May 16, 1994                HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLII  No. 42


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 have some questions for the Minister of Education today, he will be happy to know, I am sure.

Over the last couple of months many of us who have watched the tactics and quite often heard the bullying language of the minister were convinced that he was doing his real best to provoke a confrontation with teachers. One of the ploys, Mr. Speaker, that he introduced at a very critical point in negotiations was to demand that teachers submit the mid-term evaluations, and threatened dismissal if they refused to do it. You will recall that, and no other action by any other minister of this government infuriated teachers more.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. SIMMS: Some say, Mr. Speaker, despite the protests opposite, that this Minister of Education single-handedly made this strike inevitable. Let me ask the minister this: Were the student marks that he demanded submitted before the teachers went on strike this morning? And, secondly, does he still plan to order school boards to discipline those teachers who did not submit the marks? Can he answer those two questions?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, before I answer the direct questions I have to make a few minor corrections. The hon. member accused me of trying to force the teachers to strike, calling me arrogant and all that. I would beg to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I am probably the meekest and mildest member of this government, and I am certainly the meekest and mildest Minister of Education we have ever had, so how anyone could think in any way that I would force a strike, I think they do not know me.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A pussy-cat, hey?

MR. DECKER: To the Member for Grand Bank, yes, I am probably the pussy-cat of the Cabinet, very soft, Mr. Speaker.

The threatened dismissal, the hon. member is ill-advised, misinformed, or whatever you can say politely. In no way did I at any time threaten dismissal.

We have not ruled out public exams, Mr. Speaker. In order to get a certificate of graduation a student's year's work is taken into consideration, his various midterms along the way are taken into consideration, and the public exams are taken into consideration. Assuming this strike goes on beyond two or three days, a week, or whatever the case might be, and it is our hope that it will not last that long, but if it does last beyond June 10, when exams would normally start, it is certainly our intent to carry on and have exams so that we can evaluate the year's work so that students can have a certificate so they can make known to the school they wish to attend, the job market, or whatever, that they have accumulated a certain standard.

The answer to his question about whether or not the marks were turned in to the various boards' offices, less than 100 teachers out of the 8,100 complied with that request, Mr. Speaker. As for the discipline, I would advise the hon. member that teachers are not the direct employees of the government. They are employees of the various boards throughout the Province, and each board will have to determine in its own way how it deals with any employee, whether it's a teacher or whether it's a janitor or whether it is a school bus operator or whatsoever the case might be, school boards will have to determine how they discipline or how they deal with any of their employees who fail to carry out an order.

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

MR. SIMMS: On the supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want the minister to get too offended, I didn't use the word arrogant by the way, in my original questions, it is one that slipped my mind at that time; I could have easily, and there is no question about it, he is a legend in his own mind, there is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker.

Now the President of Treasury Board, I mean, obviously everybody in the Province misunderstood what the minister had to say, everybody in the Province, even the Minister responsible for Treasury Board because he said publicly that the minister's scheme that he outlined in a letter to the school boards was basically a bargaining ploy that didn't work, that's what the President of Treasury Board said, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't obviously a serious plan for assigning final marks to the students; I suspect the President of Treasury Board was almost as infuriated with the Minister of Education as the teachers of the Province.

Anyway, he sort of answered my supplementary question by saying that if the strike goes on I think he said, they will have exams. Now, may I ask him these two specific questions: Who will supervise those examinations and, who will mark them?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, supervising is not a major problem. The hon. member will remember when he and I wrote the exams, there was nothing further from the room than a teacher. I mean, in the past they were supervised by non-teachers so that's not a major problem, the actual supervising. The exam, I should tell the hon. member, the exams are written, are prepared, are printed, they are sitting in the Department of Education, that's normal, that happens every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: No, I don't think it would be appropriate to table a copy at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that after the exams are written I would be quite pleased to table the exams from all the eighteen subjects in which the exams will be given. The marking is not that simple. In a normal year, last week there would have been letters gone out from the Department of Education advising the various teachers whether or not they were accepted for the marking board. I don't know how we are going to deal with that specifically, there are some suggestions.

I would suggest that first and foremost though, we will have to discuss the matter with the Newfoundland Teachers Association to see whether or not they would permit their teachers on strike to actually mark the exams. At the moment we are concentrating on getting the exams set and delivered but the marking - and there is not quite as much pressure on for the marking - because we will have more time to deal with that issue, Mr. Speaker. Now we are talking as if this strike is going to go on forever; there is always a chance that the strike could be over tomorrow but we will have to wait and see.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just one final question I guess, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education.

It is fairly common, in labour disputes, for government and the public service group, whatever group is involved - management, I guess, and labour - to get together and work out a satisfactory continuation of necessary services, one of which would be the one we are discussing here today. I can't think of one teacher who would want any students to lose their year, so while the minister said, I guess, `we would have to...', `we will have to...', let me ask him directly: Does he intend, as Minister of Education, to ask for a meeting with the president, or the executive, or whoever is responsible, of the NLTA, to discuss this particular possibility so he can have it dealt with; in other words, to ask for their co-operation, would they co-operate, in dealing with the issue of marking exams?

Those kinds of things can be worked out sometimes, and it wouldn't hurt to have it done before, and in advance, even though we are talking about maybe as if the strike would continue prolonged. It is good to have it in place.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made to do that yet. I won't rule it out, but any approach which is made between the government and the teachers, of course, government would have to decide how to do that, the President of Treasury Board would have to be involved, but as of today, no, I have not made any plans to meet with the NLTA to discuss that issue. Have I ruled that out? No, I have not ruled that out. Have I ruled it in? No, I have not ruled it in, but we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the students of this Province will not lose a year's work. We are particularly concerned with the graduating students, and those who are doing Level 3000 courses.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the President of Treasury Board.

On January 18, the NLTA representatives met with the minister and the Minister of Education as well, to discuss the general framework for collective bargaining. At that meeting you informed the NLTA that government would be looking for major concessions in this round of bargaining from all public sector groups, but that concessions from teachers in the educational system would be disproportionately greater than that from others. What is the rationale for the government's approach?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we had a number of those so-called high-level meetings leading up to the point in time where we requested that collective bargaining begin. Many things were said in those meetings, on both sides, and I could talk about, for instance, what was said to me in confidence by the President of the NLTA; I will not do that. All I can tell you is that a number of things were discussed.

As to the conclusion the hon. gentleman reaches in his question, the answer is no.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that at this stage the government has identified $50 million in its Budget in concessions from public sector unions which has since been reduced to $44 million. Of that total, the NLTA has been told that they are expected to contribute $22 million in concessions, with 50 per cent, of course, coming from the total of all the other groups. Since teacher payroll is only 23 per cent of the government's total payroll and since the government has asked teachers to give up 50 per cent of the concessions, does the minister not agree that his approach to collective bargaining is the real reason for the current confrontation with teachers?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess to answer the question properly you have to go back three years. During the last three years, all public employees in the Province have been subjected to the same conditions. There has been a wage freeze and this has been, in the first instance, imposed by legislation and, in the second instance, through agreement. There has been a three-year freeze in wages. In addition, there was a reduction in the amount that government put into the pension plans. So all public servants, equally, have experienced this in the last three years.

In addition, we've gone - for instance, as an example, through the health care system. We have restructured much of the health care system, where we've changed acute care beds to short-term stay beds, where we've increased the number of chronic care beds, but there has been a real reduction in the number of acute care beds in our hospitals. We've done all of those organizational changes in the health care system in addition to the general effects on all of our workers in the public service of the Province.

Now, we must do the same in the education system that has already been done in other government systems. In the instance of the three-year protection letter, we must not be hamstrung by a letter in a collective agreement which says that if you consolidate boards you must pay everybody involved for a three-year period whether the job exists or not. That is ludicrous. So, Mr. Speaker, there are other issues. We didn't hear the teachers' union complaining three years ago when we restructured the health care system and didn't restructure the education system, but we hear them complaining today when we want to carry on the same restructuring in the education system. Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the matter.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the teachers of this Province are prepared to be treated fairly, equitably and in comparison to all other public sector unions. Let me follow up with a matter dealing with the discontinuance of the severance item, which is not even in the collective bargaining process.

In the paper on the weekend the minister has confirmed that he has now taken the severance payout off the collective bargaining table in spite of the fact, as a consequence of earlier initiatives, 300 teachers retired. Now the minister takes away the severance at this late stage in the game in spite of the fact that the NLTA repeatedly asked the minister to give some indication as to whether or not that item would be able to stay there until the end of the current school year. It's a sad commentary; it's very provocative and a very intimidating strategy. Why does the government, by doing this, seek ways to isolate and cause emotional and financial harm to teachers of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What the hon. gentleman refers to is a series of unfortunate occurrences. In the opening package presented to all unions in January, one of the suggestions as to one of the many ways that our objectives could be achieved had to do with severance pay, also the sick leave and there was a whole list of things involved. Mr. Speaker, these were opening packages for discussion. I made that quite clear at the time. I made it quite clear in letters to the NLTA executive and president, that government had no intentions of unilaterally legislating that. I made it quite clear, in all public statements that it was simply an opening position and the same thing applied to all of the public sector workers, exactly the same conditions.

I indicated that this was simply an opening position and that we had no intention of legislating it. It's rather unfortunate that the impression was given that somehow government was going to retroactively legislate this provision regardless of what happens, Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that government did not. At the same time we asked that collective bargaining begin. With some of the other unions collective bargaining did begin and through that process of collective bargaining there was give and take. As a result of that we're no longer looking at the severance option for the unions where there has been give and take.

Mr. Speaker, had there been collective bargaining starting in January with the NLTA it would have become obvious very quickly that these were simply opening positions and that in fact government had no intentions of legislating this option and any of the other options.

I will say to the hon. gentleman that it is kind of unfortunate that there were people out there who believed that we were going to legislate this option and they retired a few months ahead of when they should have retired. Mr. Speaker, that is really unfortunate. It is unfortunate that happened.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations about the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal scam.

Last week the minister told The Evening Telegram that he couldn't remember a report by former Tribunal executive director Weldon Brake expressing serious concerns about Tribunal inefficiencies and excessive billing by Chairperson Gordon Seabright. The minister has had the weekend to reflect. Does he now remember in 1992, almost two years ago, personally meeting with Mr. Brake and listening to Mr. Brake's serious concerns about inefficiencies and excessive billing by Mr. Seabright, and then at the meeting arranging to get a photocopy of Mr. Brake's statistics quantifying the abuses? Does he now remember on February 23, 1993 being hand-delivered a thirty-five page report by Mr. Brake reiterating grave concerns about inefficiencies and excessive billing and recommending specific reforms? Does the minister also now remember personally phoning Mr. Brake and thanking Mr. Brake for his report? Will the minister now admit that he has known for about two years, at least two years, that Gordon Seabright -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: - was flagrantly abusing his position with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal and that there were gross inefficiencies at the Appeals Tribunal?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were a number of comments in the questions that were raised there and I will try to deal with them. The problem is that since last week when I tabled the information that was requested - and I had no hesitation in tabling it, because in fact the information appears in public reports, an annual report of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal every year. We are in the process now of tabling the further information because the Appeals Tribunal has been in place since 1987. It has been under review for just over a year or so now because we did a major review of everything in Workers' Compensation. The last item to be dealt with was the appeals process itself, which in fact there are recommendations that have been before the Cabinet committees and the Cabinet for a short period of time and will be decided upon in the near future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: The difficulty, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm having difficulty hearing the hon. minister and he is about ten feet away. If members could hold their conversations down, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is the context in which the hon. members opposite try to raise the questions which are legitimate questions that should be raised in terms of accountability. When they talk about - the hon. Member for Humber East in raising her questions today talked about a scam at Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal. There is none, has been none, and never has been any that I'm aware of. That is not what Mr. Brake, the former executive director, who left the Province to take up a position with Workers' Compensation in British Columbia, addressed with me.

Mr. Brake was not talking to me about any scam at Workers' Compensation Appeals. He had legitimate concerns as the executive director about more efficient ways that it could operate. One of his major recommendations, by the way, is that we replace the tribunals, which is what the previous administration put in place, by single adjudicators, which is what we are seriously looking at now, and which everybody who is involved in the system, by the way, is saying they don't want to change.

The bases for Mr. Brake's concerns were not in the context that the members opposite raised the question, that there is a scam, or the other phrase was that there is excessive over-billing. His concern, very legitimate, expressed to me, and in the report that he gave me back in February of 1993 that I then had studied and looked at, and that is why I don't - I met with Mr. Brake a dozen times over serious issues. Because he had some concerns about the running of the Appeals Tribunal in a more efficient manner because he thought it was getting too costly to run as a tribunal.

Secondly, that even though we were putting more people in the system to try to hear more cases so that the injured workers could get decisions, the decisions were not being rendered any more quickly than they were before, because previously at a point in time there was just one chairperson. We have moved to the point now where we have a chairperson and four vice-chairs who share some of the work, and the decisions are still taking sometimes eighteen months for the injured workers to get the final outcome.

That was Mr. Brake's concern. That is what he legitimately came to see me about. He talked about the increased costs, but he didn't talk about any scam, and he didn't talk about any excessive over billing with me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, supplementaries for the minister. The minister's memory is starting to come back, but we will smoke out the rest.

Two years ago, 1992, the year in which the minister became well aware of a scam, abuses, and excessive billing, Gordon Seabright billed the tribunal $57,000. Last year, Mr. Seabright boosted his billings to over $98,000. Why did the minister allow a bad situation to become so much worse? Was it because the Premier issued instructions to make a special exception for his first patronage appointment, the defeated 1989 Liberal candidate in Mount Pearl?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, again I have to take exception to the language that is used, because I think it's somewhat irresponsible and inappropriate. There has been and is no scam at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

The issue, Mr. Speaker, is clearly this. For some time the injured workers who have claims for appeal that they would like to have the external hearing so they could get, hopefully, reversal of a decision rendered already by the Workers' Compensation Commission, had been complaining about delays in getting a hearing date, and then delays in getting a decision. To assist in that matter, what we did was to appoint extra vice-chairs and extra sides persons so that there could be more hearings and people could get their issues addressed.

The report clearly shows that the activity at the Appeals Tribunal, in terms of the number of hearings held so that the injured workers could get their cases heard and disposed of, doubled; and if, of course, you are going to pay on a per diem basis, which is the basis again that the previous administration put in place, and that we have continued, except for a reduction in pay - I point out again, that is the only change we have made, is a reduction in the per diem rates put in place by the previous administration in 1987 - we were concerned that the injured workers get their hearings heard and decisions rendered. On a per diem basis, when you do twice as much work you pay twice as much money.

There are five people there doing the work where, when the previous administration was in place, there was one. They had a second who resigned because they couldn't make a commitment. They had another replacement who resigned because they wouldn't make a commitment. We were fortunate enough, this time, to have a couple of people who, because they didn't have those commitments with other law firms, that meant they could only commit a day or two a week to this practice, that even though it is a per diem basis and not a full-time job, we have had a couple of people who have been able to put an inordinate amount of time compared to other people into it, and therefore they received the payments that they deserved under the system put in place by the previous administration.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bluff, bluff, bluff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Let's see some documents.

Will the minister table, number one, the February, 1993 report of former tribunal executive director, Weldon Brake - the thirty-five page report - table it now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Will the minister table the per diem claims on the prescribed forms by the tribunal chairperson, Gordon Seabright, as well as each of the vice-chairpersons since May of 1989?

Will the minister table any Minutes of Council or other documents appointing Gordon Seabright, specifying his term of office, remuneration, benefits, expenses, and responsibilities -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - including any broadening of his duties after Mr. Brake's resignation from the executive director position? And will the minister confirm that Mr. Seabright's term actually expires next month, in June of 1994, not in December of 1994, as he told The Evening Telegram?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I will check and see. I will certainly check with Mr. Brake in the first instance to see if there is any objection that he would have to having his report to me tabled for public consumption. It is an internal document that he presented to me, as the minister.

I will also check and see, just as the hon. members opposite, the hon. the Member for Humber East, when she was a Minister of the Crown - people will make their own judgement as to whether she was a good one or a bad one. The fact of the matter is, as you know yourself, that in the position she was in there are internal documents for use of the ministry and the department from time to time that are not appropriate for public scrutiny. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I'll look at the rest of the request and maybe at the same time that we look at the appropriateness of placing on the table for public scrutiny personal claims for people who are doing things, we might also table all the claims made by the spouse of the hon. member opposite under contracts that he worked for the Provincial Government when she was a Minister of the Crown and he was awarded several contracts for the government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Last week some 300 people were laid-off at the Come By Chance oil refinery. Can the minister update this House and the people of the Province today on what has happened and what the effects on the future operation of the oil refinery will be as a result of these layoffs?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The operators at Newfoundland Processing Come By Chance Refinery have been in touch with both the Minister of Mines and Energy and myself since the middle of last week when it became clear that they were going to have difficulty meeting their full payroll commitments, which were due on last Thursday. As a result, I believe even this afternoon as we are here in the House there are meetings ongoing between representatives of the workforce at the refinery and the management operating group to try to find mutually-agreed-to arrangements whereby they can meet the remainder of the payroll. They met part of the payroll on Thursday and they're trying to meet the remaining payroll. Also, the company officials are dealing with our own officials in terms of what kinds of notice requirements might be in place with respect to an orderly layoff of the people, if that's the final outcome, so that they meet the requirements under the law in the Province and that there can be an orderly layoff, if it's necessary, while the company continues its best efforts to get back into a position where it can meet the remainder of its payroll and straighten itself out so that they can look at continuing operations as soon as possible.

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

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

The situation is very, very serious, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. We're talking about 300 jobs in this Province that are in jeopardy, possibly 500. I asked the minister in my question, what about the future operations of Come By Chance? Can he enlighten the House? Because there are more details. Can he enlighten the House today - either he or the Minister of Mines and Energy - on the future operation of Come By Chance, which is so very, very important to the future economic condition of this Province?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that the company could not make its payroll on Thursday. As my colleague explained, the company is dealing with that issue and is hoping to meet the rest of the money for the particular payroll concern, the one that was due last Thursday and I hope they can meet it in the next few days. In the meantime, that refinery has been closed for some time now because of the fire that occurred there a few weeks ago. They are undergoing clean-up, maintenance, reconstruction because of that fire. Also, they were due to start a regular maintenance turn-around about now, about mid-May, to change the catalyst in the isomax unit. All of this is now part of the closedown. All of this will be done in a few weeks as part of the closedown. You cannot have an instant re-opening because it was down anyway for the clean-up after the fire and for the turnaround. It will take a few weeks. I'm not sure of the exact time that will be required but I certainly hope that it's all taken care of in the next few weeks and everybody gets back to work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 665 residents of the district of Port au Port. The prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS recent decisions by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to eliminate the 2 per cent savings clause will mean a significant loss in teaching units available to schools in our district; and

WHEREAS the loss of these units will have a negative impact on programming which will be available to our children for next year; and

WHEREAS the current dispute with teachers further threatens the education of our children;

WHEREFORE we respectfully request that government review its decision with regard to the elimination of the 2 per cent savings clause;

And further, we urge the government and teachers that government and teachers engage in intensive negotiations to bring about a speedy resolution of this labour dispute.

As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my district I had occasion to meet with some 100 parents representing PTAs throughout the district, and there were a number of concerns that were raised. Under the 2 per cent savings clause, the school board within my district is one of the few boards in the Province that has benefitted, and there have been a number of programs that have been carried on within that area for the past number of years as a result of the fact that the school board has had in hold-back a number of these units.

The concern by parents is that with the units that have been withdrawn this year, and the further plans to remove the balance next year, it will impact negatively on the quality of programming that will be available to children, especially in the smaller schools in the rural areas.

With regard to the labour dispute, the parents spoke at length, and very emotionally, with respect to their concerns that their children are not in class today, and their concern that they do not want this situation to continue for any extended period of time. At the meeting, I can say that the parents were not concerned with laying blame. They appreciate the teachers' position; they appreciate where they are coming from, and respect what they are trying to do. They also recognize, I submit, the very difficult situation in which the government finds itself, but the bottom-line as far as the parents are concerned is they do not want the dispute to continue. They want their children back in school and they are urging this government and the teachers to continue to bargain in good faith to bring about as quickly as possible a resolution of this very serious situation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition presented by my colleague and to say that the prayer of the petition is something that I have been talking about for some weeks and months. The impact on the schools of this Province of the withdrawal of the 2 per cent savings clause without a comprehensive small schools policy has been devastating. In fact, I have received many, many letters from all parts of the Province indicating that school boards have given notices to teachers that they are to be declared redundant, that some schools are closing and students are scheduled to be transported over long distances next year.

Mr. Speaker, programs are being chopped. In particular, I want to mention things like physical education programs, guidance programs, music, art, these kinds of programs are at risk. While we have a government which pretends to be dedicated to the rural Newfoundland schools, we have not yet seen a comprehensive small schools policy for this Province.

While the minister has said he has allocated 7,200-and-so-many teachers to all the boards of the Province, in reality, that means that many children in rural Newfoundland next year will not know whether they will be in multi-grade classrooms, whether the programs they have at the senior high school level will be cut back, courses dropped, whether we are going to have situations where we are going to have at risk students, students who are already in danger of not finishing school, placed at even greater risk. The impacts of the government's policy towards the 2 per cent savings clause, are, I don't believe fully understood by the people who really work at the Department of Education level, because if they understood them, they would be doing a lot more to address the issue with a greater degree of sensitivity.

