in this world rather then going out investing money, Mr. Speaker. No matter what the expenses are with this privatized company, no matter what the expenses are I understand that there'll be a return of 13.8 per cent to the shareholders of the Province. So where's the incentive? Where's the incentive to go the extra mile to save a few dollars? They're going to get the 13.8 per cent anyway because that's what they consider a fair investment on that type - investing in that type of utility today.

The government sometimes refers to the Nova Scotia deal, talking about such a good deal. When you look at most of the hydro utilities across this country today, Mr. Speaker, still remaining in the hands of government - they are mostly all publicly owned, Mr. Speaker, publicly owned utilities then why should we have to rush out and try to divest ourselves of our Hydro just because Nova Scotia or some other province did? If we want to compare the sale to Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, I think we'll very, very quickly find out that that was not such a great deal after all. When you look at their taxes increasing, their hydro rates increasing, 400 job losses, Mr. Speaker, those are not the things that our people want to hear out in rural Newfoundland today.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy, the minister at the forefront of this sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been surprisingly very quiet about all of this. He hasn't been saying too much. Occasionally the Leader of the Opposition asks him a few questions and he skates around the answers because I don't think he's sure of what the Premier would like for him to say. It was only a short time ago when the Member for St. John's South was trying to convince the member to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because I know that that was always part of his agenda. He's got nothing to hide on that, that was always part of his agenda. He showed me a copy of his flyer that he had put out in the election campaign and certainly enough, sure enough that was part of it.

That was always on his agenda so he's not hiding a thing but he couldn't convince the minister to privatize it. As much as he wanted too the minister wouldn't go along with it but by God the Premier wasn't long convincing him that it was a good deal. Now he has no hesitation whatsoever: It's a wonderful deal, it should be done, let's get on with the business, let's privatize it. So I don't know why he didn't react to the Member for St. John's South because he's a very convincing person. I'm sure that he must have had his facts straight. He didn't just have a dream one night that the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would be a good thing, it would get him elected. He must have had some knowledge of it. When he approached the minister I'm sure he took some facts and figures there. The minister couldn't be convinced.

Mr. Speaker, it's a dream of a few people. It's a dream I would say of the Premier, probably a dream of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice too, I think, would probably never, ever be persuaded not to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I suppose it's because those two gentlemen both came from the same era, Mr. Speaker, when the unforgivable mistake was made. Now they want to go back and try to still the waters, if you would, Mr. Speaker, try to redeem themselves now that they're reaching the twilight of their political career. One by their own choice probably and the other one will be by the people's choice.

As I stated before, Mr. Speaker, twice we've taken this debate, twice we've taken all the information we had, carried it up to Ottawa, went before the Supreme Court and twice we came up empty handed. Mr. Speaker, right now, from what I understand, we can recall 300 megawatts of power from the Upper Churchill. I'm not so sure why we would have even agreed to something like that when it would have cost us I think $800 million to justify building a transmission line to the Province to bring the resource back to our Province so we may be able to create some economic activity.

The shame of it, when we see $21 million a year coming to this Province, and $800 million going to the Province of Quebec. I say no wonder that the people who made that unforgivable mistake would want to rectify it. I would too. But let's not give away something else in trying to redeem the mistakes we've made in the past and trying to justify the actions that we've take. I say to the minister who sits in the House most of the time, I say to the Minister of Justice: Give it some consideration, and look at what the people are saying. Back up a little bit and listen to the people. Go out, find out their advice on what they are doing, what they are planning on doing. See what the people thing. For God's sake, let's not go and make another mistake as we've done in the past.

There are figures continually put forward as to what the value of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is worth. It seems like - the figure I always hear is that it will be for sale for $300 million. The same company, this same utility, has equity in excess of $2 billion. The excuse used is: The more we charge for it the more we are going to have to increase the rates. That doesn't wash in my book. If we are going to sell something then we should get whatever the value of it is on the market. Put it out, get whatever the value of it is on the market, and we return it in other ways to the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's not go giving things away.

As people continue to speak out and ask - because in the beginning people were willing to listen to both sides. All they were asking for was: Tell us your reasons why you want to privatize this Crown corporation. Tell us your reasons and we will listen to both sides. The government up until now has given very little reason as to why they should sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We've given them all kinds of reasons why they shouldn't sell it, but every one that is brought forward we are accused of going out and fear-mongering. Rules and regulations are all wrong, the figures are all wrong. What people are saying is: If the Opposition's figures are all wrong - we know they can make a mistake - then show us the right figures.