As for collective bargaining processes, Mr. Speaker, I can only say the time has come for all sides to be going to the table with a compromising attitude, with a willingness to seek a resolution because the children of this Province deserve the best education they can get, and we call upon the government to go to the table, try to be conciliatory, try to stop the intimidating tactics, deal with the issues and let's get the children of this Province back into schools because we can't say on the one hand, we want a longer school year and as of this day, that this government has saved $2,225,000 this very day from the teachers payroll of this Province, and, Mr. Speaker, if that's they way we are going to balance our budget, on the backs of our children, then it is a sad day for education in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for presenting the petition and I thank him for the way in which he handled the petition. There are two parts to the request. First of all, it has to do with the 2 per cent savings clause.

Mr. Speaker, I agree and I guess everybody in the whole educational system in North America would agree, that it probably would be better if we had perhaps one teacher for every ten students, that that way there would be more personal contact and more individual help given, there is no doubt about that; but, Mr. Speaker, there is a reality that we have to live within; there is a reality, and that reality simply is, that because of what's happened to this Province in the last three years, because of the recession, because of what's happened to the groundfishery, because of what's happened to transfer payments and so on, the revenues are simply not there to provide, what I guess anybody would consider to be an absolutely ideal system, and if we could hire twice as many teachers, Mr. Speaker, we would probably create a better situation from the point of view of students and teachers, but the ability to pay is simply not there.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the 2 per cent savings clause, there is a three-year protection rule. These are management rights that should be retained by management, to give the management the ability to restructure the system and to move teachers where the need is greatest, if I could put it that way. We have a number of schools where there is one teacher for five students, one teacher per ten students and so on around the Province, and I understand the special circumstances but, Mr. Speaker, our kitty can no longer afford to have that a widespread condition, so, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we can't comply with the first part of the request.

The second one however, Mr. Speaker, I embrace wholeheartedly. Negotiations should have begun in January; they did not; that's unfortunate. We are at the stage now where there is a strike and we are trying to get negotiations started, they have not yet started and we are hoping that over the next few days perhaps that can be accomplished, but, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, that even if that is accomplished, that we would finally, after months and months begin the negotiating process, the collective bargaining process, that there are still some significant hurdles to overcome in those negotiations, not an easy round of negotiation, but I agree wholeheartedly, the shorter this work disruption is, the better it is for all concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a petition from 120 residents of St. John's and area, and these petitioners are concerned about the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and have asked the House 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.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are amongst the, I would say, hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders who have opposed the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, with 79 per cent of decided people, after hearing both sides of the issue on the Province-wide debate, decided that they were opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The government has continued in its arrogant attitude towards the people of this Province, most recently displayed in its treatment of the teachers, I might add, but its arrogant attitude to the wishes of the people of this Province who have clearly made up their minds on the issue.

The Premier on his television address and the debate committed himself to not taking the matter forward in the House of Assembly if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador did not support it. Yet we now have a situation where the Premier is determined to move forward regardless of the wishes of the people and regardless of his own statements to the contrary.

We've come to a situation where the respect for government and respect for people in government is at an all-time low. It is things like this that put us in that situation and put the people's confidence in the government in very serious - and rightfully so in this case - disrepute.

We have a teachers' strike today because as a number of teachers said to me that they are convinced that some people in government are out to get them. What we've had over the last number of months is a continuation of the arrogant attitude of this government, including the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture who supports the government's position on Hydro, and won't get up in this House of parliament and act in the best interest of the people of this Province. Nor will the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. They are continuing to support the Premier in his arrogant views of giving away the resources of the people of this Province to serve some ideological goals that he picked up from Michael Walker or somebody like that.

That is the kind of government we have here. That is why we have the disrepute that this government is held in. That is why we have a teachers strike, because this government can't handle the reality of power without this kind of behaviour. When the government is prepared to listen to 79 per cent or 80 per cent of the people then perhaps the people will have some respect for them, but not until then, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a few people on the opposite side of the House today who are somewhat testy. I have some advice for them. If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, well then get out of the kitchen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand here and support my colleague's petition that government not go ahead and privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. What we have seen since October 1 on this issue has been a blatant disregard for public input, a blatant disregard against the public wishes.

First and foremost the tale began with the merger of Fortis but the Premier and his government backed off from that. Then we saw that Hydro was privatized because there was a committee of three wise men established, the Premier said. There was no committee at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Five wise men.

MR. E. BYRNE: There were five men, were there? There was no committee at all. There was no report presented. No report whatsoever indicating that Hydro should be privatized.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province has stood in this House time after time and has called the Opposition fraudulent and misrepresenting the views on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the real facts. We have said to him and his ministers opposite that if he is so convinced that we have been fraudulent, if he is so convinced that we have misrepresented the views on this particular issue, then why has he or his government not called public hearings to prove that we have been fraudulent and misrepresentative? If there is anybody who has been fraudulent it has been the Premier himself. If there is anybody who has misrepresented the facts in this debate, it has been the government itself.

If we need any clearer indication but this, the Premier's own words: `No government has the right to proceed, and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly, to put through laws that it can't maintain adequate public support for, and by adequate I mean, essentially, majority support in the Province' - the words of the Premier, Mr. Speaker - `and if the majority of the people of this Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro, I would not ask the Members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro.'

March 24th, Mr. Speaker, that statement was made, in a public debate. Two weeks ago, the Opposition House Leader stood up and asked the Premier that very question: What was his and his government's intention? His intention was full speed ahead with privatizing Hydro - a pure chameleon.

This leader reminds me of a story of the Emperor Nero, who fiddles his fiddle while the country burns around him. This Premier, on this issue and many other issues, is doing exactly that.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, you're not going to hear it. I am going to state some facts.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, I had more important things to do on Sunday morning than listen to CBC Radio, I can assure you of that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments in regard to the petition that the hon. the Member for St. John's East and the hon. the Member for Kilbride just spoke to about the privatization of Hydro. The Member for St. John's East got off into the accusations that this government is not concerned at all about the teachers of the Province, and brought it all together.

I want to state very clearly to this hon. House that we all have concerns for all people of this Province, whether you are a former teacher of the Province - we all have family members who are teaching in this Province, and we have sons and daughters who are going to school. I will give you my own personal example. I have three close relations, sisters, brothers-in-law, teaching in this Province, and I have children going to school, so I am equally as concerned about the education process, and the value of education, and the value of teachers to the education process of my children, and everybody else's children in this Province, as any other individual in this Province, no matter what side of the House you sit on.

The privatization of Hydro, bring it all together, it is all a financial matter. No person, no matter where you sit in this Province, can not be concerned about the financial situation of the Province. Nobody - no minister, no government member, no backbencher, nobody in the Opposition - should have any less concern about making the decision about what we should do about the financial mess this Province is in, and where we should go into the future, and it is all interrelated. Whether it's NAPE, whether it's CUPE, whether it's the NTA, or whether it's the privatization of Hydro, it all has an impact on the financial situation of the Province.

I have said it in this House of Assembly 10,000 times in the last ten to twelve years - well, not twelve years - ten years since I got into this office, we can't continue dishing out the monies and borrowing the monies that we don't have coming in in revenues; you just can't keep doing it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) gave it all away.

MR. EFFORD: Well, okay, we gave it away. Let me explain to you how we did give it away.

MR. SIMMS: Gordon Seabright.

MR. EFFORD: We go back to 1971, when -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, probably the members on both sides of the House don't need to hear about the financial situation; they will carry on their own debate.

I was going to point out -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might begin by agreeing to sit through the 5:00 p.m. hour so as to give the House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Government House Leader. If hon. members would restrain themselves for a minute or two -

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, there are those who say that not hearing me may not be a subject of complaint, but I wonder if I could begin by moving that the House not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.?

Motion carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is a degree of urgency about Motion No. 6. I wonder if perhaps you would call it and we will deal with that.

MS. VERGE: What?

MR. ROBERTS: Motion No. 6; that is the judge's motion.

MS. VERGE: Did you say it was an emergency?

MR. ROBERTS: A degree of urgency.

MS. VERGE: Oh.

MR. ROBERTS: It is the sort of urgency that if we don't act in due course it could become an emergency, I say to my friend, the Member for Humber East.

Mr. Speaker, when we finish motion 6, I can advise the House, we'll go on into the debate in committee stage on the Electrical Power Control Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, there will be a closure motion on that.

MS. VERGE: How many is that this spring, three?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This particular resolution goes back to 1991 where a tribunal was put in place, according to legislation, to make decisions on the salaries of provincial court judges. That tribunal operated, Mr. Speaker, under the chairmanship of Norman Whalen, Q.C., and reported to this hon. House. It recommended, Mr. Speaker, some substantial, we believe, increases in the salaries of provincial court judges and changes in benefits and so on. However, Mr. Speaker, at that point in time we were experiencing tremendous financial difficulty. We had to freeze the compensation of public sector employees. We had to make a decision on this tribunal report and one of our choices was that we could vary the report, so did, because we thought that in a time of restraint we could not give these large increases to a sector of public employees. They are really employees of the public in the Province and get paid from the public purse but, Mr. Speaker, the mechanism that we used put certain deadlines and certain dates in place and if we do not now act before May 18 which is two days from now - I believe today is the sixteenth, is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BAKER: Yes. If we do not act within the next two days, then the recommendations of the tribunal will come into effect retroactively to 1992. So, Mr. Speaker, we are now choosing to vary the report again. We're choosing to do it in a way, Mr. Speaker, that indicates our desire to make sure that it's done in a fair manner. The point has been made to us that since the last review of the provincial court judges' responsibilities was done in 1985, there have been considerable changes in responsibility and duties. What we're suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we continue the way we are, that the Classification and Pay division of Treasury Board be asked to take a look at the particular duties and responsibilities to see if, in fact, there have been substantive changes or if, in fact, there have been changes that would warrant any type of reclassification to occur at this time.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I can give the hon. lady the numbers. Right now, the current salaries and benefits; judges get $90,129 a year and the Chief Judge of the provincial court gets $95,129. The recommendations of the tribunal, which we don't want to have come into effect now, would give judges $101,000 immediately and $112,000 by April 1, 1994, and the Chief Judge would be 6 per cent higher then the judges. So it would effectively see over a 20 per cent increase in the salary of the provincial court judges and, Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to get into that. So we're asking that Treasury Board look at and see if, in fact, since 1985 there have been substantial changes in the duties and responsibilities of the provincial court judges and to report back as to what changes should be made in the classification of these positions. So, Mr. Speaker, that's the purpose of the resolution in a nutshell and I'd be interested to hear what members opposite have to say.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we, in the Official Opposition, support the stated government objective of being fair in deciding on levels of remuneration and benefits for all those paid out of the provincial treasury. Judges are different from public servants inasmuch as they are independent from the political branch of the government, and their independence must be preserved. And that is precisely why we, in the House of Assembly, are now dealing with this resolution about judges' salaries and benefits that is provided for by legislation. We don't, in the House of Assembly, by resolution set salaries and benefits for public servants. There are other problems associated with the process of determining wages and benefits for public employees.

What judges have in common with public employees is the source of their income which is ultimately the taxpayers, the provincial treasury. At a time when the government is imposing restraint in awarding compensation, in awarding pay and benefits to public employees, it is necessary to be consistent in setting salaries and benefits for judges. We, in the Official Opposition, supported the action taken by the government two years ago in extending the same restraint guidelines to judges as those imposed on the public service.

Inasmuch as this resolution achieves that objective, the objective of fairness, we support this resolution; however, this resolution, by setting up a reclassification process, really opens up the possibility that judges will get an increase, and even a very substantial increase by another name. There is no provision in the resolution for a reclassification recommendation for pay or benefit increases coming back to the House of Assembly.

I wish to move an amendment, and my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Grand Bank, will second it, to ensure that any reclassification and remuneration increase which may be recommended through the reclassification exercise, come back to the House of Assembly and only be implemented if the House of Assembly votes to implement it, in other words, that any changes in classification and remuneration be subject to approval of the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Opposition House Leader has already given the Government House Leader a copy of my amendment. I have another copy here which I can table.

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. member would permit for a second? That is correct, but I didn't hear her move it formally. I think she talked about the effect of her amendment.

MR. SIMMS: She moved it, seconded by the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. ROBERTS: Was the word `suggested' in there?

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader is correct. I just explained the amendment, I didn't read the precise wording, but I will do that now, and I have a copy.

Moved by me, and seconded by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank that the resolution be amended by adding the following: `6. The tribunal recommends that any suggested changes in classification and remuneration resulting from the reclassification exercise in Recommendation 1 be subject to the approval of the House of Assembly.'

Mr. Speaker, we want to have any increase in remuneration subject to debate and approval of the House of Assembly to guard against the possibility that judges will be treated differently from others paid out of the public treasury. People in the Province, public employees in particular, who are being subjected to year after year of wage restraint, of freezes, of cuts in benefits, of suspension in government pension contributions, will only be prepared to go along with that arrangement if there is a perception, if they perceive that the government is being just and uniform.

But when people see exceptions and abuses such as people found out about last week in the case of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, in the case of Gordon Seabright and Jeff Brace, people are no longer willing to accept restraint measures themselves. The government has failed in its stated objective of fairness, not so far, in the case of Provincial Court judges, but in other instances.

Retired Judge Gordon Seabright has been treated much more favourably than stated government policy would allow.

MR. SIMMS: An interesting point.

MS. VERGE: There was no fairness and balance involved in former Judge Seabright double-dipping. There was no fairness and balance involved in Mr. Seabright billing the amounts he did, charging the per diems he did, for his work with the Appeal Tribunal. The billing didn't even conform with stated Treasury Board guidelines.

Mr. Speaker, in moving the amendment to this resolution dealing with pay and benefits for Provincial Court judges, we, in the Official Opposition, want to make sure that any change is subject to House of Assembly approval. We would expect the House of Assembly, which would have to deal with the issue openly, with public scrutiny, to make the same kind of decision for judges as the measures being imposed on the other people who are being paid out of the public treasury, teachers, for example.

MR. EFFORD: I agree with you.

MS. VERGE: Good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of comments. I'm not going to take up ten or fifteen minutes. I just want to make a couple of comments about the inaccuracies that the hon. the Member for Humber East is presenting, trying to leave the impression that this piece of legislation going through today is connected with the accusations made that a former judge was being overpaid with taxpayers' money for the job he was doing.

The Opposition has every right, it is the right of the Opposition, to stand in the House - I did it, from 1985 to 1989, to make points.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's where the real Opposition was.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, a real Opposition. But at least, when I did it, and when I stood up and asked a question or made an accusation, I had researched and I knew the answers before I put the question. Nobody could throw anything back in my face and say, there: Well, Efford, you did it for four or five years, you handed out patronage jobs and paid taxpayers' money. But to stand there - I want to read, Mr. Speaker, to this House, and then I'm going to table it: This is the hon. the Member for Humber East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: What did the Leader of the Opposition say then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Giving out money? Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I will stick to the point at hand.

This is the hon. the Member for Humber East, the former minister, standing up now talking about Judge Seabright and what this government is doing. I'm not suggesting anything is right or wrong, I'm going to make a point to the hon. member.

Contracts with Newlantic Group - now, who is the Newlantic Group? I will let the hon. the Member for Humber East explain that when she stands up again; 1989-1990 - study of legislation governing the use of vacuum unloading systems: $24,000; 1988-1989, to implement in-plant quality program of four processing plants: $30,000; 1988-1989, development of a fisheries quality manual: $30,000; 1987-1988, development of a productivity quality management system for Makkovik fish plant: $20,000; 1986-1987, implementation of an in-plant quality program at Barry Fisheries Limited, Curling, and Superior Seafoods Limited, Stephenville: $24,000; Operational Review, James Doyle and Sons, $29,980; Operation Review, Moorfish Limited, $25,000.

MS. VERGE: What year was that?

MR. EFFORD: Nineteen-ninety. But all the hon. members - fifteen (inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Nineteen ninety-one, I said. This started back in 1989. The spouse of the Member for Humber East is (inaudible) complaining - $24,000, $30,000, $30,000, $20,000, $24,000, $29,000, $25,000 and $15,000, and she has the gall to stand up in this House and make accusations that we are throwing away taxpayers' money. Well, I mean, if you are going to say it, say it with some accuracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, table it.

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

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

I just want to have a few words; I don't want to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleague, the Member for Humber East has covered it very well and has made an amendment which really is adding to the resolution, which I understand from the indications of the Government House Leader, the government will accept, because this matter should be brought back here to the House, if indeed there are any changes in classification or enumeration resulting from the reclassification exercise; we support that and that's why we are making the amendment. And, of course, in this day and age and what we are going through in this Province today, when we see the teachers of our Province on strike today, NAPE and CUPE are still negotiating, the nurses, as I understand, are back to the table today in conciliatory talks, it is only right and proper that we, as members of this House demand, that if indeed there is a reclassification process undertaken for provincial court judges and as a result of that, there may be some recommendations for benefits or salary increases, that this House has the ultimate say in whether or not these benefits or increases are ratified. I expect, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that if we are still in the same climate of restraint as we are today, when these recommendations come back, we will deal with it in orderly fashion, that we won't even consider - but, of course, if indeed the reclassification exercise takes place and there are no recommendations or if there is no reclassification, then that is the end of it anyway.

We will only deal with it if indeed there is reclassification awarded, and consequently, benefits and so on recommended for the House to deal with. So we support it; but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation didn't say too much about the resolution, I say to him, he completely ignored the resolution. He got pretty testy with the Member for Humber East and took his venom out on her without dealing with the resolution, and it is almost as if he were supporting the provincial court judges in getting raises and so on; I don't know if that is what he meant or not, but he certainly didn't deal with the resolution, I say to him.

MR. EFFORD: Don't get into the (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, all I can say to that is, my colleague, the Member for Humber East is very capable of looking after herself and defending herself, I don't need to offer, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. She is quite capable of dealing with that and the minister can stand in his place and spew out all the figures he likes, he doesn't make any difference. With that said, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down. I don't know if there is any other member who wants to speak to this or not.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief because I get the impression that most members who want to speak have said what they want to say. I want to say on behalf of my colleague and myself and the ministry, that we were consulted in respect of the amendment that the hon. the Member for Humber East moved and we had indicated we are prepared to accept it and to ask our friends in the House to vote for it. We think it is a reasonable point to make, and indeed, I go so far as to say, having had a hand in drafting the resolution, that if we had thought of it first we would have put it in, so we are quite prepared to accept it.

I want to make two other points if I might, Mr. Speaker. The first is to emphasize to the House that the judges in this Province, the provincial court judges - there are now twenty-three; there is one vacancy, Judge Stone retired and there has not yet been an appointed to replace him, the competition is underway. The judges have been subjected to the same financial restraints as any other persons paid from the public chest. Four-and-a-half per cent last year and I believe we did it through the pension mechanism as we did with other senior public servants. And that's only right and proper, I think members would agree this doesn't compromise judicial independence; it's not unfairly singling out the judiciary or anybody else. Everybody who looked to the public chest for her or his compensation last year had a 4.5 per cent roll back or whatever you want to call it, decline; a rose by any other name is still a rose with thorns although it smells sweet. And the judges had that, and to their credit, there was no complaint; there was no remonstrance. They accepted the same discipline as was imposed on all of us including, of course, members of the House and ministers.

Secondly, with that point made, I want to say, as other members have, it's very important that judges be treated fairly. They cannot, by definition, engage in job action, or in collective bargaining, as almost every employee group in the Province can. They have an association which speaks for them very capably, but they are not a group that can find a place in the normal mechanisms by which government attempts to resolve wage and working conditions with employee groups. That is why the act was brought in in 1991 by my predecessor, the Member for Humber West, and I understand it had the support of all sides of the House at that stage, and in due course the report has come back here that we are dealing with today.

In my view, what we are doing here is consistent with the principles of judicial independence, and I want to underline that the Ministry are very much committed to this. What we are doing is entirely appropriate to balance off on one hand the right of the House of Assembly to control expenditures of the public revenue of this Province and, on the other hand, the judicial independence of judges, who must not only be independent, as they are, but must be seen to be independent by any reasonably informed person.

The fact remains, as the resolution, I think, notes - it does note, in the form of the reference to the Orsborn report by David Orsborn, who is now Mr. Justice Orsborn of the Trial Division - there has been no examination since 1985 of the role judges play, of the nature of their duties, the nature of their qualifications, the types of factors that are taken into account in a reclassification exercise. Reclassification exercises go on all the time throughout the public service. They are proper; they are appropriate, and when done properly, as they are under this administration - that is all I can speak of with knowledge - they are very effective as part of a proper personnel policy.

The role of the judges has changed. I am not here to make a case for them. They will make their own through their council, before the classification procedure, assuming this resolution is adopted, but since 1985 there have been two significant changes. We have brought in a ten-year rule, which is the same as applies to the Section 96 judges, we call them, the judges of the Supreme Court Trial Division and the judges of the Court of Appeal or, for the matter, the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada or the Federal Court of Canada. No man or no woman can be appointed to the Provincial Court of Newfoundland and Labrador unless she or he has ten years in active practice at this Bar, or a combination of our Bar and some others.

Secondly, the scope of their duties has been extended somewhat. The extension in some of the family court jurisdiction, some other jurisdiction, has increased the scope and nature of their work. There have been significant changes, as members know well, in the Criminal Code.

We think the request is an appropriate one. We are not here to prejudge it. That will be done by the process, and we quite agree with the hon. member's suggestion that before a change becomes effective, it be brought back to the House and not take effect until and unless approved. So the classification process will suggest a change, at most. If it does suggest a change, the decision will remain here in the House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the vote?

Before we vote on the amendment, I will read the amendment to make sure it is in the record, because there have been some changes in it.