As people continue to come forward and ask the simple question, which is: Let us know, tell us what it is all about, all they get from the front benches opposite is: You've been listening too long to the Opposition, you've been listening too much to the open line shows, and you people don't know what you are talking about. The legal opinion of the day says it is a wonderful thing. Everybody in the know says it is a wonderful thing. The only people whom I know of who are saying it is a wonderful thing are the people who stand to make wonderful money from the privatization of this utility. They are the only people whom I'm hearing say that it is such a wonderful thing.

Since privatization would reduce our debt - but it would also reduce our assets. I say to the people opposite, if we look at the privatization of Hydro and we talk about reducing our debt, I think somebody said at one time that we would save something like 9 per cent this year on borrowing. I think - and I stand to be corrected on this - but if we are going to save 9 per cent on borrowing then why should we sell an asset which we are making 12 per cent on today? Why would we sell something that we are making 12 per cent on coming back into the coffers of this Province, and if we are going to only make 9 per cent on what we would save on our interest rates today?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're making that up.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, I'm not making it up. Those are figures that have been brought forward by people who know what they are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Cyril Abery.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, they haven't been brought forward by Cyril Abery either. Cyril Abery is a very reputable man, has done a good job, and I suppose his actions and his knowledge are probably reflected in this booklet that was put out a couple of days ago.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the biggest town in my district came out and supported our stand on this side, and spoke out on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They said they were against it. The mayor went home that night and was harassed by telephone calls from the opposite side - harassed by telephone calls from the opposite side - saying, you have to say something different. You are misinformed; you are uninformed; you have been listening to Roger Fitzgerald; he doesn't know what he is talking about. Neil Windsor doesn't know what he is talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: You have been listening to all the wrong people. You have been listening to Cy Abery; you have been listening to Neil Windsor, Roger Fitzgerald, and everybody else who speaks out against this. You are misinformed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: He said: You have to listen to the Member for Trinity North, and the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: Those are the people who know. Those are the people who make the calls.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: Carry on another five minutes (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South, by leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few minutes.

It just goes to show, and I thank the Minister of Justice. He certainly enjoys it, because I think he is beginning to get enlightened himself. I think he is hearing those facts and figures, and it is coming from such a reliable source over here that he may want to back up a little bit on this himself and go up and meet with the Premier, and the Minister of Finance is listening, because he is getting some good ideas over here as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is what is happening. When somebody speaks out that they are against privatization, if the people feel that it might cause a snowball effect and other councils would drop in, and other Chambers of Commerce might jump on, then the people get on the phones. Get on the phone, Doug Oldford, and call the Mayor of Bonavista. Kay, get on the phone and call the Mayor of Bonavista. Tell him how wrong it is, the information he got. Tell him how wrong he is, and come out and take another stand.

Mr. Speaker, the people in Bonavista, the Town of Bonavista, when they stood up, they stood up and represented their constituents. They represented the people who elected them. They represented the people who elected them back in November.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: And that's what we continue to do over here on this side. I can assure you that we -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the hon. member is in full flight, and one thing and another, but I don't think it is appropriate to respond to other members by their first name. The member should know better than that - by their whole name - so I would ask the member to remember that and withdraw that, calling the Member for Trinity North by his name, and the Member for Terra Nova by her name.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. member is correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair hasn't recognized the hon. member yet, but to the point of order, the Chair wants to remind all hon. members that it is unparliamentary to refer to any member other than by the district that he represents.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize for doing that. I am sure that the people don't mind being called by their first name, but this is not the place to do it, so I will retract that wholeheartedly, and I will say the Member for Trinity North and the Member for Terra Nova.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I say to the people on the opposite side that you people should do as the people who represent the Town of Bonavista, and the member who represents the District of Bonavista South, and the member who represents Menihek, and the member who represents Baie Verte - White Bay, and Placentia, and everybody else over here, to speak out for your constituents. When you stand up and vote, vote with your constituent's wishes, and I can assure you if you do that, then we can put this bill to rest once and for all and get on with discussing the bread and butter issues of the day, and that is to get our people back to work, to try and get this economy on the move, and look after the people out there who sent us in here to this House of Assembly. By God, we should never, ever, distance ourselves from those people and their wishes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think I am the third member who sits to Your Honour's left to speak in this debate, if memory serves me correctly. The Premier introduced the bill, my friend for Eagle River took full flight, as only an eagle can do, and I am third. By my count now we have heard from ten of the members opposite.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is all, not very many.

MR. ROBERTS: Not very many. Well, they have not said very much I would say to my friend for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill. We are talking about the Electrical Power Control Act as I refer to it. It says in the printed draft of the bill before the House The Electrical Power Resources Act but that is a misprint which we shall deal with when, and if we ever get to committee stage on this bill.

MS. VERGE: That is the first of a whole series of mistakes.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady knows a great deal about mistakes as she was part of an endless litany of mistakes, and the difference is that she does not realize to this day that she made them.

The point is that this bill is an important bill and one which in the opinion of the ministry is very much in the interest of the Province to adopt. I said at an earlier moment that together with the Privatization Bill these are two of the more important pieces of legislation to have come before the House in many, many years, in fact since Confederation.

The Electrical Power Control Act has been before the House now for ten debating days. It was given second reading back on March 3, more than two months ago. The Premier spoke at some length using the hour allotted to him as the minister introducing a bill, and gave the reasons why we bring forward this bill. The Leader of the Opposition spoke using the hour allotted to him as the opposition member speaking in response to a government bill, and gave the reasons why, in his opinion, it should not go forward.

My friend for St. John's East then got into the debate but not on the bill itself because the Opposition Leader moved a six-month hoist. A six-month hoist is a permissible parliamentary manoeuvre, entirely a proper one that was found to be in order by the Chair, not surprisingly. The debate went on at some length on that, and every member opposite, without exception, spoke on the six-month hoist. In due course when every member opposite had spoken on the six-month hoist the House brought the matter to a vote, the six-month hoist was defeated, the amendment was defeated, so we are now back on the main bill.

I would like to talk, if I may, for a few minutes about the bill, Mr. Speaker, because I am one of those who believe, and I believe I speak for my colleagues in the ministry, and I believe I speak for my colleagues who sit to Your Honour's left, the members who support the government, when I say this is a bill which should be introduced.

Before I get into substance though, let me just say a word or two about the kind of tactics we have seen from members opposite, which I find to be less than worthy of the standard that members of this House, on any side, should adhere to. We hear any number of them saying that hon. members opposite here will not vote for the bill. Now, some of them say, oh, five, six, or seven, have allegedly called former members of the House, or the people who sit on Open Line, or what have you, and said that there are going to be five Liberals who do not vote for the bill, eight Liberals, or twenty-seven Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea who will vote for this bill, except I know that the Cabinet will. We have made up our minds as a ministry to bring this matter before the House, the fourteen of us. We are not a majority. In fact we are little more than one quarter of the House, unlike previous administrations where more than half the House was beholden to the Premier of the day. When Mr. Peckford was Premier he had twenty-seven, twenty-eight, or twenty-nine members of the House directly beholden to him by his grace, over and above their roles as members of the House. We are fourteen of fifty-two members and we are going to bring this bill to the House as a Ministry. The fourteen of us are going to vote for it. We will see who else votes for it when the time comes. Every member can decide for himself or herself how they will speak and how they will vote.

What I find reprehensible is that members opposite say: We've been told - my friend, the Member for Placentia fell into this trap earlier - We've been told that so-and-so won't, or eight won't, or six won't, or one-and-a-quarter won't. Then when one of us says: Name them, we get: Oh no, we can't do that.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that no member opposite has been told by any member on this side that that member will not support this bill. Now, I have not canvassed my colleagues on this - I have no idea. I have not spoken, for example, to my friend, the Member for Pleasantville, who made it quite clear he was not prepared to support the Ministry on the companion bill, the privatization act. He said that quite openly - in fact, my recollection is when we voted on second reading, he stood in his place and voted against it, as is his right. But I say now, here in the House, standing in my place uncovered as the rule requires, that no member opposite has been spoken to by any member on this side to the effect that he or she will not support the Electrical Power Control Act at second reading.