Moved by the Member for Humber East, seconded by the hon. the Member for Grand Bank, that the resolution be amended by adding the following:

The Tribunal recommends that any suggested changes in classification or remuneration resulting from the reclassification exercise in Recommendation 1 be subject to the approval of the House of Assembly.

On motion, amendment carried.

Motion, as amended, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move to Orders of the Day, Motion No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Motion No. 5.

Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we go into Committee of the Whole on Bill No. 2, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) 5.

MR. ROBERTS: Order 5, yes.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 2.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I'm tired of listening to myself, actually.

Regrettably, this is the third time we have had to deal with closure imposed by this dictatorial administration in the last three months, in this spring sitting of the House of Assembly. Three times the administration has stooped to using closure to ram through Hydro privatization against the wishes of the vast majority of the citizens of this Province.

Chairperson, this third instance of closure is even more offensive then the previous two. Notice was given an hour into committee stage on Bill 2 - Bill 2, which is a complicated, difficult piece of legislation which will have long-lasting repercussions for the economic development of this Province, sadly, negative repercussions. This bill will go down in history as Clyde's folly. It's the bill that's going to mess up our golden opportunity for beneficial development of Labrador Hydro resources and it's the bill that facilitates sale of Hydro, the assets on the Island. It's the companion legislation to Bill 1, the Hydro privatization bill.

The Premier and the Minister of Justice are really the only two members of the administration, the only two Liberal members, who fully understand what this measure will do. They're the only two who are in on the master plot. The master plot, of course, is to land us back in the court in another long-drawn-out, expensive battle with Hydro Quebec over the Upper Churchill. Ultimately, it will be a losing cause. We've lost twice already seven to nothing in the Supreme Court of Canada. But if there were something to be gained or even if there were nothing to be lost by trying again, then I would go along with it - but what a cost!

The cost so far has been the loss of a fantastic offer from Hydro Quebec two years ago for redress on the Upper Churchill and development of the Lower Churchill. Two years ago, the Premier backed away from an opportunity to do a deal involving Hydro Quebec pumping billions of dollars extra into the Upper Churchill to keep CF(L)Co solvent, to replace worn infrastructure, principally the Lobstick facility which was designed to have a useful life of only thirty years and which is going to need to be rebuilt at a cost of perhaps $200 million in the first part of the next century, but more than that, to provide over $4 billion in additional royalties and revenues, $4 billion net, to the provincial treasury over the remaining life of the Upper Churchill contract. And those additional royalties and revenues would have started to flow already. It would have meant perhaps $20 million extra this year, $20 million extra the government would have been able to put into public sector compensation, $20 million extra for the President of Treasury Board to pay teachers, nurses, NAPE and CUPE workers. The offer involved development of both Gull Island and Muskrat Falls with a thirty-year contract of sale to Hydro Quebec at an escalating price of power surplus to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador. The price to go up from 35 mils to about 145 mils per kilowatt hour, and that compares to less than 3 mils a kilowatt hour we are now getting on the Upper Churchill.

Immediately on the development of Gull Island 800 megawatts would have been available to Newfoundland and Labrador and that would have been sufficient to finance the transmission line linking the Upper Churchill to the Island grid. Think what that would have meant, Chairperson, in terms of construction value, in terms of jobs for unemployed Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Think what it would have meant to power rates. Think what it would have meant to economic development of the Province.

This has been documented. I made public a Cabinet presentation outlining the terms of the offer, setting out the Wells administration's own objectives going into the talks in late 1989, pointing out that Hydro Quebec had initiated the talks, indicating the key points on which agreement had been reached, short-listing the few items on which negotiation was still required, and which the negotiating team expected compromise would result, so that there could be a final agreement in early 1992.

The Premier walked away from that golden opportunity and why? It was because of his crazy, personal idea of doing what the Peckford administration and the Moores administration had not been able to do. His personal pet legal theory for breaking the Upper Churchill contract, and that is set out in Part 2 of this Control Bill.

Part 2 of the Control Bill purports to set up the provincial public utilities board to reallocate power. Now, the only source of surplus power is the Upper Churchill. The Premier confessed his real motive on the Province-wide TV address through NTV March 22. He admitted his real reason.

Chairperson, as the Premier himself had written in a legal opinion in Newfoundland Light and Power in 1986, this scheme could be carried out through Newfoundland Light and Power, the company he was with at the time. The scheme could be carried out by a publicly owned Hydro. All the Premier is suggesting - and this really stretches the imagination - is that privatizing Hydro and making the government at arm's length from the electricity industry will somehow make the court more likely to rule out Quebec's inevitable constitutional challenge on the basis that this is legislation targeted at the Upper Churchill.

Chairperson, the Premier blew his own cover on the NTV address. If through some miracle the Premier's legal theory turns out to be right and we win a challenge by Quebec, then what? The Hydro Quebec contract is breached. The breach triggers default of the bonds, close to $1 billion in bonds, then what? What do we do? Cash starve Newfoundland and Labrador.

This bill, basically, represents the Premier's option for more litigation, another court case, instead of negotiation with Hydro Quebec, and through negotiation with Hydro Quebec two years ago we could have had the agreement that I outlined for redress on the Upper Churchill and development of the Lower Churchill. We could have had that.

MR. GRIMES: That is not true and you know the difference. Do not be so silly.

MS. VERGE: The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations may not have been in Cabinet in December 1991. I do not know if the minister had been appointed to the Cabinet in December of 1991.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: His colleagues who were in the Cabinet at that time in December of 1991 if they are honest will confirm what I'm saying. In fact, the Minister of Mines and Energy already has confirmed what I'm saying. The Minister of Mines and Energy has confirmed what I'm saying. Any objective person who looked at the document that I made public, which was a presentation to the Cabinet in December of 1991, will conclude that what I am saying is true. Anyone who has read the Premier's legal opinion - Clyde K. Wells of Wells and Companies' legal opinion - to Newfoundland Light and Power in July 1986 outlining his pet theory and attaching a draft of the electrical power control act will realize that this has been a pipe dream of the Premier's for many years. `Clyde's Folly.'

This is the Premier's control act and this is the legislation that is going to mess up our opportunity for beneficial Labrador hydro development. The people of the Province will be paying for this for generations to come. This is also the bill that facilitates the give-away of the Hydro assets on the Island. For example, the provision involving the provincial government giving up revenue we now get from the federal government that originates with Newfoundland Light and Power. The provincial government is going to give away $10 million a year. There will be $10 million less for teachers and other public sector workers. Because the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, which has been knocking the public workers, is going to give back $10 million to Angus Bruneau and the people at Light and Power.

This bill contains a clause saying that the 85 per cent share of private utilities' federal corporate tax that goes to the provinces will be refunded by this Province to the private utilities. That is $10 million a year to Light and Power sacrificed by the Newfoundland and Labrador government. The same government that is putting the boots to the teachers and the nurses and the people on social assistance is going to simply hand back to Light and Power $10 million a year. The government also is going to hand back the 85 per cent share of federal corporate income tax that a private Hydro would pay. Hand it back to the private Hydro. They claim privatization means efficiency. What poppycock.

Privatization in this case is going to mean higher prices for consumers. It is going to mean a huge cost to the provincial economy that Memorial economist Wade Locke has quantified at about $70 million a year, each year and every year. Where will that money go? Most of it will go out of the Province. The higher electricity rates that householders and business people will be paying for the most part will end up being paid out of the Province to the non-resident shareholders. This is a measure that is going to make sure that the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. Newfoundland and Labrador as a whole will be reduced to an even more impoverished status as a result of this measure which is going to squander our chance to catch up by Labrador hydro development.

Chairperson, the reason the Government House Leader brought in closure an hour into Committee stage last Thursday is because he is afraid of the growing public anger. People made up their minds weeks ago that they are against this measure. The polls that were done at the end of March after the Premier's barrage of publicity - his Province-wide TV addresses, his appearance on open line shows, the tens of thousands of dollars worth of radio ads and full page newspaper ads - the polling that was done then showed that well over 80 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians had made up their minds and 80 per cent of them were against privatizing Hydro.

CBC through corporate research is doing another poll now, and we understand the results will be available in the next week; I would suggest the Government House Leader, under orders from the Premier, and maybe the two of them cooked it up together, are trying to get this through before those poll results are released and before people's disgust translates into more dramatic types of protests. There is an anger, a seething anger in this Province that's building and for good reason, Chairperson.

This Province has problems that would be inevitable, didn't have to be inevitable but would be a fact of life for any government in office in 1994, but the Wells Administration is creating new problems, adding to our burdens, squandering our opportunities and there is no measure worst than this one; this is the worst yet. The full consequences of this controlled bill won't be seen next year or the year after, it may be decades before the full impact of the harm that will result from this bill will be known. The children and grandchildren of members opposite will find out about the folly of this Premier and these Cabinet ministers and these government members.

People in the Province today realize that there is much wrong with privatizing Hydro, but the full magnitude of the mistake contained in this bill won't be realized by people this year, it may take decades but, Chairperson, it will be too late; it will be too late. The sad part about this bill and the companion legislation is that, if Hydro is sold, even a change of government three years from now or whenever the next election comes, a change of government will not be able to undo the sale, because a Progressive Conservative Government in three years time will not have enough money; there won't be enough money in the public Treasury for the next government, the Progressive Conservative Government, to buy back Hydro. This government is foolish enough to entertain selling Hydro for net $300 million or $250 million, but, Chairperson, no private sector owners would think of selling it back to the Province for such a ridiculously low price.

Private sector owners, centred in Montreal likely, perhaps controlled by Paul Desmarais, won't be soft touches, they won't be prepared to sell Hydro back to the Newfoundland and Labrador Government for a mere $250 million or $300 million or $350 million; they would be looking for a much, much larger sum, and where is the government going to get that money, and what's the government to do about the Upper Churchill, with CF(L)Co headed into a deficit position; CF(L)Co which will be taking in less revenue than the annual cost of operating in a few short years, what's the government to do about that?

Chairperson, it's very regrettable, it's very regrettable that backbenchers opposite and Cabinet ministers for that matter aren't willing to take a courageous stand along with their people and against their Premier. There is one exception, one notable exception, the Member for Pleasantville. The Member for Pleasantville has done considerable research on this; he has shown tremendous initiative and courage, he has arrived at his own independent conclusion that privatizing Hydro would be very bad for the Province and he has explained that in the House and outside the House to his constituents and to the public.

It's not too late for other members opposite. As I said before, when the final votes come on this bill and the companion bill, each member in this House will have exactly the same vote as the Premier, exactly the same vote as the Minister of Justice. At the end of the day, when we all have to vote, each of us will have one vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to have a few words on this bill, I was about to say, but I think in technical terms what we are dealing with here is government's attempt, once again, to implement, to bring into this House, the infamous gag order.

Mr. Chairman, I think the record will show that since the Wells' administration came to power in this Province, government has introduced closure, has shut off debate, has killed democracy more times, more than twice as often, than has ever been brought in since 1949. So between 1949 and 1989, forty years, there was closure implemented in this Legislature four times, and since 1989 to 1994 it has been brought in nine times.

AN HON. MEMBER: More than that.

MR. TOBIN: More than that? The Minister of Finance is proud of that, is he? He is proud of that record, is he? He is. I don't find it difficult to believe that the minister is proud of that. If the way that he conducts collective bargaining in this Province is any indication, then nobody should be surprised.

I don't know how all members opposite can go out into their districts week after week and hear the people loud and clear, that they do not support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and yet come into this Legislature, and the Premier stands up, and what does he say? I know the people are supporting it because my caucus are telling me.

Well, the caucus are not being truthful to the Premier, or the Premier is not being truthful to the Province to say it; it's one or the other. There is someone not telling the truth.

How does the Member for St. John's North tell the Premier that his constituents support it when he knows that they do not? How does the Member for St. George's come in and tell the Premier that his constituents support it when he knows that they do not support it? Are they being truthful? Are the members opposite, particularly in the back benches, willing to sell out themselves, sell the whole system for a Cabinet post? What happened to the word `principle'? What happened to it?

The Member for Pleasantville has put his constituents and the people of this Province ahead of his own personal gain. That is what he has done.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. That is what he was elected to do.

MR. TOBIN: That is what he was elected to do, and he has done it well, and I will give him full marks for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: But so was every other member elected to put their constituents first, and their own selfish well-being last.

How can members opposite tell the Premier that their constituents support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? Is the truth important any more? Is the truth important? Are your constituents important any more? No, they are not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not on that side.

MR. TOBIN: No, they are not, not on that side; that's the crowd I am talking about.

We have seen this government set up in this Province an act to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and that wasn't enough, it was not enough to bring in one act to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro they brought in a second bill, Mr. Speaker.

With the exception of what's involved regarding Bill 1, the privatization act, we don't have any great problem with it but why intergrade or intertwine Bill 1 into Bill 2? Why are they doing that, Mr. Chairman? There is only one thing and one reason why they're doing that, it's because some day some very influential people in this country, not necessarily in this Province, in this country will control what has been ours for a number of years, the electrical power assets in this Province. Is that going to benefit the people of Burin - Placentia West, the people of St. George's or the people of Exploits, Mr. Chairman? The short answer is no, it will not be of benefit to any of these people. Why the government proceeds, Mr. Chairman, on this piece of legislation, no one will ever know.

The Premier of this Province stood in front of the public on television and stated loud and clear for the whole Province to see and listen to, that he will not privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro if the majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not support it. Well, Mr. Chairman, the majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not support it. Why is the Premier proceeding? Who did the Premier tell the truth to, that's the question? Did he tell the truth in this Legislature or did he tell the truth when he was on television?

There is only one group that the Premier told the truth to, he didn't tell it to two groups. What did he say?... But I can say this to you. No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that he can't maintain adequate public support for and by adequate I mean essential majority support in the Province. If the majority of the people of this Province end up in the end being opposed to Hydro I would not ask members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that. Mr. Chairman, these words were spoken by the Premier of this Province and now he's going to bring it in regardless. Who in the name of God does the Premier think he is? Who does he think he is?

Mr. Chairman, I can only ask: what happened to the backbone of those ladies and gentlemen opposite who went door to door, knocked on doors the same as I did and everyone else did and asked the people for their support?... send me in there to represent you, give me a chance to represent the district. Mr. Chairman, you got your chance and now you got the wishes of your people and don't turn your backs on them. Stand up today and be opposed to this bad piece of legislation. It's something that is not good for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and you've been all told that, Mr. Chairman, all of you.

Mr. Chairman, with that, we've got some amendments we want to bring into this piece of legislation. I guess, seeing the Government House Leader has once again implemented a gag order and has decided to do what his Premier - leader wants him to do and that is shove democracy aside if it doesn't suit them - to get even, to look after their buddies, the crowd with the big bucks who are going to buy Newfoundland Hydro, Mr. Chairman. The people of this Province are not going to be the major shareholders in Newfoundland Hydro, don't ever worry about that. The people of this Province will not be. It will be their friends, most of them on the mainland.

Having said that I move, seconded by my colleague for Humber Valley, the following resolutions. I guess I might as well -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I think he agrees with me more than some of your colleagues agreed with you on Thursday evening past.

MR. ROBERTS: It may well be.

MR. TOBIN: More than your colleagues agreed with you on Thursday evening past, I would say to the Government House Leader. I guess for once, Mr. Chairman, you got caught. He got caught not knowing - having to get up and have a smart smack at everyone he finally lost the battle when it came to bringing in the appropriate motion that he wanted to do. I would suggest that my colleague for Humber Valley agrees with me far more than your colleagues did with you on Thursday evening.

I move, as I said, seconded by my colleague for Humber Valley, that: Clause 2 of Bill No. 2 is amended by deleting the proposed subparagraphs 2(a)(xi) and 2(a)(xii), and renumbering the proposed subparagraphs to 2(a)(xiii) and 2(a)(xv) as subparagraphs 2(a)(xi) to 2(a)(xiii).

Does the Government House Leader have that? Probably what I will do is I will pass it over to him when I'm ready. That would be the first amendment. In deleting these I just want to say, obviously by deleting the first ones what we are doing is renumbering the second ones back. 2(a)(xi) would limit the Crown's share under the present form, and as it relates to 2(a)(xiii) it deals obviously with - referred to section 23(a).

The second amendment, after moving the first one, would be: Clause 2 of Bill No. 2 is further amended by deleting the proposed paragraph 2(k) and substituting the following: "2(k) "persons" includes an individual, partnership, corporation, unincorporated organization, trustee, administrator and other legal representatives."

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you making those changes?

MR. TOBIN: Why are we making those changes? Okay, if the member wants to know I will certainly tell him. Mr. Chairman, it is quite simple. The government or agencies of government, it deals with what is there, presently existed with the government or agencies of government and that is why we delete it, I say to the member opposite.

The third one to the Government House Leader is: Clause 2 of Bill No. 2 is further amended by deleting the proposed paragraphs 2(g), 2(h), 2(i) and 2(r), and renumbering the proposed paragraphs 2(j) to 2(g) and 2(s) as paragraphs 2(g) to 2(o).

Let me say to the members - I say to the Government House Leader, if I don't get to finish these, proceed with it, okay.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I will read them all then.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay. The fourth amendment we are bringing in, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with the Government House Leader. We all know the ambitions of the man who sold out the teachers in this Province, but now I'm dealing with the Government House Leader, and he is not the Government House Leader yet, as bad as he wants to be the leader. Because anyone who can come in here after what he did, after how he used the teachers to get here, and then he has turned his back on them as soon as he got here, should stay quiet and let the Government House Leader proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the fourth amendment is clause 3 of Bill 2, is amended by deleting the proposed subparagraph 3(a) iii and substitute the following: "iii should provide sufficient revenue to the producer or retailer of the power to enable it (a) in the case of a private company to earn a just and reasonable return as construed under the Public Utilities Act and (b), in the case of the Hydro corporation, to recover the cost of service provided by it and a margin of profit sufficient to achieve and maintain a sound financial position, so that it is able to achieve and maintain a sound credit rating in the financial markets of the world, Mr. Chairman.

The fifth amendment is clause 3 of Bill 2. It is further amended by deleting subparagraph 3(a) (iv); Clause 3 of Bill 2 is further amended by deleting paragraphs 3(d) and 3(e) and renumbering paragraphs 3(f) and 3(d). The seventh one, Mr. Chairman, if I could have a quick second here, I would probably have it, I have a copy here for the minister. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had but I will send him over this one.

The seventh one is clause 8 of Bill 2 is amended by deleting subsection (5) and substituting the following: "(5) A producer or retailer directed by an order made under subsection (2) to deliver power to another producer or retailer shall, within the limits of its capacity, deliver power to the other producer or retailer on the terms and conditions set out in the order notwithstanding that the producer or retailer may as a result have to reduce the amount, or cease the delivery altogether, of power then being supplied to another customer.

The eighth amendment, Mr. Chairman, is clause 14 of Bill 2, is amended by numbering the proposed section as subsection (1) and added in immediately after the following: "(2) For greater certainty, Part II shall not apply to the producer having priority to use, other than for resale, the power it produces, or the power produced by the producer which is it's wholly-owned subsidiary."

Bill 2 is amended by deleting the proposed clause 22 and 29, and renumbering the proposed clause 23 to 28 and 30 to 36 as clauses 22 to 34.

Clause 23 of Bill 2 is amended by deleting paragraph 23 (3) (c) and substituting the following: "Voting shares acquired, held or beneficially owned by the Crown or by the Agency of the Crown;"

That final one, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Government House Leader, brings in the Agency of the Crown and not just leaving it strictly to the government; that would obviously mean Hydro in this case.

Does anyone have a copy of these -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. TOBIN: Would you pass that to the Government House Leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why we have removed section 22, the Minister of Finance, the old collective bargainer, wants to know what it means by twenty-two. Well, what we are saying by eliminating all paragraph 22, is that the Labour Relations Board and not the Public Utilities, should, Mr. Chairman, as it does with all other groups, be the one responsible.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Under all legislation. The Labour Relations Board now has the right to - well who deals with it now, I would ask?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Right, which comes under the Labour Relations Board in the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations department, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not correct, (inaudible) -

MR. TOBIN: Right, but what you are proposing to do here is put it under the Public Utilities Board and we are saying that we don't see the necessity for you to put it under the Public Utilities Board, that it should stay exactly where it is.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) as I understand it, want to do is change PU Board to Labour Relations Board, that will I think, achieve what you want to do. My friend from St. John's East knows more than I do, but there is no emergency power in the Labour Relations Act as such.

MR. TOBIN: Well that is the reason why we put through the amendment and the minister -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) but it doesn't achieve what you want to achieve, Glen.

MR. TOBIN: It does achieve it. We are saying, that the authority should not be given to the Public Utilities Board and should stay –

MR. ROBERTS: Should anybody have the power to designate Hydro employees as essential? Should anybody?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Public Utilities Board should not be the ones to do it.

MR. ROBERTS: Then should the Labour Relations Board have the authority to do it?

MR. TOBIN: The Labour Relations Board presently has the authority to do it.

MR. ROBERTS: No, it does not. That is the problem.

MR. TOBIN: But if it stayed with the Labour Relations Board they could be given the power to do it, rather than pass it over to the Public Utilities Board.

MR. ROBERTS: That is right. That could be done, but this amendment will not achieve that.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it would achieve it.

The Minister of Finance wanted to know why that was being done, so I guess I clarified to the Minister of Finance why we were proposing to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Leave for a second, Mr. Speaker.

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

No leave.