I just find it reprehensible - I could stand up and say what the gentleman, the Member for Placentia, really told me about what he thinks about his Leader.

MR. CAREEN: A point of order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. CAREEN: You are putting words in my mouth. All I was saying is that there are people over there who had concerns. I never said what way they were going to vote. Now, you go back, and when you've picked over what I said from Hansard and read it, then you can reply, and you can reply rightly, but do not put words in my mouth. I can take care of myself, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would not attempt to put words in the hon. gentleman's mouth and I could not put thoughts in his mind. One is as impossible as the other.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back. Hon. members here, I say, I could say to my friend, the Member for Placentia, what he told me the other day he really thinks about his Leader, the real truth of what he says about his Leader. I could - I wouldn't. I wouldn't want to spread that kind of rumour. I don't know what the hon. gentleman thinks about his Leader - I hope he thinks well of his Leader, but I will say to my friend, and to others, that they simply make statements without foundation, so we reject them. I just want to put that on the record. When this bill comes to a vote - and we will deal with that - every member will stand in this House in his or her place and she or he will cast a vote and we will find out.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back to the bill itself. I would like to speak about it for a few minutes, unlike most members opposite. It falls into five substantive parts and then there is a general part. The first part is the declaration of policy and implementation. This was in the previous act, the act that will be replaced by this bill when - when - it becomes law, and I believe it will, but we have added significant sections to it. The Premier spoke of these at some length but I would commend the members to section 3 which sets out the policy of the Province with respect to the matters governed by this bill, and these are the electrical power, the production, an act to regulate the electrical power resources of the Province.

Part II is entirely new. Part II has not hitherto appeared in the law of this Province. Now, hon. members opposite, for whatever reason, seem to have it in their minds that Part II is aimed solely at remedying the Churchill situation, the Churchill Falls -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) the Premier said.

MR. ROBERTS: That is not, Mr. Speaker, I say to the woman, the Member for Humber East, what the Premier said. He has never said it in this House, he has never said it outside the House, he has never thought it, he has never even dreamed it.

Part II is aimed at what it says it is aimed at, the planning, allocation and re-allocation of power and facilities. It would apply to the power produced at Churchill Falls and it would apply to the power produced at any other place where power is produced in this Province.

MS. VERGE: Including Deer Lake?

MR. ROBERTS: It would apply, Mr. Speaker - it is subject to the terms of the act. Within the terms of the act, it would apply where it says it would apply. When we get into Committee, we will deal with this. We will deal with the mischievous maliciousness of those who called power producers, the paper companies and asked, `What do you say to this?' and then come in and pretend in the House, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns were raised by the power companies.

MR. SIMMS: You had problems with it and you know it.

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't know it. Contrary to the Leader of the Opposition, I have not gone around the Province trying to ferment misunderstanding. My understanding - which may or may not be correct, but it is my understanding - is that the provisions of the bill are acceptable, if not, we will hear.

MR. SIMMS: That is not true.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says it's untrue. The hon. gentleman's record on these matters is such, with deference, I wouldn't accept his opinion as to what day of the week it is.

MS. VERGE: A point of order. I would just like the Minister of Justice to confirm -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has not recognized the hon. member.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady, I realize, is such an abysmally bad lawyer that she can't come to her own view on that. I'm not going to give her legal advice. I'll let her come to her own legal conclusion. The bill applies as according to its words and the hon. member can read the words of the bill and come to her own conclusion.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady is an irritant. She is rude and an irritant. She intends to be. The only thing is she is not effective at either.

Now, let me carry on. Part II of the bill, as I've said, deals with the planning, allocation and reallocation of power, so this is new.

Part III deals with power emergencies. This, too, is new and I would commend it. It is addressed to the situation where we have an emergency and we want to do something about it. It would become particularly necessary when we dispose of Hydro, should that come to pass but, Mr. Speaker, it will be applicable whether we own the shares of Hydro or not. The fact remains, today the government of the Province has no right to take control, by any measure, of the electrical power control of facilities in this Province in the event there's an emergency. We believe that's intolerable. We believe the House should address it as a matter of prudent planning, prudent policy and that's why we've drafted this section.