MR. TOBIN: I just want to say to the Government House Leader that these are the amendments that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair can only enforce the rules. In order for the hon. member to speak he must have leave and there was no leave granted.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Chairman, I suppose every member has to take the opportunity. We only get one chance to speak in the closure debate but it seems like every time we stand, especially in the last couple of weeks, that is what we are doing, speaking for twenty minutes and then sitting down. That, Mr. Chairman, does not say much for democracy. I said before in the House, and I say again, that democracy in this Province stops when we enter the chamber of this House. We go about our business when elections are called. We go knock on doors and answer questions for twenty-eight days during an election campaign, and talk about the great democratic system in which we live.

Mr. Chairman, like I said, democracy stops at the door of the House of Assembly as far as I am concerned. I said in the past also that there should be a mechanism in the rules and regulations governing parliamentarians of this Province, and I say in the House of Parliament in Ottawa, that makes it, except for a monetary bill, except with something to do with the strict fiscal regime budgetary process of the government, whereby there should be a free vote.

There should be a free vote on every piece of legislation that comes before the House of Assembly except for monetary matters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Explain it.

MR. WOODFORD: There is no trouble to explain it. The only thing that can bring the government down is a monetary bill, something to do with money, whether pertaining to the Budget or otherwise. There is nothing else to bring a government down, so why be afraid of losing a vote?

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: We did not. That is what I am saying. It is not because our ancestors did not do it. Back 200 years ago when they had nothing like that they should not do it, but we should do it today. I am serious about that, and I think the hon. member will go along with what I am saying, then we would not have half the friction we have in the Province today.

Mr. Chairman, when members opposite formed the government in 1989 they did something that I thought was a great thing, they brought in the committee system, whereby all legislation was suppose to be referred to committee. The committee then would make a decision on whether they went around the Province and held public hearings so that individuals in this Province, every man, woman, and child in this Province who had the right to vote, or otherwise, would get a chance to view the legislation and ask questions on it, but that is not being done. There are only certain pieces of legislation going to committee, Mr. Chairman.

Any piece of legislation that they figure would cause some concern, would cause some friction, and would have people in the Province asking questions that would result in the legislation not coming before the House, or being defeated, that is not being brought to the attention of the committee. That is not right, Mr. Chairman. This is an excellent opportunity for people in the Province to have some say, it is an excellent opportunity for government, even, to have some ideas given by the people, make some amendments, and bring in some excellent pieces of legislation that would be conducive to the running of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the piece of legislation we are on today, the Electrical Power Resources Act, there are a number of reasons for this particular act, and some of them I have no problems with - absolutely none.

Part III of that particular piece of legislation, dealing with the emergency measures and so on, as far as I am concerned, that is long overdue. It should have been brought in years ago, and give the Province some say, and the utilities in this Province, in case there was an emergency in the Province, to give people to recall the power and use it wherever the government, or the PUB in this case, thinks that it should be used. So that particular part of the legislation, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Part III is not all that bad, very few wording changes and that could probably pass in the Legislature. I know that some of the paper companies in the Province have some problems with some of it, but I think that could be addressed with regard to amendments.

Part I is the part that a lot of people in the Province have problems with, and I ask members opposite, and especially the Premier and the Government House Leader: Why is this particular section needed? Why is Part I of this Electrical Power Resources Act needed? I can't honestly get a straight answer on it.

Now the reasons for that, the reasons why the five clauses were put in there, are obvious. Subsection 3.(a) (i) - (iii) lay out three principles that the Public Utilities Board must use in setting electricity rates. The pricing policy anticipates that Hydro will be privatized.

Now if there is any other reason to have it there, then members, government members, especially Cabinet Ministers, should get up and tell me otherwise. What other reason would that be in this particular piece of legislation? It is there for anybody to see and read. Why have it there? It is for one reason, and one reason only, and that is the anticipation of the privatization of Hydro.

There is a mechanism there now for price increases. There is a mechanism there now where you could go to the Public Utilities Board, any electrical utility in the Province, and ask for an increase, and there is a chance for public hearings. There is a mechanism there for NewTel, recently, the last number of years, to go off to the CRTC and ask for increases. So why this particular piece of legislation? We know why, and that is the anticipated privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Subsection 3.(a) (iv) provides for the phase out of the rural subsidy paid by industrial customers by the end of 1999. After 1999, the full cost of the subsidy will be borne by domestic consumers and small businesses.

Now if people around this Province don't know what that means, it is this: The paper companies around the Province who are paying the rural subsidy now, by the end of 1999 will not have to pay the figure between $5 million and $12 million on this particular subsidy. It will be borne then by the consumers and small businesses around the Province.

Now, granted, there are certain companies in the Province, especially Abitibi-Price in Stephenville, that could very well help. It would mean, I believe, when you do the calculations on it, something like $13 a ton. That is what it would save paper companies, which would mean the difference, today, of probably making it or not making it.

Then again, having said that, you talk about something volatile, and talk about something putting in something that would help paper companies but yet, at the same time, place the burden back and down on the shoulders of consumers in the Province. Just recently we have had Kruger in Corner Brook make statements that there is a possibility of the newsprint industry turning around and making a few dollars. All because of what happened in the last couple of months, not what's going to happen in the future and it's good to see. It's excellent to see, Mr. Chairman, something like this happening.

This is one of the clauses that is put in there to cushion the impact of privatization on the cost of electricity for large industrial companies. There's nothing there that says; if the price of newsprint went up, well they'd pay a certain share. No, that's not there. It's there for one reason and one reason only and that's the second concern that I have with regards to the unloading of between $5-$12 million down onto the consumers of the Province. That's why, when I look at some of the figures that have been thrown out and sent around this Province in pamphlets that says there's going to be a 10 and 11 per cent increase over the next five years, Mr. Chairman, then I'd say that someone got their wires crossed.

I don't know what kind of math they're using but if you just go back and look at what happened when this Administration, in 1989, charged Newfoundland Hydro a 1 per cent fee to float their bonds and dropped the $30 million on the PDD system, what happened? What happened then? Anybody can have that today, all you have to do is go down to the PUB board and have a look and see that there was approximately a 2.8 per cent increase resulting in $4.20 per month on a light bill in this Province.

Now when you look at what can happen with some of the figures that are included in this particular piece of legislation and if I didn't talk about any other clause except for the return of the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer to the Province, even that figure alone could add 1.8 per cent to the bills of the people of this Province which would result in probably a couple of dollars right there. I don't have to go into anything else; don't have to go into anything with regards to a fee charge or anything. That, Mr. Chairman, can be addressed by members opposite. They can go to Newfoundland Hydro tomorrow and ask for 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent, whichever, to float Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro's bonds.

They can also collect the taxes under PUITTA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer, they can take them back and I would venture to bet that if you worked in the subsidies that are going to be paid under this particular piece of legislation alone over a five year period, six, seven at the most, you would have back - if this Province got $300 million for the sale of Newfoundland Hydro, I would say you'll have that back in the coffers of the Department of Finance within five to seven years. I can see it and it would be faster then that if there was an increase in the economic activity in the Province whereby Hydro's rates and Hydro's revenues would go up. So Part 1, of that particular piece of legislation should not be in there. It's not needed, Mr. Chairman, in order to do what government says it wants to do under this particular piece of legislation. It is not needed and there's only one obvious reason for it.

Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons and one of the clauses that are put in that particular piece of legislation - and I call it No. 4 -is to empower the PUB to approve ownership of more then 20 per cent of the shares of an electrical utility which paves the way for an eventual merger between a privatized Hydro and Newfoundland Power. Now, Mr. Chairman, the last few words of that are my words. They are not words contained in this particular piece of legislation but as far as I'm concerned they lead exactly to that.

I'd say within four or five years if the so called new Hydro is not swallowed up by Fortis it would be a funny thing to me. That particular piece of legislation is there - and members opposite say and the Premier says on different occasions that there's no way any individual shareholder can own any more then 20 per cent of the stocks of new Hydro.

This particular clause in the electrical resources act, even if it were in the New Hydro bill - but why is it in this one? It is in this particular piece of legislation because - and the Premier says that this piece of legislation can stand on its own. Yes it can, but why those clauses? They are there for one reason and one reason only, Mr. Chairman, and that is to accommodate the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro to New Hydro.

There is a chance down the road that someone could own more than 20 per cent of the shares of this particular company. There is only one reason to own a company in this Province, in this country or anywhere in the world today. There is only one reason they exist. They exist to create and make profits for their shareholders. What other reason would they have, to exist? Why form a company? for something to do? Why put your name down as a director? for something to do? No. Because you were expecting your return, you were expecting a good return. How many companies and small businesses in this Province today can start off, or however many people, could go in and start off a small business and go to their bankers and say: Boy, we are guaranteed 14 per cent return before ever we do anything - not many, none, in fact, except for a utility, and especially an electrical utility in this Province.

They are guaranteed approximately 13.5 per cent, 13.74 per cent, before ever anything else is taken out of it. The shareholders in those particular companies are well looked after. I can see a few years down the road where this clause 23(1), 23(4), that is supposed to limit share ownership in an electric utility to 20 per cent of the voting shares. But it allows the Public Utilities Board to approve otherwise. The clause is there and the opening and the loophole is there for the Public Utilities Board to otherwise approve an application by somebody for more than 20 per cent of the shares.

The intent is to limit ownership shares in New Hydro. The application of the subsections may have implications for existing electrical utilities that are now wholly owned by paper companies. That is another clause there that might deserve a bit of scrutiny.

There are some questions on Part II, especially as it pertains to the Upper Churchill contract and so on, but I don't want to get into that one. You would need a couple of hours just to make references to that one alone. One of the other reasons in that piece of legislation is the refund of federal taxes paid by utilities and rebated to the Province under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. That is taxes - that in conjunction with the monies that the government could charge Newfoundland Hydro, that alone, I would say, over the next few years, especially with an increase in revenues and so on from Newfoundland Hydro, could make the difference of probably $40 million or $50 million a year into the coffers of the Department of Finance in this Administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: If they wanted to charge. If the government wanted to charge Newfoundland Hydro say 2 per cent or 3 per cent or 4 per cent, whichever, to float their bonds, instead of the 1 per cent, and the PUITTA that is coming back - just take that into consideration alone and not look at anything with regard to the other subsidies or the monies that the paper companies (inaudible) come off the rural subsidy program or anything like that - I would say that within two or three years you would be taking probably around $50 million to $60 million back on that alone. Granted, you wouldn't get the total $350 million for five years whereby you will get the $300 million now. You have to take that into consideration as well. But I'm saying -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Pardon me?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: We didn't charge them that.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. WOODFORD: I don't know, I wasn't in Cabinet, and as a backbencher then, to be perfectly honest and straightforward about it, I didn't know but that Newfoundland Hydro was fit to eat, except for turning on the switch. It was only the people around the Cabinet table who are privy - the same way it is today, and you know full well what I am talking about - who are privy to that information and can stand up and substantiate it.

I would say there are a lot of backbenchers over there today who, if put on a question and answer period, would not be able to answer some of the things we are talking about here this evening, and I am not saying that in a derogatory sense or anything like that. I am saying that because of the fact that unless you look, and unless you do your research, unless you do your sums, so to speak, well, then you don't make it a point to know about it, and that is another sad commentary on our parliamentary process, as far as I am concerned.

Over a four or five-year period, based primarily on those two particular reasons, we could get the same money as if we sold it tonight, and as if we got a cheque tonight. We could very well do that. Probably the minister will say, and rightly so, that, yes, light bills have to go up, but under this scheme light bills have to go up. That is what I am saying and that is why I am making reference to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but under this particular piece of legislation here -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to stand and speak on Bill 2 once again. I am not so pleased that it will be my final time to have the opportunity to speak since the Government House Leader brought in closure last week, more or less another gag order. It seems like every time we speak here in the House lately we are speaking under a gag order.

We will do our best to attempt to bring forward some facts. It seems that the gag order has been on the other side of the House for a long time now, so we are the only people to get a chance to speak.

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the legislation, from what I can gather, is to try to obtain some control back from a deal of the 1960s with regard to the development of the Upper Churchill and the possible development of the Lower Churchill. If I thought for a moment, Mr. Chairman, that this legislation would in any way, shape, or form, give us the opportunity to gain back some of the millions and millions of dollars that are flowing out of this Province annually to Hydro Quebec, I would stand foursquare behind this piece of legislation and support it all the way.

But, as my hon. colleague, the Member for Humber East mentioned in her opening remarks, there have been two cases brought forward to the courts before on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador and both have lost seven to zero, so really, we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, what are the chances we will succeed with this legislation any more than we did in the past? At the same time, we also have to ask ourselves what we really are putting at stake as we attempt to right the wrongs of the 1960s.

Mr. Chairman, I guess that is our biggest concern, and really what we are putting at stake is the control of our water rights, and the control of our last natural resource. We are giving away control in order to attempt to obtain, or right the wrongs, as I said before that were done in the 1960s. I think it is too big a gamble, Mr. Chairman. I think it is too big a gamble for the people of this Province, and definitely too big a gamble for the Government of this Province at this time, and they will learn in the days ahead that it was too big a gamble.

Mr. Chairman, we had a deal on the development of the Lower Churchill a few years ago that was almost reality except that the Premier decided at the time that he wasn't going to accept the proposals put forward, even though everybody else at the table, from what we can gather, thought that the proposal was very beneficial to the people of the Province, but the Premier, in is own wisdom, decided he wasn't going to proceed with this deal and scrapped it.

Mr. Chairman, I say when Newfoundlanders learn in the years ahead about the opportunity this deal held for the Province, and that the Premier walked away from it, it will only intensify the anger of Newfoundlanders towards the Premier of this Province. I say it was wrong for the Premier to do that when all other people at the table, some of the best lawyers in the country at the table, were pleased with the agreement that was brought forward, and the possibility of the many dollars it would have poured into Newfoundland's economy. As I'm sure all members understand, we need it.

Mr. Chairman, what really bothers me most, I guess, and I have some major problems with it, is that back on March 24th of this year, the Premier went on a CBC TV debate with the other party leaders and he told the people at that time, and I quote from the transcript - when asked would he have a plebiscite throughout the Province so that the people could have their say on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, the Premier answered: `But I can say this to you. No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that it can't maintain adequate public support for.'

He went on to say: `By adequate, I mean essentially majority support in the Province. And if the majority of the people in this Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro I would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro. Because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about an issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that.'

The Premier said this on a province-wide TV debate, and a few days later he comes into the House of Assembly and decides to bring in the gag order through the Government House Leader on this very important piece of legislation that would essentially see the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, even though several polls have been taken throughout this Province that show upwards of 80 per cent - somewhere, 79 per cent, 80 per cent - of decided voters of this Province are against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

I don't know how the message could be brought to the Premier in any other way, shape or form, but it seems he doesn't want to hear that message that the people are bringing forward. The people are giving that message through the polls; they are giving that message through the letters to the editors of the papers throughout the Province. They are giving that message to the Open Line shows and they are giving it in telephone calls and letters to this side of the House, in petitions that we have attempted to present here on behalf of the people in our districts and throughout this Province. The people are trying to have a voice on this very important issue, but for some reason or other the government doesn't want to hear that and they bring in the gag order such as we have here today and we get a final chance to speak on this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the people of the Province have been trying over the past number of weeks to change the Premier's mind but it seems like it is falling on deaf ears. I say that is a sad commentary on this government and especially the people who sit around the Cabinet table.

I've asked the Premier here and the government on several occasions to go out throughout this Province and to hold public hearings. They refuse to do that. In another part of the debate that night, the Premier was asked by our Leader, Mr. Simms: `Will you hold public hearings?' The Premier answered, Mr. Chairman, `The government will make sure that before we proceed with a vote in the House of Assembly we have the support of the people of the Province to proceed. Otherwise, we will not proceed.'

I would like to know how the Premier believes now that he has the support of the people of the Province when he knows full well that the people of this Province are upwards of 80 per cent against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, but still he intends to proceed with the piece of legislation anyway, even though he stated publicly that he would not do that.

Mr. Chairman, through public hearings, a referendum or a free vote, some way the vote should be taken in this House of Assembly that the people of this Province can talk to their members and they can vote representing their constituents, and not vote because the Premier wants them to vote a certain way. I think that is wrong.

Hydro is not costing the people of this Province one red cent. Not one red cent do the people of this Province have to pay out for Newfoundland Hydro. As a matter of fact, we are making somewhere around $10 million or $12 million on the 1 per cent tax levy that is there now. The people of this Province are making $10 million to $12 million a year on that 1 per cent levy. Mr. Chairman, why privatize something, why sell something, just for the matter of getting rid of it, when it is not costing us anything? It really has the people of this Province upset and I can understand why.

Mr. Chairman, I understand why the Premier has brought forward this piece of legislation at this time. The Premier sat in a Cabinet back in the late 1960s that gave away the Upper Churchill so that other people would benefit - not Newfoundlanders and Labradorians - so that other people in Quebec and throughout Canada could benefit from the Upper Churchill. The Premier did that in the 1960s. He sat here in the House of Assembly and was part of a government that gave that away, and he wants to more or less try to right the wrong, as I touched on before. It is a guilt trip - there is no other way you can put it. It is a guilt trip that is carried now from the late 1960s, that has been carried into the 1990s, and he is trying to right some wrongs.

I say that two wrongs won't make a right in this situation, and I am very concerned that history - the Premier wanted to go down in history as a person who brought back the power from the Upper Churchill. I say that this Premier will go down in history, but he won't go down in history for how he has helped this Province, but how he has run her into the ground more and more. It started back in the 1960s and he is still continuing on his charade up here in the 1990s.

By 1999, the rural subsidy rate will be eliminated and, representing a rural district, this particular concern has come up several times with people I talked to, because now out in rural Newfoundland, with the rural subsidy rate removed, we will see our light bills double or possibly triple in the year 2000 and onward, and this is a very big concern, especially for people now who are in a very tough economic situation. I think this part of the legislation will bring more hurt to Newfoundland and Labrador, especially the rural parts of it, and this is a concern that has come up several times. People seem to try to seek answers and not getting any.

The question comes up about the shares in the New Hydro, and who will buy the shares. When you look around Newfoundland and Labrador now, and see the situation that we are in, I don't think that the thousands of people who are now on the moratorium package, or the thousands of people who are on social assistance, or the thousands of people who are unemployed in this Province, will be buying shares in Newfoundland Hydro. The people who will be buying the shares are the wealthy, the people who are much better off than the ordinary Newfoundlander is at this time, and the bulk of the shares will be bought outside of the Province. That is a big concern for a lot of people, and it seems that doesn't matter to the Premier as long as his buddies, maybe, up on the mainland, in other parts of Canada and in the United States, will be able to obtain these shares, and therefore obtain the control that we now have, and I guess that's the bottom line on it.

Another important point that concerns me is the fact that over the past couple of months we have been here in the House - over the past year, I should say, that we have been here in the House, since the last provincial election, the government has brought forward many changes to legislation that would see changes to our education system in this Province, that has seen changes to ATV regulations, that has seen changes to health care, and several other important pieces of legislation have been brought forward in this House, some worthy pieces of legislation, and some not so worthy.

I say, Mr. Chairman, about those pieces of legislation, if, for example, this government proceeds with changes to the education system and, for some reason or other, in a couple of years time they are seen as not the right changes, we can come back to this House of Assembly and change them back, or we can reform them, or whatever the case may be, to put them on the right track, or hopefully the right track, again. The same with the ATV regulations, or any piece of legislation that comes forward in this House, if it doesn't suit the people of the Province in a couple of years' time we can come back and change it.

The thing about Newfoundland Hydro is that if this government continues on this road to privatization, we won't be able to come back to touch on it again because it will be a done deal, and that's a sad statement to make. But if we sell out now we sell out forever, and forever is a long, long time. The few hundred million dollars we are going to receive from the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro will take care of next year's current account and possibly half the following years, but then what after that? We are going to receive dollars that will take care of things for a couple of years but I say that most of us are planning on staying around a lot longer than a couple of years. Now, maybe the Premier is not staying around much more than a couple of years, I say, but I know many of us are, and many Newfoundlanders are.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. MANNING: I have a few notes made, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I say I am allowed to get up and speak, not like some members opposite.

I wonder where the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is these days? I was out in my district the other day and somebody mentioned that they never hear of John Efford now. I got him a little news story there a couple of weeks ago with some information I brought forward.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that the deal this Premier took part in back in the 60s now sees $800 million a year going off to Hydro Quebec while Newfoundland and Labrador receives an insulting $8 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Chairman, we should have learned enough from that mistake. We should have learned enough because our people are still paying for it, our children are still paying for it, and our children will pay for it until the year 2041. We all make mistakes but I think we should have learned from these mistakes and not continue to make more, but try to right some wrongs that were done.

This is a total sell out of this Province. The government had no mandate to do this. It was never mentioned during the May 3 election campaign I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. You never sought a mandate and you never received no mandate.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. MANNING: I can add I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but when I was out campaigning I told the people the truth.

The Government House Leader, another member on the guilt trip. He was part of the 60s deal also, Mr. Chairman. You were part of the deal in the 60s that watched us give away Upper Churchill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman, I realize, is young and witless, but he does not have to prove it. My point of order is that there was never any quote `deal' to which I was party, or any government of which I was part, or any government which I supported while a member of the House. Now, I realize that destroys his mythology and I do not mind him believing his mythology, he has to, because that is where he is, but let him not play fast and free with the facts as he is doing. He is just being silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

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

MR. MANNING: I say, Mr. Chairman, some men die by shrapnel and some go down in flames, but most men perish inch by inch playing at little games.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I say that most members are perishing inch by inch. I said before, and I will say it again in this House, that you can read the history of the 1960s and who was part of the deal? The Member for St. Mary's - The Capes was not part of it because I was only a babe back in the 1960s. I can read, Mr. Chairman. I read the history books. I read that the hon. Government House Leader and the Premier of this day were sitting at the table and were part of the deal of the 60s, and history will read that they were part of the deal that sat at the table and gave away what was left in the 1990s.