Part IV is the corporate governance of a retailer. This, too, is new, Mr. Speaker. It would provide, for the first time, that the governance of a retailer shall be subject to certain specific rules set out in the act and that change in ownership can come about only with the approval of the Public Utilities Board and with a right reserved to the Cabinet to change a ruling of the board on that matter if the Cabinet feel that's proper to be done.

That brings us to Part V, change of frequency. That's a technical matter which we are told is important and that's why it's in the bill. It may or may not be outdated but it really goes back to the days when there was fifty cycle power in the domestic usage in Corner Brook and if memory serves me correctly, in Grand Falls and in Central Newfoundland. There's now fifty cycle mil, I believe, in the power in the mill in Corner Brook and I confess, I don't know whether the mill in Grand Falls still uses the fifty cycle power or not.

Part VI are general provisions, that carry into effect the substantive provisions in the other parts of the act. Again, they're straightforward, they're reasonable, we believe they're prudent and we believe they're good policy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why my friend, the Member for Grand Bank pokes fun at my friend, the Member for St. John's East. Just because the Member for St. John's East occasionally leaves the Chamber for all or most of the sitting, it shouldn't bother my friend, the Member for Grand Bank - every leader does it. The Leader of the Opposition does it, the Leader of the Government does it, my friend, the Member for St. John's East is a leader. The only difference between the two is he's a leader without followers.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I find that - and my hon. friend, the Member for Ferryland knows a lot about leaders. I would say to his friend, the Member for Grand Falls, `Be wary on Cassius, he has a lean and hungry look.' There's another reference in Shakespeare that I would commend to my hon. friend, "et tu Brute". I am not calling him a brute, but "et tu Brute". That's in Caesar. The other one is in Macbeth, if memory serves me, "Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself..."

Again, my friend from Ferryland will find his colleagues are all of one mind on this in applying to him.

Mr. Speaker, let me carry right along here now. That takes care of that page of notes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: You know about Cassius and Brute and all them, don't you?

MR. ROBERTS: I certainly do. I am also very much familiar with the passage in Caesar that says, "There is a tide in the affairs of men,/ Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;/ Omitted, all the voyage of their life/ Is bound in shallows and in miseries./ On such a full sea are we now afloat,/ And we must take the current when it serves,/ or lose our ventures."

The passage is well known. My friend from Grand Bank knows it. My friend from Ferryland doesn't, but I don't mind that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the bill.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, if it were in the bill, the gentleman from Ferryland wouldn't know if it was there or not anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: I read it.

MR. ROBERTS: I have no doubt the hon. gentleman read it. I am talking about understanding it.

What my friend from Grand Bank may not instantly recall, although he will given a moment or two, is that the speech I just quoted was part of a speech made by Cassius, or maybe Brutus, on the eve of Philippi, as he was deciding to go out and give battle. He went out and gave battle and lost. He lost the battle of Philippi, I think it was 32 B.C. If I recollect, I was in my first term in the House when that battle was fought.

Mr. Speaker, it's beyond a reasonable challenge, I suggest to the House, that the hon. members opposite have no intention of debating this bill - none at all. We have heard now, as I have said, from twenty-eight or twenty-nine of them. We have heard from every one of them on the six-month motion which, in the parliamentary reference books, is called a dilatory motion - not a dilly motion, but a dilatory motion - and it is meant to delay, and it did delay; every one of them took the full half hour.

Then we had eight or nine or ten of them. I noted them down, every painful speaker, one after the other. The Leader of the Opposition, of course, spoke. The lady from Humber East spoke. The gentleman from Menihek spoke. Byrne Primus spoke, the gentleman from St. John's East Extern. The gentleman for Burin - Placentia West entertained us as only he can, he spoke. Byrne Secondus spoke, the gentleman for Kilbride. The gentleman for Baie Verte - White Bay spoke, the gentleman for Placentia of course spoke today, in his usual entertaining vaudeville fashion. We heard from the gentleman for St. Mary's - The Capes, and then finally we had an entertainment from the gentleman for Bonavista South.