History will show that, and I say that the Premier of the day, the Hon. Joseph R. Smallwood, for whom I have a lot of respect, I certainly have no problem in saying that he received some poor advice, but that is one thing that this Government House Leader or the Premier of this day won't be able to say, that they received poor advice because they don't listen to anybody else but themselves anyway, Mr. Chairman; and I say to the hon. members in the back benches of the Party, that a Cabinet position is not a reason to sell your soul. I say, Mr. Chairman, that you shouldn't sell your soul for a Cabinet position, there are more important things in this Province now than personal gain in this House of Assembly or around the Cabinet table.

I say the Member for Pleasantville had the intestinal fortitude to go out and meet with the people of his district, to talk to the people of his district and then to investigate and go down through the two acts that were put forward here in the House of Assembly, and to discuss the acts with the people of his district, and I say that he came to a conclusion after debating and talking to the people of his district, he came to the conclusion that he knew that he was on the right side -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: - and that's why he proceeded in making sure that the concerns of his district were brought forward. We own Newfoundland Hydro, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave.

MR. MANNING: There are a couple more things I would like to touch on if I could get leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

MR. MANNING: No leave, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. MANNING: Sorry about that.

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

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

It gives me no pleasure to stand here today and speak on yet another closure motion introduced by the Liberal Government and the Government House Leader, specifically dealing with Bill 2, the most important piece of legislation and Bill 1, another piece of legislation that I have seen and probably that many other members have seen since they came into this House or were elected to this House of Assembly.

Several weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, the government introduced two bills, two pieces of legislation into this House; Bill 1, the Hydro Privatization Act and Bill 2, The Electrical Power Resources Act, which would replace, Chairperson, the current Electrical Power Control Act. Briefly stated, the Electrical Power Resources Act, has been put forward, Mr. Chairman, to provide for the supply and management of all power produced in the Province, including Churchill Falls Power and to meet the energy needs of the customers in the Province at the lowest possible cost.

Now there are many aspects and clauses that are associated with this bill, most of which I find little problem with as a Member of this House, but there are, specifically, aspects of this piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, that presume and assume that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has already been privatized, or presumed or assumed that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will indeed be privatized and this is where I, as a member of this House and as a member of the Party, the official Opposition, take great exception.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: I will let the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if he wants to listen over the next fifteen minutes, I will put forward my reasons why and if he wishes to respond -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: - and I say if he wishes to respond that he has the right to stand up and I will listen to him, otherwise, I will provide my reasons and if you don't agree with them that's find, but if you have the courtesy to listen, I would appreciate it very much.

Even though the privatization of Hydro flies in the face of energy policies outlined in the Power Control Act, government has inserted five distinct measures, Mr. Chairman, five distinct measures into the act that are intended to make Hydro more attractive; more attractive to private investors and disguised the real cost of privatization by dispersing it to rate payers and taxpayers and, pave the way I say, Mr. Chairman, for an eventual merger between the privatized Hydro and Newfoundland Power. These measures are, in addition to the many other costly, very, very costly devices that we have debated here for the last seven to eight weeks, Mr. Chairman, many of the costly devices in the unwanted and unneeded privatization act.

Now what are these five distinct measures? Government members opposite know them full-well; they know exactly what these five measures are but let me say for the record, again, on this piece of legislation, which I have only had the opportunity to speak twice to, let me, for the record, put these five measures forward one more time.

First, instruct in the act, the Electrical Power Resources Act calls distinctly, it says to instruct the Public Utilities Board to base electricity rates on three criteria, Mr. Chairman, costs, maintenance of creditworthiness and a guaranteed profit for shareholders. If each and every one of us were business women or business men in this House, wouldn't we be so lucky that legislation would come forward that would guarantee each and every one of us a profit? Most private sector employers do not have the same luxury and that is why, Mr. Chairman, that this piece of legislation is so radically different then other privatization initiatives such as; Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services or Newfoundland and Labrador Farm Products.

The second measure in this piece of legislation calls for and it says: to direct that this legislation would direct the Public Utilities Board to phase out the portion of the rural subsidy charged to industrial customers by the end of 1999 in order to cushion the impact of privatization on the cost of electricity to major industries in the Province.

Thirdly, it would transfer the responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board. Fourthly, this legislation would empower the Public Utilities Board to approve ownership of more then 20 per cent of the shares of an electrical utility which, in my opinion, paves the way for an eventual merger between a privatized Hydro and Newfoundland Power.

The Government House Leader and the Premier in this House, on public television and through public media have said time and time again - I'd say to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and he knows it, he can interject all he wants but he knows what I'm saying is undisputed fact - that no one person and no one body would be able to own more then 20 per cent of shares in the newly privatized Hydro but yet we see in the Electrical Power Resources Act, the Public Utilities Board being given the responsibility - as if government has taken it's own responsibility away - but being given the responsibility for a company, an individual or a corporation to own more then 20 per cent. Again, I say to members opposite, who has been fraudulent and who has been misleading?

The fifth privatization measure in this Electrical Power Control Act calls for the refund of federal taxes by the utilities and rebated to the Province under PUITTA.

Mr. Chairman, the Electrical Power Control Act has the ability to stand by itself, as the Government House Leader, as the President of Treasury Board and the Premier have said, but it is directly linked to Bill No. 1, the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and these measures that I have just outlined certainly indicate that is the case, and that is why we are dealing with this today, and I cannot stand up here, as a member of this House, and support that.

Mr. Chairman, what about this whole unfolding story? Where did it really begin? Where did the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro begin, the thought process of it begin, in this government's own mind? Where did the thought process and the idea to reform the Electrical Power Control Act really begin? It began a long time before the people in this House were told about it, and it began a long time before the last provincial election and the people of this Province were told about it. It began in 1986 when the Premier then was a director with Newfoundland Power and its legal advisor, but I am not going to resurrect past history that far. Suffice to say that from this Legislature's point of view and memory we can go back to May 1 when, asked in this House, the Premier directly, and the Minister of Energy were asked directly in this House, were they considering privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The answer was: Not at this time.

October 1 the Premier announces to the public that the government has entered into talks with Fortis with a view to merging Newfoundland Power and Newfoundland Hydro. His reasoning, and the reasoning of his government at that time, was this: It does not make sense to have two companies, two utilities, producing and providing to rate payers and consumers of electricity in this Province. It makes sense for only one, so merger talks began and we were told about it; but in the face of overwhelming opposition from the public, and in the face of the Premier's close association, past association, with Fortis and friends, as we talked about it then, there was a backtracking by government -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true, (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am only saying in the face.

Then, early in 1994, the second chapter of this privatization initiative was outlined, that merger talks had broken off with Fortis and that privatization would begin on a stand-alone basis.

The reasoning then was that financially we could not afford, as a government or as a people, to continue to own and operate Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. But what we've seen since then, Mr. Chairman, what has come out since that time, early in January 1994 - the real truth has come about mainly because of my colleagues on this side of the House who have presented documents, who've smoked out government's own private agenda, government's own hidden agenda on privatization and in particular government's own agenda dealing with the Electrical Power Resources Act which is aimed at one thing and one thing only, the Upper Churchill contract. That is what this piece of legislation is aimed at.

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: The President of Treasury Board can say no while I'm standing here talking about this today but he and I both know, because we had discussions on it, that that is what this piece of legislation is about. Since the 1970s, Mr. Chairman, since the Smallwood era really, past governments in this Legislature have aimed and concentrated their economic development policies on possible gaining back of power from the Upper Churchill contract.

The water rights reversion case in 1980 stepped back from a partial access sort of strategy but aimed fully at, through Orders in Council, aimed directly at taking back all the power. If we had succeeded as a Province and if the government at the time had succeeded, then we would have been in a position to renegotiate the Upper Churchill contract with Hydro Quebec. Now I say that for one reason only, as the President of Treasury Board just said to me when I indicated what this bill was about, that was not true. He knows it is true and that the strategy inherent in this piece of legislation does not pursue the strategy, the front door legal strategy offered by previous governments but pursues rather a partial access strategy through a quasi arms-length board not directly by government but by the Public Utilities Board. That's what this piece of legislation is all about.

Mr. Chairman, for seven or eight weeks we have stood here, as members of the House, primarily on this side, time after time after time focused mostly on closure motions by the government but been forced to stand and let our views be known on Bill No. 1 and particularly today, Bill No. 2 but to what end? To what end, I ask the members opposite? Next year, the year after, three years after that, when we look back and wonder what the debate was about, I think that there will be a sad page turned on this Legislature specifically because of Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act, and its companion piece of legislation, Bill No. 1, the Privatization Act, because government has refused to listen to the facts.

What are some of the undisputed facts that have come forward? I will try to keep it as clean as possible in terms of not introducing extra numbers, but to keep it straightforward so that we can have some honest debate here today.

Let me say this, that even the government admits that under private ownership Hydro would have to raise an additional $25 million a year in revenues from electrical consumers in this Province. Those are government's own numbers. Our own analysis supported by economists and experts, other experts in the energy field, estimate that the cost will be twice as much.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong.

MR. E. BYRNE: However, we may continue, I say to the President of Treasury Board, to disagree on those facts. Is it $25 million or $50 million? We may continue to disagree on that, so let's agree to disagree on that, but there is absolutely no way that you and I can disagree on this, that the real cost of privatization to electrical consumers is that they will pay more for electricity without receiving any added value. That is an undisputed fact, I say to the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board.

The second undisputed fact is that government will give tax concessions and subsidies to electrical utilities to keep the cost of electricity from soaring even higher. Government has said that. They have provided a $15 million rate adjustment fund so that the phasing in of higher electrical costs will be phased in at a lower rate. In effect, consumers will be forced - and here is where I really find it offensive, that we, as consumers and as taxpayers will be forced - to take $15 million from our back pocket to put it in our other back pocket so that government can turn around and say: Well, we have subsidized; we are keeping electricity rates low.

That is not true. Wherever the money comes from, it comes from the same person, the rate payer and the consumer. We are paying the subsidized lowering of electricity costs ourselves, so where is the real saving? There is none. That is an undisputed fact. Because of the tax concessions the Province will lose $20 million a year in revenue that it now collects, and another $20 million a year in revenues it will get from the federal government after Hydro is privatized.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the Province will spend $15 million over five years to phase out the rural electric subsidy paid by major industries in the Province. After 1999 the full cost of subsidy will be transferred to domestic customers and even smaller businesses. Nobody in this House can dispute those facts.

Electrical customers in the Province will pay more for electricity. They will pay more as taxpayers to subsidize the cost of electricity they consume, and they will not receive any added value for the added costs, none whatsoever. There was one reason for higher costs and one reason only, and that is the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and there is one way to prevent it, I say, Mr. Chairman, and that is not to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Where do we go from here? Where do we go as a Legislature from this point forward? Tonight, before this night is over, Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Resources Act, will have been passed in this House within the blink of a legislative eye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: As government, and members opposite may say - hear, hear! There has not been adequate time to debate this bill. There has not been adequate time to debate this bill. In the blink of an eye some of the most important pieces of legislation - members in this House have been muzzled, have been put time frames on, have put restrictions on, by members opposite, who hold themselves to be the guardians of truth, who hold themselves up to be the guardians of openness.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were muzzled.

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, I can tell you that you do not have the cornerstone on that, Sir, and you never will.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation reminds me of the time we were debating the Student Loan Act. He came in and said, this, that, and the other thing. He was not there for any part of what I was saying at that time, and he has not been here for the last sixteen minutes. If the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would like me to take him outside and explain some of this to him I would certainly be obliged to him, and if not, then, that is all I can do.

There is one thing we can count on and we have seen, and that is, there is no price that that minister won't pay to sit at the table of the Cabinet, because it bought his silence, I can tell you that, it has bought his silence and he knows it and he knows that the people of the Province are catching on to him as well. It is as his colleague said, Mr. Chairman, and on this piece of legislation, that he or no member of this House can run with the rabbits and hunt with the hounds, which as he -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Your colleague, the Minster of Forestry and Agriculture said it here three weeks ago, but you have attempted to do that, sir; but, there is a price to pay and every dog has his day, no question about it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Not so many, not so many; but, Mr. Chairman, before closing off, just the twenty minutes I have which is a minuscule of time really, to get into the nuts and bolts of this piece of legislation. I did so last week in as detailed a way as possible, I will just say this:

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, just thirty seconds?

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I will just say this, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come for those people to stand up and be counted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.


 

May 16, 1994               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLII  No. 42A


[Continuation of sitting]

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman you might hear something sensible from this side of the House as we do not hear too much from that side lately. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on Bill 2, The Electrical Power Resources Act.

In three months we had three closures brought in to this House to basically muzzle the House. Now the Premier over the past year or so, since last September, has done a very good job of muzzling members opposite especially the backbenchers. I have seen very few or have heard very few speak in favour or, on this issue at all. One hour into Committee hearings the Government House Leader brought in closure on Bill 2. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am probably one of the younger members in this House and I have never in my life seen such a blatant abuse of authority, and it is not only with respect to bringing in closure but this government and this administration have done so on many occasions, bringing in legislation to legislate their will, and if it is morally right or morally wrong, it is not a factor as long as they believe it is legally right they will go ahead and do it just as they will.

Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with this bill? Now what's wrong with the bill? Well, we had four amendments brought forward by the government already and the very first amendment has to do with the title of the bill, before you can get in to it at all, we have something wrong with the title of the bill so, you can imagine what is inherently wrong in this bill as we go through it and we are not going to have the opportunity to debate it clause by clause, and so we have to make a number of comments in a twenty-minute period to address the concerns we have with respect to Bill 2, the Electrical Power Control Act.

The four amendments: the first one as I said deals with the name change; the second one of course deals with the paper companies, the changes and the effects that this bill will have on the paper companies. I remember a couple of weeks ago that the Leader of the Opposition got up and made some comments with respect to this very issue and the Premier stood in this House and said, that it is not, it is a farce, you are creating hysteria or whatever the case may be with respect to the paper companies and it is not a fact; and here we have now, in the second amendment in this House, an amendment to deal with that very issue which just goes to show the tactics that this administration has used over the years and in particular the Premier, who will say one thing and turn around and do the exact reverse.

The third amendment deals with the essential employees. Now, I have to ask the question, why does the government want to give the authority of naming the essential employees to the Public Utilities Board and not to the Department of Employment and Labour Relations? I would like when the minister or the Premier gets up to address this issue, that he would explain that to me.

Mr. Chairman, the fourth amendment deals with clause 23, which deals with the Public Utilities Board and the 20 per cent clause which allows the Public Utilities Board to give more than 20 per cent or allow an individual or a company to have more than 20 per cent of an ownership in the New Hydro; then again, it harks back to Bill 1, the privatization of Hydro bill; we were under the clear impression, and the Premier publicly stated that there will be no individual or company allowed to have more than a 20 per cent share in the New Hydro. Clearly here now, we have in the bill itself, Bill 2, an amendment addressing that which will give the Public Utilities Board the authority to issue or allow an individual or a company to have more than 20 per cent ownership in the New Hydro.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has said in the past, and to whom I have listened and agreed with to a certain extent on this, when he said that, the situation with the Upper Churchill, when we look at that today it is hindsight, 20/20 vision, hindsight and I agree, Mr. Chairman, but, this is what we are trying to avoid now, we are trying to have some foresight in this and, thirty years ago, when the government was dealing with this, they had no public hearings on the issue of the Upper Churchill power contract which was put through the House unanimously; that is what I have been told.

I wasn't around at the time, so I can't speak for the people at that point in time, but if we had public hearings, and that is what the people are demanding in this Province today, public hearings - they want to have some say in what is going on in this Province - they are trying to avoid the same situation that happened back in the sixties and late fifties. They want to get their views out there, and they want to have their concerns listened to.

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, we need to get the support of our constituents on any issue, especially an issue of this magnitude. We all know now that 80 per cent of the decided vote in this Province is against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but the members opposite are refusing to listen to the concerns of the people out there.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier on a number of occasions in this House, very few members opposite have gotten up and spoken on this issue, on the privatization of Hydro and the Electrical Power Resources Control Act, and I am quite sincerely and honestly interested in what those people have to say over there. They were elected to represent the views of their constituents.

Now we know that a few of them had public meetings, as many members on our side had, and the government refuses to have public hearings, but there are a few over there who had to have public meetings. Some were forced into it, as the Member for St. John's North was forced into it with a petition of 279 names, but at least he had his meeting and got some of the concerns out. He had the guts to get up and do that. So I would like, before this debate is closed tonight, for some members opposite in the back benches to get up and speak to this bill.

Mr. Chairman, last fall when all the talk about the merger with Fortis was on the go in the Province and in the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I suppose - whatever.

There was a lot of discussion last fall on the privatization of Hydro and the merger with Fortis. What's going on here today and what's being forced through this House at this point in time, is - and make no mistake about it - that it's going to be the same end result.

As I said before, if you go to a certain point you can take the long route or you can take the short route. The Premier, last year, tried to take the short route and directly benefit or help some of his former friends, I suppose - he was on the Board of Directors of Newfoundland Power - but we are going to have the same situation here today because of the 20 per cent clause.

Mr. Chairman, if we go that route, and if Part I of this bill is put through, as we now know it will be, obviously, because of the Premier and the power he has over the members opposite, what will happen, of course, is the control of Newfoundland Hydro, the electricity produced in this Province, will definitely be controlled by forces outside this Province, and I take that to be a very serious situation, I say to members opposite, and there are not a lot of people picking up on this, and I have mentioned this a number of times in the past, especially in light of the situation that is going on in Quebec.

Now anybody over there on the opposite side would have to agree that the end result is going to be that Hydro Quebec will be controlling the hydro in Newfoundland and Labrador, from my perspective. That's what I honestly believe to be. So, if the situation in Quebec now is that we have a very important election coming up this fall, and we have the Parti Québécois running, and if those people are elected and their sole objective is to have a referendum within a year to two after that, and with the help of the Bloc in the federal government, the official opposition of this country, which I have some serious concerns about also, in my mind we are biting our noses off to spite our faces. We are paying people in Ottawa to spend, whose sole objective is to destroy this country. There is something inherently wrong in that, I believe, personally, but back to the point, the election.

If we have an election and the Parti Québécois are elected in Quebec, and they decide to have the referendum, which no doubt they will, and deep down I sincerely hope they don't succeed, but say they do succeed, now we would have a Province and a contract that was signed with the Province of Quebec back in the sixties, which is controlling the hydro in this Province, we will now be dealing with a foreign country basically, a foreign country, and that leads me to the question and I am sure the hon. the Government House Leader will have the answer or certainly has an opinion on it because he has an opinion on most concerns or items; would the contract itself now be able to be broken because of the fact that we are dealing with a separate country, if Quebec decides to leave?

I can't answer that question but I think it would have some serious repercussions on the contract so I think that is something that needs to be addressed and, if that is the case, why rush this deal now, why rush it now if that is going to happen in a year or two or three, down the road, maybe we can break the Upper Churchill Contract anyway without following this route because if we follow this route, Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the situation is this: that if you follow this route and the contract is dealt with or interferred with, that we could actually trigger an automatic takeover by Hydro Quebec on the contract of the Upper Churchill power and in so doing, we could also be liable to be sued.

I noticed the Minister of Mines and Energy making notes over there and I hope he addresses these concerns because they are legitimate concerns of mine and of some people with whom I have spoken. You may not take them too seriously, sir, but I do anyway, and if that is the case, why, a couple of years ago, did the Province of Newfoundland back away from a deal that was negotiated for two years? The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy has stated in this House that he was very close to a deal but they decided to back away, because I think there was a loss of markets down the Eastern Seaboard, but I am not quite sure if that is the case, Mr. Chairman, and, if they were that close to a deal two years ago with two years negotiation, they had to have an agreement on many, many issues.

I believe the Premier and the government backed away from a deal, because of the fact that they thought that Bill 2, which they are putting through the House now, that they are ramming through the House, that they are forcing through the House, together with the Public Utilities Board they could break the Upper Churchill contract. Is that the real reason why this bill is before the House? Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill is before the House - I have said it before, for one reason, and I will get to that - but the reasons that were given of course, that this Bill 2 is before the House but when it was brought in I think by the Premier - I stand to be corrected here because I was not in the House on that day for very important reasons - was to deal with the electrical power emergencies in the future that could occur at any given point in time, and that deal then would give us the authority to basically take back the power from companies that are producing power in the Province for their own needs, such as the paper companies. Now that was the issue that was given in the House.

On a Province-wide tv address, the Premier basically stated again that he asked the members opposite not to discuss it in public or bring it up in the House, as he could possibly use this Bill 2 to access the Upper Churchill power and so he muzzled the members opposite; but, if that was the case, if he didn't want it brought up in the House and didn't want the members to discuss it, he picked a poor place to announce that on Province-wide tv, that he could use it to access Upper Churchill power and then, two nights later, on a Province-wide tv debate again with the three leaders, the Premier came out and said: well, maybe it is not really necessary to privatize Newfoundland Hydro to access the Upper Churchill Power because we could do it through a private company such as Newfoundland Power.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the real reason that this bill is before the House today is that the Premier is trying to redeem himself for the sins of the past, perceived sins his own perceived sins I suppose. There have been a lot of comments in the House and in the media by different groups that he sold out to the Upper Churchill Falls contract and what have you and again, back in those days, maybe it was a good a deal; people didn't have the foresight. I addressed that earlier. Because if they had had public hearings some of the issues that we are addressing today, problems that we see with the contract, might have been addressed.

He was in the Smallwood Cabinet that did sign that agreement of course. I believe the Premier was really trying to go down in history - and he will go down in history anyway - but he is trying to go down in history as the man who brought back the Upper Churchill power through whatever means. I think he will go down in history for the very opposite. That we could actually lose more by far.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No sir, I'm not reading. Pay attention and you will know. Anyway, I won't be distracted by the tactics of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, and it takes - as the former premier of this Province used to say, he would repeat it and he would repeat it and he would repeat it, because obviously he thought the public were not that bright, and obviously I have to repeat it and repeat it and repeat it so it can sink in over there.

MR. EFFORD: That is what the Premier said?

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what the premier said. If the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation had been listening he would have heard me say it before, how the Premier and that government is insulting the intelligence of the people of this Province by refusing to have public hearings and by saying that they don't understand what is going on.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Newfoundlanders not that bright!

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say that!

MR. J. BYRNE: I said the hon. member opposite is not that bright. Now, what is that - listen, Mr. Speaker, if we continue on with the legislation that is before the House today we can lose all the Upper Churchill power to Hydro Quebec. That is what is at risk in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) over to you tomorrow.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, we will send that copy of Hansard over. Maybe he can read it.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Newfoundlanders are not very bright.

MR. J. BYRNE: I said the government opposite is saying that Newfoundlanders are not that bright. Obviously the minister can't be that bright if he refuses to listen.

If this contract is interfered with, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier we could lose the total control of the Upper Churchill, because it will trigger an automatic takeover by Hydro Quebec. I said earlier also that Newfoundland could be sued and we could lose millions, possibly billions, of dollars if the government continues on the track it is on today.

In this House I saw the other day a member being asked to leave this House because he spoke the truth. There have been a number of manipulations of words going on in this House over the past while and because of our democratic system it is allowed. But now we have the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation over there again trying to change and twist things around to his own benefit. I would wish for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to have more respect for this House than try to manipulate words and say things that are not being said by the hon. member.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) constituents (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman. Part I of this bill deals with the privatization of Hydro. As I said before I cannot support that for many reasons. Some of those reasons are that section 1 dealing with the privatization of Hydro and 1 instructs the Public Utilities Board to base the rates on three criteria which are cost, maintenance of credit worthiness, and a guaranteed profit to shareholders, which in my mind is a direct cause or you can make a relationship to that and the possible merger down the road of Fortis, which is the sole objective of this bill and has been from Day 1.

Also, it directs the Public Utilities Board to phase out a portion of the rural subsidy charge to industrial users of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) reading!

MR. J. BYRNE: What is wrong with you? You don't know how to read? Don't feel bad if you don't know how to read. We have courses here for that in the Province if the Minister of Education hasn't cut them out already. We can send you to some night courses to teach you how to read, Mr. Chairman.

Also, Part III, the transfer of responsibility for the designation of essential employees from - will now not go to the Department of Employment and Labour Relations but it will go to the Public Utilities Board. That is another step towards the merger of Fortis. Also it empowers the Public Utilities Board to approve ownership, and I addressed that on a number of occasions earlier in my little speech today. Also, another very important fact is the section which would refund the federal taxes paid by the utilities and rebated to the Province under PUITTA. Another section that would deal with the merger of Fortis, from my perspective.

Who will benefit from this? I would say there would be a number of people - maybe some people in this House would benefit. I'm not sure. Definitely the taxpayers won't benefit and the rate payers won't benefit, but I say some of the members in the House now who have some shares in some of the - like in Newfoundland Power might benefit. People with the bucks, not the ordinary citizens.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Lawyers will benefit, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave? I can go on.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I say, like my hon. colleague earlier said, I'm not pleased at all to stand here today and talk for the last time on this particular part of the bill, on another closure, ladies and gentlemen. I can't remember the stats exactly but I'm sure they are ridiculous on any count, the number of times that this government has brought in closure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Unbelievable.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman? I would be glad to let the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation stand and have a few words on this. When I'm finished and I've had my chance to say I would be glad to sit down and listen to the hon. minister, I would say, and I would say that I would be glad to listen to the wisdom of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on this.

I'm not pleased at all to stand here today and speak on another closure bill, I say to the hon. members. I say it is a sad day for democracy again in this Province time after time as we see it. Another closure. I have no doubt - I would have to say it again and again - in the next three years that we sit in this House I would have to say that we will have to say it again and again. I don't remember the exact numbers but nine times that this government since 1989 has brought in closure, and something like four or five or six, whatever it may be -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four, four.

MR. SHELLEY: Four times since 1949? What a ridiculous record that this government can stand up and be proud of.

MR. EFFORD: You explain why closure was necessary.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I can only say - well, we can move it into a gag order again, I can say to the hon. minister. That is the only fair word to put on it. It is a gag order. There is nothing that can be put there. What else can you say about it? What else do you - do you want to verbatim it word by word? All I know is that I know what it means. It means gag. I know all it means. All I know is that if the minister wants a full definition of closure maybe he should stand and explain it because he won't say anything else about it anyway.

All I can say is that the people of this Province know what closure means. It means a dictatorship; it means a ruination of democracy in this Province, that is what it means. I can't give a definition exactly but I can give you an example. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, there is a good example of closure. I can't give a definition because I haven't been here long. I haven't been here as long as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation so all I can do is give examples. My best example, the prime example, is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The best example of closure. What the Premier has done to him. The muzzle or the gag, whichever way you want to look at it.

I'm sure that the people of this Province are not interested in a definition of closure. They know what it is, I say to him. It is a gag order, a be quiet order. Suspension of democracy. What a blow to democracy. As we see things going around in this world today - you know, we look up on Canada as a democracy and how proud we are to be in this country, in this Province. Be able to have a chance to speak out. I will give you more examples, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Cutting us off from petitions, saying that people on open lines don't know what they are talking about, saying that people who are in the protest groups are orchestrated or bought off; saying that we made up the petitions, those are all examples of closure, gagged, muzzled or whatever you want to call it, they are all in the same book I say, Mr. Chairman, and all I can wonder you know, time after time, in my district this weekend, just a simple question that they ask, they probably say: what will it take, what will it actually take for the Premier of this Province to live up to what he said on television, what will it take? Now that was a simple question I was asked and I am willing to bet, Mr. Chairman, that many of the hon. members opposite had the same question put to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They arrested the last one (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, they arrested the last one who really wanted to speak his mind; I wonder how many more they are going to arrest? I wonder how many armed guards we are going to see in the galleries before it takes the Premier of this Province to stand up and say: okay, I fully realize that, I fully realize what's happening here, I realize we don't have the support and we are going to take back this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I can't hear the hon. minister.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he doesn't get much opportunity to speak and then he gets the muzzle off every now and then. When the cat is away the mouse can play. He has a chance to say a few words when the Premier is gone, and I must say he gets a lot of time to say a few words. I must say the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation gets lots of chances to speak while the cat is away because the cat is away most of the time, and so he can sit down in his seat babbling on, trying to confuse the people up here for standing up and saying what their constituents want them to say, but one of my own constituents, who happens to be from the Port de Grave district asked me this week - and if the minister wants the name, I will tell him afterwards, if he wants that -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) to get it now.

MR. SHELLEY: - and she asked me this week while I was speaking at a graduation, she said: what ever happened to Mr. Effort? A good supporter of yours before. She was before and I will say to you and to the minister, I will get the name, and she said: you can tell him my name too. But I won't do that for the sake of the person who said it, but I will certainly let the minister know after, her name, and she said: whatever happened to Mr. Effort, he used to be such a champion of the people? Mr. Chairman, that's what she said to me, what a champion of the people, he always stood up for us, I am so disappointed in him.

She said, I was really pleased to see the Member for Pleasantville stand up and speak on behalf of his constituents, he did the noble thing. But she said: you know, I expected the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to do that. I expected that hon. member to be the leader and to stand up and then he would get other members following him. That is what she thought, that he would be the foreman and the leader for the people to stand up and do that

But, Mr. Chairman, the thing that I want to start talking about but I got off on a tangent here because I am listening to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation because he likes to dwell on things while he sits in his seat, and maybe he can get up and explain what closure means, what the definition is and go through clause by clause, but as we talk about closure at this Committee stage, if we had the chance to stand here, we should have the chance to stand here and go through clause by clause I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but we are not allowed because closure was brought in, that is why we are not doing it; it is ridiculous in this Province, one hour, one hour, that's what we have, Mr. Chairman, one hour to go clause by clause.

Now you tell me, you tell me anybody in his right mind is going to have the opportunity to even say one decent word about it?

MR. EFFORD: In one hour?

MR. MANNING: Yes, one hour for clause by clause debate and all of a sudden it gets closure, Mr. Chairman, it's ludicrous. The people of this Province are not looking for a definition of closure, Mr. Chairman, they are looking for a government to stand and say: listen, we are going to listen to the people and I can't help but mention this again, and I say, Mr. Wells, I quote: but I can say this to you, no government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that it can't maintain adequate public support for. By adequate, he said: I mean essentially majority support in the Province. If the majority of the people in this Province end up in the end being opposed to Hydro I - the Premier - would ask the members of the Legislature - that is you, Mr. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - to proceed with legislation. It feels it should use its majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province. I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that.

Actually maybe you should feel a bit relieved if you believe your Premier. Maybe you should feel relieved, maybe that is what it is. You feel so relieved. Because your Premier stood on t.v. and he said he is not going to ask you. Maybe that is why you are all relieved. Maybe that is the whole reason, Mr. Chairman. They really believe the Premier too, and what he said here. Unless now if it was some unfounded chance that he didn't really believe it when he said it himself, maybe. They should feel relieved because he says it right here in black and white. He is not going to ask you. Maybe you should feel happy about that.

Then Mr. Simms, the Leader of the Opposition, said in the same thing: Will you hold public hearings -

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

I would like to remind the hon. member that he is supposed to refer to hon. members in the House by their district or by their position.

MR. SHELLEY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the verbatim that was used in the scrum here so I will talk about the hon. Leader of the Opposition instead of the name that is written here.

Basically the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked: Will you hold public hearings? A very straightforward question. Of course, the Premier responded in this way: Mr. Chairman, the government will make sure that before we proceed with a vote in the House of Assembly we have the support of the people of the Province to proceed. Otherwise we will not proceed.

Those are two very clear examples. I don't know how much clearer we can get but just to make sure I will do one more. These are all from the same debate now. The Premier again says, and I quote: I've said it here tonight very clearly - this is the Premier now speaking, this is for the third time in the same debate, this is the third example; this is the same debate, and this is what the Premier of this Province said again; it is the third time now in the same debate on live t.v. - I've said here tonight very clearly, and I've said not here, I said it on CBC radio yesterday, and I've said it in other places - we just have the verbatim from this particular debate, but imagine how many other places he said it - no government has the right to proceed with the implementation of major policies that it cannot sustain public support for. And if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition we have no right to ask - he is not even going to ask you, so you should be relieved - the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't. That is the last part of that quote. How much clearer can you get?

I wonder when I look back and I look at the whole road that this has taken, right from the beginning, from the first day that we asked: Is Hydro going to be privatized? I don't remember which hon. member asked the question. Way back in June of last year, I think it was. Of course the Premier stood and said: It is a lot of rumours, it is not true. Like my hon. colleague for Kilbride mentioned a little earlier I really wonder how long this has been on the Premier's agenda. From all indications now, from what we've smoked out of it, it seems that this has been on the Premier's agenda since 1986 at least. That is when he first started to look at it, but I will even go back further. I will say it has been in the Premier's agenda since he made the big boo-boo back in the 1960s when he realized how bad a mistake it was. He decided he had to try to redeem himself, and this is the redemption. The bottom line of this whole issue is the redemption of this Premier from the mistake of the 1960s.

There is no other way to begin this debate. That this Premier, realizing what a mistake, what an atrocity it was back in the 1960s, and now he is going to try to correct it. After the Meech Lake debate and the Constitution and the wrangling through the courts he decided he is going to go on front centre stage again and take the argument to the Supreme Court again for the third time. Although ill-advised he continues to believe that he can champion this whole issue, that he can bring it to the forefront again and change those seven Supreme Court judges' minds. That he is going to do something different.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are nine.

MR. SHELLEY: Nine now? Okay, I will stand corrected on that, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure. There were seven I know when the first two decisions were made, and now the hon. House Leader tells me that it is now to nine. So now the only difference this time is that it's going to be nine to nothing instead of seven to nothing, so it has gone up again.

Mr. Chairman, the whole point being that if this was really the focal point of how this all started with the Premier, if this is his own pet legal theory that he wants to pursue, who is going to suffer? That is what I wonder. Who will suffer for it? I will tell you who will suffer for it, the people of this Province. The people of this Province are going to be dragged through years - I would say years - there was some comment made earlier that it would take anywhere from six to ten years of wranglings in the court if it ever comes to the forefront of this constitutional battle again. Why would the Premier consider doing that? That is the question that has to be asked. Is it worth it? Is it worth the time to this Province, and moreover, is it worth the money? How much money are we talking about when we talk about going through a court, six to ten years of court battles? Then, in the end, where will the Premier be? That's the next question. Where will the Premier be in six to ten years time, when the final decisions are made on this and all of a sudden we do get the nine to nothing count? Still nowhere closer, what have we gone through?

What I keep referring back to is really a guilt trip by this Premier. Is that really the bottom line of it all? When the Premier stood on television and said that he asked his caucus and his Cabinet members to be quiet, I wonder how true that was. Was the real truth that they didn't really know what to start with? I wonder how many members in the back benches really knew what was happening here before the Premier stood on TV and said that he asked them to be quiet, but really I don't think they knew about it in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, the question that was asked to me in my district was plain and simple, and I am sure that some of the hon. members must have been at least asked the question - I don't know if they will admit to a lot of it, but I am sure they were asked the question - what will it take for the Premier of this Province to believe that we are against this? Now I was asked that point blank by a constituent. They said: What would it take for this Premier to say, okay, I agree - because, remember now, they heard what he said on TV, like all of us. You can twist the words as much as you want, but the bottom line is that the perception, at least, by people in this Province, is that the Premier said point blank - I won't read out the quote again - very simply put, the Premier said that if the people are against this privatization of Hydro then he won't go through with it. That's as simple as you can put it. That's the way the people look at it.

So this lady asked me: Okay, if that's what the Premier meant, and he's a man of his word, integrity, that's what he builds his foundation on, that's what he went to Meech Lake on, that he believes in principle and standing on integrity, and his honesty, well now he has the whole Province believing that he's going to take this back if he doesn't have the support.

So the question that the lady asked is simple and straightforward. Will the Premier of honesty and integrity not go through with this privatization if he believes that we are all against it?

Now there is going to be a poll coming out again in a short while. As you know, CBC is doing it. Now I know that some hon. members have criticized us for saying: Oh, you listen to open lines and they are blocked up and orchestrated and everything else. Okay, that's fair enough. I can handle that. I know there are people calling open line, some of the members calling open line, and some people get asked to call into open lines, so it's just an indication. I agree with the hon. members on that. That's not a precise, scientific poll; that's fair enough. I have heard some people call in there that I was a little bit surprised with, to be honest with you, so that's fair enough.

Now, the petitions. People have looked across here to us and said: Oh, twelve names on a petition, or thirteen names on a petition, or we saw this name twice on a petition. Okay, let's give them the benefit of the doubt on that and say that not all the names on the petitions - maybe they were doubled up sometimes, and it is true sometimes that the same person may sign the same petition. That's fair enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I am just trying to be fair, now, with it all. We are talking about indicators that show people opposed to the privatization, so we are trying to be fair about it.

The open lines, fair enough, not all legitimate. Some are; some are not. The petitions, fair enough, some names are doubled up. Some people say there are not a lot of names on the petitions; that's fair enough. Phone calls and letters that we get of course, obviously the hon. members opposite are going to say: We didn't get them. I can tell you I got them. I've got people talking to me. I can tell you one thing, that the hon. Member for St. John's North got them. He got his petition; he got his meeting, vehemently against the privatization of Hydro. The Member for St. John's North knows that. He knows that the people of his district are opposed to the privatization of Hydro. He has been given all the indication that he needs. Then there is the infamous poll, of course. Maybe that is what he went by, the infamous poll.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: This is the first time I've mentioned it.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: What about Baie Verte? I will look after St. John's North.

MR. SHELLEY: Anyway, I'm just saying for an example. You gave me indicators, we were just talking about indicators that we have. If it is so true, Mr. Chairman, if that is true, I will ask the hon. member this. If he was sure that there were so many people opposed to it in his district would he then stand in this House and say: I can't support the Premier, I can't support this government on this particular bill? I wonder would he do that, and I wonder how many hon. members opposite would do that. If you had it point blank and you could sit home and honestly say: Yes, Premier, at least 80 per cent of my constituents, the people who elected me, are against this privatization, now what would you do?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I ask you honestly. What would you do? Would you still say: No, you really don't understand it, and maybe tell your constituents. I'm just asking. Maybe you can speak about it. I am being straightforward, Mr. Chairman. I asked that if you were sure in your heart and soul that your constituents were 80 per cent against the privatization of Hydro would you still -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: Already? By leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

The hon. the Member for Trinity North. I think we have leave of the House to present a private member's resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I will identify the member again.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Chairman, thank you. I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution.

WHEREAS the restoration of the cod stocks on the Canadian Continental Shelf is essential for the future social and economic development of Newfoundland and Labrador;

AND WHEREAS foreign fishing efforts continue to plunder the straddling fish stocks on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada has imposed a moratorium on the Newfoundland and Labrador cod fishery;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House commend the Government of Canada for its farsighted and courageous decision to ask Parliament to adopt legislation to empower the government to enact regulations to protect the fish stocks which straddle the limits of Canada's extended fishing zone; and that the House commend the Parliament of Canada for adopting the legislation with such alacrity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to say a few words on Bill No. 2, An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador, and I suppose the act of closure that was brought into this House. As our Member for Burin - Placentia West refers to it, the hob-nailed boot tactic that continues to be brought forward by this government.

As I stated here before, I thought when I was elected to the House of Assembly that I would see the act of democracy working, but I've failed to see that since this privatization act of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was brought forward. It seems like democracy has been thrown out the door and government intends to ride roughshod over the people and over the Province, and it doesn't matter what other people think or what other people's thoughts are of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

You might ask why we are against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It is very easy to find out why people are so opposed to the act of privatization of this utility, Mr. Chairman. One of the reasons is we are creating a monopoly without competition, and everybody knows what happens when you have a business without competition. Nothing to control the rates, nothing to control costs. It is only a matter of adding on to your costs and putting it forward to the rate payers of this Province where you will show that they will get an income, a return of I think it is 13.8 per cent. That is what we are going to see happen here if we privatize this Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

The vehicle that drives private enterprise is profits, and that is what you will see happening here with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We are creating a monopoly with no competition. It is obvious that the rise in cost of electricity - I think the Premier and the government have already come forward and stated that it will rise approximately $28 million. Many people on this side and out there in the general public realize that it will rise much more than that. Probably $50 million or even $60 million to people who are strapped today on trying to support a family and have enough income to put the basic necessities forward to support their children.

The fear also is that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro will be controlled by people outside the Province. We are all not fortunate enough to be like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to be able to have funding -

MR. EFFORD: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: I don't want to interrupt the hon. member too much but I have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: I just want to get a clarification, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member said there will be no control of the increase in rate? That there will be no Public Utilities Board? Is that what the hon. member said? He said there would be no control of the rate increase.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, what I said was that we are creating a private enterprise. It will be a monopoly, and you know the vehicle that drives private enterprise is profits, with very little control over the profits that they will be looking forward to and collecting from the rate payers of this Province.

I suggest that the minister get up and speak because obviously he has a lot of interest in this debate and he is interjecting all the time, but he never stands on his feet any more. I would encourage him to do that. It seems like when the Premier is here he is pretty quiet. When the Premier leaves he in uncontrollable. He is shouting and hollering, makes very little sense, but tries to interject and control what everybody else is saying.

Anyway, getting back to the privatization of this utility. The other fear in Newfoundland today is the possibility of the control of this utility being owned by people from outside the Province and maybe outside the country. In the beginning it was stated that nobody could own any more than 20 per cent of the shares in this utility. Now we find out that you can own more than 20 per cent of the shares. The rules change as time goes by and we can see it all going towards - right back to the beginning of when the first suggestion was brought forward here in this House with the merger of Fortis and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

If this sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is so positive then why doesn't government come forward with the facts and figures that show every Newfoundlander out there what a wonderful deal it is? Bring forward the facts. People out there don't want to - they are to be convinced. I can assure you they are to be convinced. If it is such a positive thing, we are about to make all this money, and we will live happily forever after, I suppose, then let government bring forward their plan. Let them show them what a positive thing it is and I am sure that the people, like us over here, will support the deal if it's such a positive thing.

Mr. Chairman, everybody who has come forward and been opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has been tagged as people not knowing what they are talking about. The legal opinions of today have always been in favour of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, according to the Premier and the people on the opposite side, until all of a sudden the other day, in fact, I think it was one of the partners in the law firm that our Justice Minister represented, I think it was one of the partners in that particular law firm, a legal mind, that got up, and I think when he spoke he echoed the thoughts and suggestions of a lot of other people when he came out and said that it wasn't a positive thing, and a lot of the people out there today, if they came forward and wanted to tell the truth, or speak out on the issue, would certainly come out and say exactly the same thing.