Mr. Speaker, parliament is a debating Chamber. That is what it means. We are here to debate. We are here to talk about the business before the House, but every one of the twenty-seven or twenty-eight members who've spoken has spoken about anything except this bill. They've talked about privatization. That shouldn't surprise me, because when the hon. gentleman for Grand Falls spoke he did in fact speak about the bill. He also went on to say, it is on page 119, he was speaking about the Premier: "Let me put his mind at ease right at the outset." One could hear the Premier's sigh of relief at having his mind put at ease by my friend for Grand Falls. "We will not be supporting this piece of legislation, we will not be supporting the piece of legislation he intends to introduce tomorrow."

Now "tomorrow," that was the privatization bill. "So he doesn't need to make any further pleas, he doesn't need to have any anxieties about what we are going to do or anything else, because we will not be supporting it." You have to hand it to my friend for Grand Falls. Every now and then he is able to make a point and make it clear. "...[W]e will not be supporting it." All we've seen is a concerted effort by hon. members opposite to delay the bill. I don't fault that. Arguably it is because they believe that they speak for a majority opinion in the Province. They may believe that. I don't fault their belief. I would think it is wrong but I don't fault it. If they want to believe that they can.

MR. FLIGHT: They believed they were going to win the last election.

MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. My friend for Windsor - Buchans as always was half a step ahead of me. I need only go back to March 1993 when the hon. Leader of the Opposition then and now, and tomorrow, and forever and a day, was -

AN HON. MEMBER: We hope.

MR. ROBERTS: We hope. I say to my friend, we certainly hope. Every Liberal in the Province was pulling for my friend for Grand Falls this weekend. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition was saying they were going to win the election. He believed that and he is entitled to his belief.

The EPCA stands separate and apart from privatization, it stands on its own feet. There are provisions in this act which when they become law, should that be the case, will apply only to a privatization of Hydro. If Hydro is not privatized then those provisions will simply stand in the statutes book along with the other bits of legislation, the bits of law that are not applicable at this time or not immediately relevant to the matter at issue.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman didn't understand it the first time round -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I could believe that. What I just said, Mr. Speaker, was that there are certain portions of the EPCA which will apply only to Hydro, in the case of the Hydro privatization. Should the bill become law - as it will in my belief but we'll find out shortly - should the EPCA bill become law and should Hydro not be privatized - which I don't think is what will happen but we'll see - should that be the case then the portions of the EPCA that apply only to privatization will not be necessary but they'll still be there whenever a government chooses to privatize Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say a word or two about the arrogance of those opposite who think that they are the only people with genuine motives in this debate. I've sat and listened to almost every speaker opposite. I haven't heard everything that's been said but I've heard everything that's important that's been said and one of the things that strikes me, Mr. Speaker, is the arrogance of the members opposite who believe -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: -is the arrogance of the members opposite who believe, Mr. Speaker, that they are the only members of the House with genuine motives. Now, Mr. Speaker, they're entitled to their belief but I must say - and I think I speak for every member on this side - it's a very offensive view that they hold. Members on this side are as genuine in their beliefs, are as entitled to their beliefs, as fervent in their beliefs and their motives as members opposite. All it does is cheapen the House. It cheapens the hon. member's opposite and I wish they wouldn't do it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I've said - and there'll be no other speaker this afternoon so I can either finish - because I can go until five o'clock and if my friend for Grand Bank believes for a minute that I can't go until five o'clock, he's doing me a disservice.

Mr. Speaker, then let me carry on and accept my hon. friends opposite. As I've said, every member on the other side have spoken at least once in this bill and most have spoken twice. All have sung from the same song and the same verse which happens to be out of tune. Few, very few, have spoken about the EPCA. The gentleman from Bonavista South in his recent peroration spoke only of privatization. The ten days of debate are on the second reading. Now I will ask hon. gentlemen, will they put it to the vote now?

MR. SIMMS: What is the rush?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members opposite want to put it to debate now we will, but since they do not, let me to no surprise at all move the motion that I had drafted this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate on Bill No. 2 entitled, "An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador," standing in the name of the Premier, and any amendments to the motion for second reading of that bill shall not be further adjourned, and further consideration of any amendments relating to second reading of Bill No. 2 shall not be further postponed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the closure motion. There is nothing wrong with that. This House has the right to decide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: This House, Mr. Speaker, has the right to put the question. We have had ten days of debate. We have had more than twenty hours of debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a gag order.