We have seen demonstrations here at the building, and as the demonstrations have taken place people have said: Well, there's only 200 out there, or there's only 300 out there. We thought there would be 2,000 or 3,000. It was always being downplayed. Don't pay any attention to them. They are the minority. Pay no attention when they call into open line shows. Pay no attention, because it's people not knowing about what they're talking.

This bill, Bill 2, as we have said here before, Part III, we don't have any trouble with Part III of this bill. We support it 100 per cent. Part II, with probably some changes, clarification, we could support. We could support Part II with a clarification as far as calling back power to the small producers like the paper companies. If that could be stated in a little clearer terms maybe we could support that. And if the Premier wants to go and contest the sale, I suppose, or the giveaway of the Upper Churchill, if he wants to contest that again in the Supreme Court of Canada, I would support him all the way as long as he's got a hope of making changes and it coming back as a positive thing for this Province, not to drag us through another ten or twelve years of court proceedings, costing us millions of dollars, only to end up losing it at the end. So, Mr. Chairman, he would have to make it a lot clearer than it is here, that would show us that he would have some support by taking it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Part I of Bill 2, we don't support it at all. It's all referring to Bill 1, the act of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and as long as that act of privatization is there, or any thoughts of privatizing, there will be no support here on this side of the House. I can grant the people of the Province that, and we will stand up for the people who elected us and we will vote against this bill when it's brought forward.

We look at what the Premier has done in the past, and we look at other court cases that have been carried forward to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we have come seven to nothing both times. We were shut out both times that we took this deal, this bad deal of which the Premier wants to redeem himself of. I ask the Member for Terra Nova, she has taken over from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: If you have something to say you will be offered your chance, I say to the hon. member, because I can assure you that the people out in Terra Nova don't support this bill. I can assure you of that. I have been talking to a lot of people. It's the area where I live, and I can assure you that she won't stand up in the House and speak for her people. She won't stand up and speak for her people because, Mr. Chairman, she has to toe the line; during the election she went around, Mr. Chairman, going to be a Cabinet Minister, it hasn't been done yet, it hasn't happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, she was playing hockey, you are right, she was playing hockey, she was skating, the member knows but, Mr. Chairman, there is a chance now that she might be, there is a chance so she is going to hang around for the plum. Well, she may, she may have a chance but I can assure you that she will be a loose cannon when she gets there and she won't be there long before she will be embarrassing the government; she will be like the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture when he stood up in Gander and said: if we support the act of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we will be in the wilderness for another seventeen years, the political wilderness for another seventeen years, the same as what happened with Upper Churchill, Mr. Chairman.

This is what will happen if you give the Member for Terra Nova any authority, she will be in the wilderness for the next seventeen years so, Mr. Chairman, when we stand up here and speak, we speak on behalf of our constituents. When I stand here, I don't stand up because the Leader of the Opposition said you must say this or you must say something else, as the Opposition House Leader states you must say this and don't say that, Mr. Chairman, when I stand up and speak, I speak for the people who elected me in this House of Assembly and have been sent here to do no less than that.

Let us look at governments in the past who have not listened. I can't understand, I mean there are some intelligent people over there and I can't understand them, following the Premier and maybe the Government Leader as well, because I think they are his thoughts too that this is a wonderful thing, that everybody should fall in line and we should privatize and letting each - an agenda there as well - I don't understand everybody in the back benches getting up and supporting those two gentlemen.

The Member for Pleasantville, what a man, stood up in his place, looked around him and went against the wishes of everybody else over there, stood up and represented the people who put him here in the House of Assembly. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Pleasantville can go out and run in Terra Nova the next time around, and he will win handily I can assure you, he could go out and run in the District of Pleasantville and he will win it handily because now he is a man who got up and spoke for the people who elected him; spoke his mind, represented the people who elected him, came into the House, wasn't going to be dictated to by two or three individuals, got up spoke his mind and, Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that when he goes back and knocks on the doors of his constituency again, the people will remember him for that. They will remember him for the man he is and I offer my congratulations to him.

MR. SIMMS: The Pleasantville Report.

MR. FITZGERALD: The Pleasantville Report - Hydro Questions. I never saw one of those going around in Terra Nova. I go to my mailbox all the time and never saw one rolling around out there. He went around Bonavista South, it was a situation where we put out a message of what the privatization of Hydro is going to be all about, told them the facts and let them make up their own minds. This is what happened, Mr. Chairman, they came out wholeheartedly and said: we are against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because we don't have the facts. We don't have the facts and that is all we are looking for. They are looking for the facts -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on Province-wide t.v.

MR. FITZGERALD: But there are no facts brought forward, it is only a situation where they come on t.v. and they tell you what they are going to do and the reason why they are doing it and the next day it is brought forward with the Premier saying: it was never said, it was never said, I didn't say it. You have changed the words around; you have manipulated what I said. Here is what I said and it is completely different from the way you interpreted it.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations shouted out there some time ago - I think it was on Thursday - that if we privatized Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, what are you worrying about? You can buy it back. You can buy it back if you want it. What a statement for a minister to make: You can buy it back. You would never hear that statement come from the Minister of Treasury Board. You would never hear that statement come from him because he knows that once it is sold it is out of reach, gone forever. When the members opposite speak out they come out, especially - I shouldn't pick on the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now because he is gone. But when they get up to speak they talk about, Mr. Chairman, the future generations. We shouldn't burden them with expenses and we shouldn't burden them with something else.

It seems to me that if we sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro that we are taking the brightest future that we could ever offer for our future generations. It will be a point of depriving them not only of monies that continue to flow into government's treasury from this corporation, but probably our one hope to turn this economy around, create a vibrant economy, to create jobs and to get people working.

We talk about municipalities. We are saying that municipalities will benefit once we privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Some of them will, but there are very few. There are a couple of municipalities that have some infrastructure that is owned by Hydro. Very few. Who will pay the cost, the taxes, that those municipalities collect? I know who will pay, and you know who will pay. It will be the rate payers again; the people who can least afford the expense. That is who will pay. Not the municipalities.

Then we looked at when those municipalities will benefit. We find out that the municipalities will not benefit until 1997. I suppose that is built in there for a very good reason as well. Because then we are closer to an election year and it might look at one of the very few positive things that might arise out of the sale of this corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Premier to take a lesson from the Premier of New Brunswick. I can assure you that he is not out trying to privatize New Brunswick Hydro, or he is not having the Legislature tied up with this kind of a debate. He is out stimulating the economy, going from province to province, country to country, looking for investment to get his people working, and that's what this Premier should be doing.

A couple of days ago we saw an act here where the Member for Grand Bank stood up and stated exactly what was said on a Province-wide TV debate - stated exactly what was said - read it from the Premier's own words, read it from a copy that was provided by the media, and because the gentleman got up and told the truth, he was asked to leave the House. He got kicked out of the House for a full day because he told the truth, and the person who deceived the people was allowed to stay. Then we talk of democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

About, I guess, two-and-a-half months ago, or ten or twelve weeks, the government introduced two pieces of legislation dealing with the electrical power in this Province. One was called, of course, the Electrical Power Resources Act, and the other one was called the Hydro Privatization Act.

Mr. Chairman, these two particular pieces of legislation have formed the substance of just about all of the debate in the House in this particular session. We have had many, many weeks and, as the Government House Leader has noted, we have had a lot of discussion on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, this particular piece of legislation has caused great concern to the residents and to the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador and, briefly stated, the purpose of the Electrical Power Resources Act is to provide for the supply and management of all of the power that is produced in the Province including, of course, Churchill Falls power.

The debate in the House has often centred around the need for public discussion. It has centred around the fact that the government has adamantly refused to have any public information sessions. They have refused to refer this piece of legislation to any kind of a public review by a legislative committee. Instead, the Premier, at his call I guess, has suggested that the Minister of Mines and Energy and he, himself, as representatives of the government, and other Cabinet ministers, would go out and meet with various representatives of the Chambers of Commerce and other business groups, or other community groups, and they would carry the government's message.

What has happened is that message has not convinced the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that this privatization bill, or the Electrical Power Resources Act, these two, coupled together, are in their best interests; however, all hon. members recognize that certain aspects of the Electrical Power Resources Act certainly are commendable. Nobody is against the Newfoundland government taking over control of our resources; however, certainly when we find that part of that strategy is to provide the basis for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, then that's where a lot of people have difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, the government would like to separate those two acts completely, have them stand on their own, independent of each other; however, the fact that they were introduced simultaneously, the fact that certain sections, five sections in particular - my colleague from Kilbride this afternoon again read into the record these pertinent sections - where we find there is a mechanism at play here where one is designed to facilitate the other.

Mr. Chairman, we know from the past history of this Province that all throughout the seventies, and in the late sixties, and into the eighties, the people of this Province felt that we lacked the ability as a people to be able to gain access to the control of our electrical resources, particularly as it applies to Labrador. So the government of the seventies followed what they call a partial access strategy, and they were attempting to recall more power than was provided for in the contract with Hydro Quebec. As members know, the Churchill Falls Labrador Corporation agreed that they would supply - Newfoundland could recall - only 300 megawatts to meet its energy supply. All members know that if we were to build a transmission line across the Strait it would require us to have access to a minimum of 600 megawatts. So, therefore, we had to have more access than was provided for us in the contract.

Mr. Chairman, that's what the intent of the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act was all about in the government of Premier Peckford. The only thing they did there a little differently is they departed from the partial access strategy to go into a complete access strategy. So the approach changed, and they bid for the total acquisition of the Upper Churchill power development.

Now had the legislation survived the courts, Newfoundland would have been in a position to negotiate a much better deal with Hydro Quebec; however, the problem arose, and it was predicted to arise, when the Supreme Court of Canada declared, in its verdict, that the Water Rights Reversion Act of 1980 was indeed ultra vires. So by 1984 we found out that all the attempts that we had made, all of our best efforts to gain control over the power supply in the Labrador area were outside of the jurisdiction of this particular Province at that time.

What we have here is we have a situation where since the power contract is subject to Quebec law we know that it couldn't stand a challenge, and one of the real difficulties we have with the present act is the fact that we really question whether or not this particular act will have an opportunity to stand the test of the courts. We know that the legal representatives for Hydro Quebec will indeed in all probability challenge this particular piece of legislation.

What we say to the government is that we wanted to point out these particular obstacles, these particular difficulties. The present government under Premier Wells is using the back door approach. Before we were doing the front door. In other words, we tried to do it directly by legislation. What we have the present government doing is that it proposes to bring in legislation that has general application to all of the power and it is going to take over all of the power in the Province both on the Island and in Labrador. Then they want to be able to have orders issued by the Public Utilities Board, which is a quasi-arm's length agency of the government, and therefore they will be able to use that kind of route to be able to gain access to the Labrador power.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier of the Province is on record, there are documents that have been filed, that indicate that when he was chairman of Newfoundland Power that he approached the government of the day wanting the government of the day to do the kind of thing that it is doing now. Throughout this debate we've had - the Member for Humber East has tabled in the Legislature correspondence that went between the then-chairman of Newfoundland Power, the hon. the Premier today, Clyde Wells, and that indicated the strategy that Newfoundland Power was putting forward in order that they might be able to have the mechanism put in place whereby the government could get greater access to the Churchill Falls power.

These documents have all been filed; they've been tabled here in the House by the Member for Humber East. What we see today by the now Premier of the Province is exactly the same kind of approach. In fact, there is an uncanny relationship between the corporate vision of the then-director and future chairman of Newfoundland Power as written in 1986 in his own hand and the actions of the present Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the positions have changed but the philosophy has not changed at all. In other words, the Premier today is following the exact same things he said that he would recommend to the government when he was writing these proposals in 1986.

What we have before us now is a situation where the government, having gone through about ten weeks of various debate, some of it enlightened, some of it not too enlightening, decides that it will bring in closure on the Committee stage of the discussion. In essence of course that means that by 1:00 a.m. at the latest tomorrow - I guess it will occur before that, given the number of speakers who are left and the time limits that apply - this particular bill will have reached a (inaudible) stage.

I think it is regrettable that the government has decided to bring in closure in this particular manner; as my colleagues have noted that we have only had one hour of Committee stage discussion. The members of the caucus that I represent here were prepared to put forward some amendments; the government itself had some second thoughts because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: - there would have been some amendments put forward. I say to the hon. Government House Leader that he himself had suggested that there would be some amendments put forward by the government which are incorporated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

AN HON. MEMBER: What's your point? (Inaudible) closure being brought in.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is that the members on this side of the House find themselves now with just a few minutes to discuss all these issues to give some of the background to say the kind of things we want to get on record and basically, they want to for the most part, protest some of the processes that have been used and I am sure that the hon. Government House Leader, when he concludes debate later on in the evening, will address some of the amendments that the government is putting forward.

Mr. Chairman, the real issue here is that government members have been under an awful lot of heat, they have been under a lot of pressure. You can sense it, you can talk to the back benchers and these people are saying that they are under a lot of pressure from their constituents and, Mr. Chairman, part of the strategy is to absolutely deny that you are under any kind of pressure at all but, Mr. Chairman, one only has to face the reality and that is, that when you look at the fact that after ten or I guess now, about seven weeks of the dog and pony show, going across the Province, going from community to community holding briefing sessions, trying to persuade people that wrong is right, trying to say to people that Hydro privatization is in your best interest, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are not being persuaded so, Mr. Chairman, this strategy of closure is a way of trying to cut off the discussion, to try to cut off the right of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to have some say.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the member over there, if the right procedures had been put in place and we had had public hearings, had we had the right kind of discussions, public hearings could have gone on, we could have handled the other legislation that the government wants to introduce, some of which is very, very good legislation. I just referred to the Automobile Insurance Act, we had to agree over here to do it in one day and, Mr. Chairman, the point that I am making is that if we had gone and used a little different process, then we would have had probably the opportunity to handle a lot of other debate in the interim, and we could have had consultation with the public. Instead, what we have is people in absolute frustration, calling the open line shows, writing letters to the editor, writing letters to their MHAs, trying their best to have a say and calling Night Line or whatever it is, I don't call it, but calling the Night Line is all part of what the people have to do to try to get a message to their government, and that's unfortunate.

Mr. Chairman, after all of the discussion we have had, after the gag order, what we are doing here today is essentially saying that we, as a Province and as a government, have denied people the right to participate.

Now you can say that the government has a right to govern, and I would respect that. They have a right to govern; they have been elected. They have been duly elected, but also they have to be a responsible government, responsible and responsive. Therefore, what we should say to the government is that they should be aware, as the Premier himself has said - and the real difficulty comes down when we hear words that get kind of twisted around a little bit.

I was here in the House the other day, and the Leader of the Opposition said to the hon. the Premier about the job losses in Nova Scotia. The Premier got up and said there wasn't one single lay-off in Nova Scotia as a consequence of privatization - not one single lay-off. Now technically the Premier is right. There wasn't a lay-off, but there were 400 people who were pushed, offered, ordered, to take retirement - 400 job losses - and it's that kind of manipulation of language that causes concern and instills in people a distrust for the words that the government is saying.

When you ask a question and you ask about a lay-off in Nova Scotia, and you know the answer - the answer is 400 people lost their jobs - the Premier stands in his place and says: No, there wasn't a single person laid off in Nova Scotia - not one.

Then, in that answer, there is a manipulation of words, because 400 jobs were lost in Nova Scotia. In other words, 400 people were offered retirement packages and the net loss to Nova Scotia was 400 paying jobs. Now you can put it however you want. You can say it however you want to. It's that kind of precise language which might do well in a court of law when the Premier, as a lawyer, is trying to argue a very precise case, but it doesn't serve the purpose in politics. Therefore, the people of this Province, by using those kinds of words, the Premier's kind of response to the question, essentially they get the impression that the whole story is not being told.

When the Premier stood in his place and said there were no lay-offs, but subsequently admitted that there were 400 people who lost their jobs, what that says to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is that there's a word manipulation going on, and that the net loss to Nova Scotia was not reflected in the Premier's response.

So when the Premier likewise, on television on March 24, says - and we have all heard it over and over again - that he would not ask the government to proceed unless, of course, the majority of the people in the Province ended up supporting Hydro, it's been said over and over again, and we have had it repeated here in the House ad nauseam, we have had it on television, and it goes on and on and on, the thing being said right now, every single day in this Province, is (inaudible) words of the Premier, and then say: But, how come? Where is the support for the government's stand?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be able to offer these few concluding comments to this very essential debate.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I take this opportunity to make a few comments on this debate. I call it a debate, but I'm not sure it's a debate. Generally, a debate has two sides, and what is interesting about this debate is that we are hearing almost no comment except a few interjections coming from the opposite side.

MR. ROBERTS: One of us will get up eventually (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: One of you will get up eventually; we saw that last week, Mr. Chairman, when we did the closure motion on the second reading of this particular bill. One got up and spoke, the Premier, the dictator got up and pontificated late one night, and basically tried to give a sermon to all members of the Opposition that had dared to speak against this piece of legislation; tried to say what a wonderful piece of legislation it was and he had no choice but to bring it to them.

I find it absolutely incredible, Mr. Chairman, that so many hon. members opposite are sitting there, not speaking up for the people who elected them, not representing them here; if they agree with the legislation let them say so. It is not only a privilege in this House it is a responsibility as well. Let them say they agree with it but we are not even hearing that.

MR. ROBERTS: We voted for it in second reading.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, you voted for it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We voted for it in second reading (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, but you haven't got the intestinal fortitude to stand up and deal with it clause by clause, issue by issue, piece by piece and say why you support it. That's not what we are hearing here, nobody from the government side, except for the Premier getting up and giving his occasional sermon. Nobody from the opposite side (inaudible).

The Minister of Mines and Energy has not been on his feet; he is the one who should be defending this piece of legislation but he has been strangely quiet. The Minister of Finance who is very much involved in this piece of legislation, has been incredibly quiet as well. The minister usually stands up and says what he believes and is able to defend it, but we have to wonder why these hon. members, Mr. Chairman, are not up defending this piece of legislation and I would have to say that it makes one believe that they are not able to defend it or they don't believe in it and they are sitting there quietly, mutely, doing what the Premier has told them to do.

I am disappointed in a lot of hon. members opposite, as one of my colleagues said a few moments ago, there are a lot of very intelligent people over there and why they are not using their intelligence and why they are not speaking, is a real question here tonight, and I say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely amazed. I have some respect for the Minister of Finance, we have enjoyed a fairly good working relationship over the past five years since he has been minister, and I have been Opposition Critic, and I have had some respect for him and we have been able to work together as we should in this House for the benefit of the Province, and we both I am sure, believe very seriously that we are here trying to do what is best for the people of the Province, but I am interested in the fact that the minister is sitting there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - defending this piece of legislation - Mr. Chairman, would you like to silence the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: He contributes absolutely nothing to this House, so either stifle himself or get out of here; one or the other, Mr. Chairman.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, do I have silence from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation or not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to have a few words with the Minister of Finance. I want to try to carry on something serious here because the Premier stood up here the other night and he made a statement at the opening of the House of Assembly, when he told this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations have a meeting with Mr. Seabright or something like that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: The Premier stood here, Mr. Chairman, and he announced to this House, as he should, that Standard and Poor's had downgraded their rating of the Province's credit from A- to BBB+. Now that is serious to all of us; none of us took any pleasure in that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - but what I found interesting, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What I found interesting was the fact that the Premier clung to that as a rationale for privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now he is not able to justify that statement; he just says: Oh, we have incredible financial problems, look what's happening to us, Standard and Poor's have downgraded us and the only way out of this is to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have had quoted in this House before, statements from Mr. Stephen Defoe of Standard and Poor's and I will quote him again, Mr. Chairman: Hydro has not in recent years presented a burden to the Province. It's able to meet its own debt-servicing costs and for that reason we don't include it in our measure of tax-supported debt; that is public sector debt of the Province and other public sector entities in the Province that do or could need to be supported out of taxes raised in the Province.

That is a very important statement, Mr. Chairman. I've said in this House many times before that the Hydro debt does not negatively impact.

MR. BAKER: There is no contradiction there.

MR. WINDSOR: Very marginally, perhaps very marginally, I will grant that. But the Province's credit rating does not depend on the Hydro debt because it is totally self-sustaining debt totally financed by revenues from the sale of electrical power, and in fact there is even a small return to the Province. That rate of return is totally guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board. The amount of funds raised by Hydro and their ability to pay on that debt is guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board. Unless we have a total economic collapse and nobody can pay their light bill. If that happens we are in trouble anyway.

MR. BAKER: You (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, I will deal with it. That was Standard and Poor's. Dominion Bond Rating Service said much the same, that they don't consider the Hydro debt. It is self-sustaining debt. When they sit down to decide on the credit rating certainly it is one aspect that is in there but the amount of impact on their decision is negligible. Yet the Premier stood in this House, Mr. Chairman, last week, and he would have had us believe that now that Standard and Poor's has downgraded the Province therefore that proves, he said, we have no choice but privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

That is interesting. Late last week there were two gentlemen in this Province who are, both of them, recognized internationally. Dr. Michael Graham, who is director of private client investing at Midland Walwyn - Dr. Graham is a very highly respected economist, nationally and internationally - and Dr. Mark Mullins, a young man, I might say, in his early 'thirties who has won national -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) bright people.

MR. WINDSOR: Very bright people. The minister confirms what I'm saying. Did the minister meet them while they...?

MR. BAKER: I didn't have a chance, I (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: It is too bad because they were very informative. I saw them twice. I went to a presentation at Hotel Newfoundland on Wednesday night, I think it was, hosted by Midland Walwyn. Four hundred or 500 people there. They gave an extremely good overview: The Canadian economy, how the Province of Newfoundland fits into it, and our overall debt burden and what we can expect.