MR. ROBERTS: That is no gag order, Mr. Speaker. This House has a right to decide. Hon. members opposite are not only like children, they are as predictable as children. This House has a right to decide, and let me tell them as well, because we want to give hon. members on both sides the opportunity to vote, we shall call this matter tomorrow. Once we finish Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given in the House I shall ask the House to move immediately to Orders of the Day so as to give the greatest possible time, because as members know with the closure motion coming into force, as I predict it will tomorrow, and I predict it will be carried by a majority of the House when it is put. When in force the debate must end no later than 1:00 o'clock and there can be no amendment to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we shall call Orders of the Day at the earliest moment tomorrow when we have worked our way through routine proceedings, and then we will hear what every hon. member wishes to say in accordance with the rules. Every one of the fifty-two of us is allowed to speak again. Any one who wants to speak will be heard and not later than 1:00 o'clock in the morning the vote will be put. Members perhaps should be prepared for a later evening tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, let me also suggest that I will ask the House to sit through the supper hour tomorrow night so as we do not miss the priceless pearls from hon. members opposite.

My friend for Grand Bank perhaps should either see a doctor or a psychiatrist as (inaudible). Both if he wishes. I will have a word with my friend the Minister of Health. We will fit him in now. He will not have to go to the head of the line, I tell him.

With that notice of motion given, Your Honour, if hon. members are so minded, I am prepared to move the adjournment of the debate, and assuming that carries, we will then ask the House to adjourn until tomorrow, when we will get on with this. But the House will decide, Sir, and tomorrow is what Bill Graham would call `the hour of decision'.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) curiosity, while the Government House Leader is still standing -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for Grand Falls is curious.

MR. SIMMS: - Mr. Speaker, why you would move closure on second reading of the bill when there are hardly any speakers left on this side to go anyway.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I take the question seriously, let me give it a serious answer.

Hon. members opposite have another eight or nine people who could speak, but there can be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, but not only that, any number of further motions are possible. If the hon. gentleman, the Member for Grand Falls put his mind to it, I think he would agree that any number of motions are possible. I could give him half-a-dozen further amendments, and the government has come to the conclusion that hon. gentlemen opposite are determined to prolong this debate by any means they can.

MR. SIMMS: You see that's where you're wrong.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I asked hon. members opposite if they want to have the debate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - they say no. Be that as it may, they can prove it tomorrow by having four of them speak, if there are only four left, and we will put the vote. Then we will do other business, if that is what they wish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) why not?

MR. ROBERTS: Well, whatever order, we will call some other bill. I am open on that one, but this bill will be put to the House for second reading tomorrow. Now, whether the House wants to take the whole day is up to the House, and if we need to sit late to do it, we will.

The reason is very simply that I have enough respect for my friends opposite to believe that if they want to come up with another amendment they can. There is no limit to the number of amendments that can be moved in second reading, assuming they are reasoned. That is the reason why.

Again, it is nearly 5:00 p.m. I would suggest we move the adjournment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we agree to stop the clock?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it agreed that the clock be now stopped? Agreed.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I just want to say to the Government House Leader that we hadn't even thought of further amendments. I don't know why he is putting those ideas in our heads, because we weren't even thinking about it.

MR. SIMMS: No plans.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No plans.

Anyway, it has come to my attention, in consultation with the Clerk, the Private Member's resolution moved by the Member for Waterford - Kenmount today, in the fourth `WHEREAS', there are two words there that are a bit strongly worded, or border on whatever, `deliberately and maliciously', so we are proposing that the fourth recital would be:

WHEREAS the government of the Province has displayed a confrontational, dictatorial, mean-minded attitude towards collective bargaining in recent months. We want to take out "deliberately" and "maliciously" because we feel that is a little too strong, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) unanimous support now, `Bill', guaranteed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I know it is not (inaudible) unanimous support, but we thought, in consultation with the Clerk and with the mover of the motion, that we should withdraw those two inflammatory words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) that the hon. gentleman would acknowledge that Beauchesne says that argumentative motions, or words of that nature, are not in order. I understand the Speaker would have the authority to correct it anyway, without - or say the motion cannot be put. We certainly have no problem. I gather from my friends over here that it is possible this may be carried unanimously, but I would caution my friend, the Member for Grand Bank not to wager all he owns on that non-eventuality.

Mr. Speaker, if it is in order, I will move that the House adjourn.

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