I say to the minister, and he may be pleased to hear this, that they were saying that the Newfoundland debt situation is serious but what is important is that we have a downward trend in the overall debt service ratio. We are headed in the right direction. They said that the government has made some of the right fiscal moves. They said that, and the Government of Saskatchewan, they said. But they said both governments have failed in promoting economic development. That is exactly what we have been saying in this House. That is what they said.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) that is your interpretation.

MR. WINDSOR: No, that is exactly what they (inaudible). That is exactly what they said.

MR. BAKER: Show it to me. They did not (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I can't show it to you, I don't have it in writing, but I sat there and listened to them. I had my own notes and that is what they said. They said the government's promotion of economic development has not kept up their fiscal measures. In other words they have made the right moves on one side - in fact, the term they used was: That is only half of the equation. The other side of the equation, which is economic development, has not kept up with fiscal restraint.

MR. BAKER: It has not kept up with the collapse in the fishery and stuff like that.

MR. WINDSOR: That is exactly what we have been saying in this House. That it is all well and good to tell all of these public servants and teachers and everybody else who are either on strike or pending to go on strike that they have to have all of the cutbacks, but unless you use some of the money you save -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. WINDSOR: - unless you find other ways, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) anyway!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, would you please ask the member to leave the Chamber? I will not be interrupted by that hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked to be heard in silence. I ask that you comply.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I would like to have a transcript. Do you have a transcript of the remarks at Rotary on Thursday?

MR. BAKER: No, the interview with Anne Budgell on CBC (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No. That is not what I'm referring to. I mentioned that I was there in the evening. But on Thursday at lunch he spoke to a joint Rotary meeting at the hotel. About 300 or so, 400 Rotarians in the Province, and he was much clearer in that presentation. Extremely good presentation. Very well received there. He was much clearer on his position as it relates to that.

Mr. Chairman, he also referred to the Province's downgrading by Standard and Poor's. That is what really I found of interest. I don't know if the minister has had this reported to him. What he said there was that that really was of no significance. Standard and Poor's was simply catching up with the other credit rating agencies. He said that BBB+ is in fact in their estimate the appropriate rating for Newfoundland at this point in time.

MR. BAKER: He said he was recommending it as a good investment -

MR. WINDSOR: Yes.

MR. BAKER: - to his clients -

MR. WINDSOR: Yes he did.

MR. BAKER: - because it was a stable outlook.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes he did. I was about to say that. I'm being very straight with the minister.

MR. BAKER: Glad to hear it.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, he did indeed say that. He said Newfoundland's debt is still a good deal. He recommends it to his clients. Because their overall assessment of the economy of Canada is continued growth for the next two to three years. They predict that interest rates will drop by another 0.5 per cent and hold relatively stable over the next two or three years. He said because our overall debt situation is headed in the right direction therefore they have confidence.

He also said something that was very interesting. He said the bond rating agencies are two years ahead of the credit rating agencies. Credit rating agencies sit back to see if what you said you will do you did and if it has the results that you expected from it. He said if you really want to find out where the Province is heading don't look at the credit rating agencies, look at the bond rating agencies.

AN HON. MEMBER: The bonds.

MR. WINDSOR: The bonds, that is right, the investors. Those who sell the bonds. (Inaudible) put a rating on the credit. It is two different animals. In other words, what he was saying is that it was positive from the Province's point of view, but I emphasize again that economic development was pointed out as being a real weakness both here and in Saskatchewan. He did say we are headed in the right direction and we have been at it longer than other provinces which are now just getting on the bandwagon with all kinds of fiscal measures, and having to take much more severe fiscal measures, in some cases, than we've had to take. We've had three or four years of bad, I guess, of pain, but they have to take some really serious pain now all of a sudden. They are finally realizing what is going on.

What that tells us, Mr. Chairman, is that we are not in such dire straits that we have to sell the one - well, the main, certainly the best, almost the only - Crown corporation that is giving any kind of real return.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) in the interview with Anne Budgell that (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I would like to see that. I did not see that interview. I'm speaking only from what he said on Wednesday night and Thursday at lunch, and I paid very close attention to him both times. They made extremely good presentations, both of them. It was only Dr. Mullins who was there on Thursday, I should make it clear, but both spoke on Wednesday night. Dr. Mullins spoke on Thursday.

What came out of his presentation is that the sale of Hydro, the privatization of Hydro, the elimination of that debt, has absolutely no bearing on the credit rating and that the downgrading by Standard and Poor's he said is of no significance. He also said it will have no impact on the Province selling its bonds this year. The Premier has, and I heard him again last night on television, saying that we will have problems this year in selling into certain markets and in the time that we can sell. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely, totally untrue.

MR. BAKER: It closes up the Japanese market altogether.

MR. WINDSOR: It does not totally close it up. It does not. I'm aware that we have been for some time concerned that once you slip out of an A rating the Japanese market is not open. I'm told that it is still open, that the Japanese can see through this too. They will listen to people like Dr. Mullins, those people who are saying: Here are the bonds that we are offering, and here is the prospectus on that. They listen to them, and I am told that you will have no more difficulty in the Japanese market this year than you did last year, and you haven't been in a Japanese market for three years anyway, so what are we worried about here?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: You don't want to go to Japan? I can assure the minister he doesn't need a trip to Japan, unless he likes raw fish.

The point that I really want to emphasize again is that the Premier misled this House when he released that statement saying: Standard and Poor's have downgraded, and that proves that we have no choice but to privatize Hydro. He was misleading the public when he said on TV that we will have trouble on the bond market. He is grossly exaggerating the facts.

No lesser an individual respected nationally and internationally than Dr. Mullins has made it very clear - very clear - that that downgrading will have little effect, and he predicts that in two years time, if all things go as they are going now, we could indeed enjoy an upgrading back again, both Standard and Poor's and Moody's.

AN HON. MEMBER: A new government (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: A new government will be ready to take over. Perhaps this is why our credit ability is improving, because they can see the end of this government. Maybe that's what it is.

MR. SIMMS: I spoke to Dr. Mullins, too, privately. That's what he said to me. Dr. Mullins said one of the main reasons he's optimistic is because about three years down the road there is going to be a new government.

MR. WINDSOR: A new government, there you go.

Mr. Chairman, when you look at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and I want to continue with this dialogue with the Minister of Finance, because if he has not had an opportunity since the Hydro annual report was tabled in the House, and I am sure the minister has looked at it very clearly, very carefully, and in that, fixed assets $2.6 billion, overall debt, $1.3 billion.

Now we are going to eliminate $1.3 billion in debt, maybe pick up a few hundred million in addition to that - maybe. We have retained earnings in that corporation of $430 million, so all we'll get out of it is our retained earnings and eliminate the debt, if we're lucky. That's what the government is basically saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Includes CF(L)Co, yes, okay? Or we can take CF(L)Co - you can take their operation out of it and your net income from operations was $32.2 million. In Hydro, it's 7.3 lost on CF(L)Co last year. That's what you had to invest into your minority interest, okay? We can take CF(L)Co out of it, net income to Hydro. So there you go; but this annual report of Newfoundland Hydro shows very clearly a financially viable Crown corporation, very solid. It's only borrowing, I say to those who are too stunned to understand what (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: I am trying to talk to a much more intelligent minister over here, so I ask you again, Mr. Chairman, please ensure silence from that hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: So, Mr. Chairman, here we have a corporation that is very self-sufficient, a good contributor. All that it will do is eliminate the need for the Province to borrow for this year, for one year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: They are going to sell a corporation that is self-sufficient, that pays for itself, and that is a real asset to the Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: And in doing that, I say to you, you will decrease the credibility of the Province's credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The road? Always bad, boy, since this government took over. It's always bad.

Mr. Chairman, first I would want to commend my colleague for Mount Pearl for giving a very good analysis of the finances of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Because we are all very well aware that one of the flags this government ran up the flagpole when it announced the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was that it was going to improve the credit rating of this Province. That is what they were saying. Because everybody was apprehensive about the credit rating.

Lo and behold, after the government announced that it was going to sell off Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, what happened? They downgraded the credit rating of this Province. Again it is a proven fact of misrepresentation that has been stated by this government. The credit agencies themselves cannot believe you. That is what they did and that is exactly what the people of this Province are saying to you. That is exactly what the people of the Province are saying about this government. You say one thing and do another. You don't get what you see with this particular government. You are long on style and short on substance. That is what you are all about. It is showing in the polls. I know it hurts over there. I know it hurts when people (inaudible) polls. I know what it is like.

That long on style and short on substance was also self-evident when they announced the legislative review committees. How they were going - any new legislation that would be proposed would be presented to a legislative review committee and they would allow public input. That is what they said when they were first elected. Did they do it? They did it first for a couple of little bills, like a name change to the Province. Something like that. They did it. People came out and participated in what they felt was a very good exercise in democracy.

But when a very substantive piece of legislation - that is Bill No. 1 - and Bill No. 2 combined with it - as the Premier and the Government House Leader have stated, they are the most important two pieces of legislation to be presented to this Legislature since Confederation. What did they do? No public input, absolutely none. No public input whatsoever into the legislation. As a matter of fact they didn't even want any public discussion on it, as evidenced by the presentation that the Premier made on Province-wide t.v. The Premier said: I told my caucus to shut up, I told my Cabinet ministers not to speak up. They obliged. Even the Minister of Health kept his mouth shut.

They obliged, there wasn't a peep out of them. Not a peep came out of them. They didn't want anybody to know. They said: Now if we say nothing and they will just listen to the Premier this will whip through and the people of the Province won't even know what hit them. It will be just like the 1966 deal that we pulled off here, it will be just like the Upper Churchill deal. We will whip this through. The people won't know what hit them till it is too late, and then it is a done deal, it is all over.

I didn't see the strategy written out. I wasn't in the Cabinet room when it was being discussed, when this strategy was being defined. But they couldn't shut up the Cyril Aberys. They couldn't shut up the open lines host who the Premier touts as being our official ombudsman know. They couldn't shut up the public ombudsman. They couldn't keep former public employees like Cyril Abery quiet. They couldn't keep the Bill Vetters and the union leaders quiet. The Liberal caucus, excepting one individual, they all kept their mouth shut. They never said boo about it, not a word. Not a word, Mr. Chairman, did they say, but, Mr. Chairman, the people then became more aware of the consequences.

We in the opposition, in the first couple of days when they announced the privatization, the Leader of the Opposition announced that we were going to take some time and review the policy, review exactly the consequences of privatization, on a long-term basis and also in the immediate term, the effects of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Chairman, after we assessed it as the Official Opposition, we had our researchers doing the work, researching the consequences, talking to people and listening to people, listening, Mr. Chairman, more than talking, we developed the policy that we were opposed to the privatization of Hydro and we spoke up against it, polls have indicated and I am sure you are all aware, if you don't believe me ask the Member for St. John's North, he now knows that the majority of his district is opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Chairman, other members on the other side such as the hon. Member for Windsor - Buchans, recognizes the political impact of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, he did, and he told you at your Liberal Convention: we are going to be in the political wilderness longer than if sentence was imposed on us when we did the Upper Churchill deal if we go with this. So there is a little bit of backbone in the Member for Windsor - Buchans but, Mr. Chairman, the member of this House who has to be commended for standing up is the Member for Pleasantville, because of the way he has spoken up about the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know it hurts the people who are in the back benches because you go back to your constituents and you say: well, I have to go along on this with the government if not, I probably won't be able to have the road paved, I won't get in the infrastructure agreement; I won't get a nursing station opened or we can't get this done or we can't get that done, and that's what holds them in line. Unless you put representation of your voters first, if you have that simple, little principle of coming in here, forgetting the party line, forget what the leader wants, forget the hidden agendas that some people have, whether they are to sell off the assets of the Province or whether they just want to do it to cut a deal with the Premier to stay in Cabinet, forget all the hidden agendas and do what your constituents want. If they did that, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you could not support this bill and maybe that's why none of the people or very few of the people on the other side is speaking because they are hoping that maybe, the government will withdraw it.

The Premier has said and I quote, he said on Province-wide t.v.: I have said here tonight very clearly, and I said not here, I said it on CBC radio yesterday, and I have said it in other places: No government has a right to proceed with the implementation of a major policy that can't sustain public support for it, and if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition, we have no right to ask the House of Assembly to proceed with it and I won't.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the second misrepresentation that the Premier has made to the people of this Province. The first one, remember, was that secret scheme that he had, you remember the secret scheme? He said: if you can't buy this Hydro privatization on its economic merits, don't tell anybody about it, don't talk about it, don't talk about the economic merits because he told everybody over there to keep quiet, to shut up, not even say a word about it, let it slip through the House. Then he went on Province-wide public t.v and said that he had this super scheme to right the wrong of the Upper Churchill. That was on Tuesday night. On Thursday night he gets back on t.v and says: Do you remember the truth I told you about, the deceit of Tuesday night? What happens? He was confronted with documentation by our Leader where it wasn't necessary to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It is all smoke and mirrors, another part of the hidden agenda.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) market (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: What was that?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) in the market for a cheap house.

MR. A. SNOW: You are in the market for some cheap housing. At $120,000 a year you are in the market for cheap housing? The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, making $120,000 a year, is in the market for some cheap housing. Why do you want it?

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: (Inaudible) I had fifty at one time, I could have made you a good deal there. Mr. Chairman, then we finally see the Premier in his second misstatement, misrepresentation to the people of this Province, was in the fact that he said he would not force this legislation or present it and carry it through the House of Assembly if the majority of the people of the Province were against it.

It is quite evident by recent polls, professional polling institutions, that the majority of the people of this Province are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Yet the Premier and his government and his silent Cabinet, his Cabinet that he told to keep quiet about any discussion about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and his quiet back bench, are going to have to swallow it. They are going to have to hang their heads and vote for this. That is what they have been doing,

Why are they doing this? When the majority of the people are against it, why are they doing it? People actually believe there is a hidden agenda. It is not a hidden agenda by individuals in the back benches. They don't have any hidden agenda. They are just trying to get in with the Premier because there is a vacant Cabinet seat now and they would like to be able to see if they can get into that. That is what they are looking for. The fellows in Cabinet I guess are suggesting that if they don't toe the line they are going to be turfed out of Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I'm saying this is what people are saying. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is aware that people are saying this out and about the Province. He knows the public support in his district is opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: There is no doubt I have better things to be doing tonight than in here. We should be doing this out in the public - not just in the Legislature. We should have this legislation out and about the Province allowing people to have input into it. That is what we should have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: He is exactly right, Mr. Chairman. We should not be in here discussing this right now. We shouldn't be having to stand here all night and debate this bill. This should not be rammed down the people's throats. This is not good medicine for this Province so it shouldn't be poured down their throats, or rammed down their throats. It should be presented to them in a fashion that they can have input into it and see exactly how they feel about it. If it does have any merits I'm sure they would be willing to support it.

Polls have shown that over 80 per cent of the people are against it, and yet the government is attempting to ram this down their throats. Why? People have a right to be sceptical, because they've already had two misrepresentations by the Premier. Twice he has misrepresented the facts about why he was doing it and whether or not he would do it without support, so they have a reason to doubt.

That is why - and I know the minister responsible for.... What are you responsible for, anyway? Unemployment, striking teachers. The `Minister of Unemployment and Teacher.' Is that it? The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Look what is going on in this Province. With the highest record of unemployment in the country. We have public sector strikes. We have teachers on the bricks now, and it looks as if we could have maybe even a general strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope so.

MR. A. SNOW: No, I don't hope so. I know the trauma caused -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations should talk to his colleague who is sitting next to him now, half asleep, the minister responsible for Education. That's the man who has been doing the inciting. That's the man who supposedly has the hidden agenda with regard to what's going on in the education processes, and why the teachers are on strike here this week. That's where the problem is. It's not on this side.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that Minister of Employment and Labour Relations should have the same commitment to teachers and constituents now as he did prior to his election, when he was a labour leader. That's the type of commitment he should have. He shouldn't have the type of commitment that just crawled on their backs, got them out on strikes and everything else, and then, from that public support, he vaulted into the Cabinet room and forgot all about them.

Here he is now, won't respond to his brothers and sisters who are out there merely asking to be treated with a certain amount of respect - merely asking to be treated with a little respect - that's all they're asking, and he forgot all about them, and that's exactly what's happening with regard to privatization. We're forgetting the people who are supporting this particular bill. It doesn't have any merits, there's no economic gain in selling this. There's no economic gain to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There's a short-term gain, the same as there was a short-term gain for the minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations in promoting labour discord, and got on their backs until he got (inaudible). It's personal gain for him, maybe, but short-term gain isn't very good, and that's all we're going to get out of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We're going to have short-term gain and long-term pain.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is basically broken into three parts. The first part in Bill 2 basically talks about how this bill would conform to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro if it were privatized.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, most definitely. I would urge the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, in Part II of the bill the Premier talks about how this would be a general application for the reallocation of power. Yet, we have heard quite often from the paper companies that have their own power producing plants, and the Premier discounts it, that they have no problem whatsoever with this bill affecting their power production facilities. So I wonder, and several lawyers have spoken to me about it in that regard, if it doesn't affect their power production, how would it affect other power production? If it's a general application, it has to be a general application to all power production.

Mr. Chairman, really we have a problem here. Now I don't know -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: They denied that it could apply to Kruger or Abitibi-Price, and yet we have seen now that they are going to propose an amendment. So this so-called bill of general application does not have a general application. It's specific.

The Premier talked about the reason why the Water Rights Reversion Act could not work, or did not work, was the fact that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say a few words on this particular bill, Mr. Chairman, and I guess it should be noted for the record that most of the words that have been said on this particular piece of legislation and the companion Hydro privatization bill, have been uttered by members of the Opposition with the possible exception of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. There has been very little said on the government side with regard to this particular legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of two bills, a companion bill before the House, having to deal with hydroelectricity and specifically, this particular bill is an act governing the supply of electricity in the Province and also this particular act facilitates the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. As my colleague from Humber East pointed out earlier in the debate, Mr. Chairman, a couple of years ago we were embroiled in negotiations with Hydro Québéc through our provincial negotiating team, and pretty close to a draft agreement was reached between the two parties on the matter of No.1 seeking redress of some of the injustice on the Upper Churchill contract, and No.2 development of the Lower Churchill River system and all the power that it could provide to the North American Grid.

Mr. Chairman, people knowledgeable in the field were somewhat curious as to why the government withdrew from these negotiations as they appeared to be drawing to a successful conclusion and, Mr. Chairman, for a while there, people were somewhat confused as to why the government would walk away. This particular Bill 2, I think, sets some of the confusion straight. The Premier has a legal/political agenda with regard to seeking redress on the Upper Churchill and he is convinced in his own mind; mind you, he has convinced very few other lawyers that his particular approach would work.

It is doubly curious, Mr. Chairman, because we are in desperate need, as the Member for Mount Pearl pointed out in a debate with the Minister of Finance, of economic development in this Province and the international rating agencies and what not, financial houses are all too well aware of our need for economic development. One of the last great mega projects in North America that remains to be done is the Lower Churchill River system and for the ten years that I worked for the previous administration, Mr. Chairman, I was not in this Assembly but I was privy to what was going on, and the peculiar problem we had in trying to structure a deal with Quebec in those days, is that we were the one always approaching Quebec and they were the ones who, generally speaking, flirted with us but did not in the end come to the table in any kind of a serious way; now, what we have in this particular instance, is a complete about face on the part of the Government of Quebec.

The Government of Quebec approached the Government of Newfoundland through its vehicle, Quebec Hydro, to cut a deal on the Lower Churchill, knowing full well that in order to so do it would have to improve greatly the situation with regard to the Upper Churchill. Mr. Chairman, the draft agreement that was nearly finalized saw significant input of billions of dollars into the Upper Churchill agreement during the remaining years of that contract, that will last until I think, 2041, billions that would see refurbishing of the existing dams and control structures and power stations et cetera, all of which will require maintenance if not outright replacement before that contract runs its sixty-five-year term in 2041.

Given current circumstances, Mr. Chairman, the Upper Churchill will eventually go broke and not too far into the future that situation will occur, so it is necessary to either have a deal that pumps tremendous amounts of funds into the Upper Churchill, or the government of the Province, in order to maintain ownership of that particular project, must pump in taxpayers' dollars.

What we had was a draft agreement, pretty well finalized, that saw several billions, in excess of $10 billion, I do believe, put into the Upper Churchill to refurbish that particular project to keep it on line well into the middle of the next century, and also to provide some additional revenues to the Province directly.

In addition to addressing some of the more outstanding concerns on the Upper Churchill, we are going to get a multibillion dollar mega project on the Lower Churchill River that I think would employ some 10,000 or 15,000 person years of work, if I am not mistaken, for Newfoundlanders, and that would provide a badly needed boost to the local economy.

One has to wonder just where the priorities of this particular administration lie in the single-minded pursuit of the Premier's personal agenda, his agenda to vindicate himself for the failings of the previous Smallwood administration, or whether it lies with the well-being and overall economic development of the Province.

Mr. Chairman, the finance critic, the Member for Mount Pearl, pointed out here earlier that some of the financial agencies were somewhat concerned about the economic development record of this particular government, and that is very much to the point. What we have is a government more interested in chasing after certain fine tuned legal points of view, a government that spent the first two or three years of its previous term pursuing, again with single-minded vigour, municipal amalgamation above and beyond all logic and reason.

Subsequent to that, the government embarked on a massive constitutional campaign, and the Premier built quite a reputation for himself in the constitutional field on the national stage. His interest in that particular field waned somewhat when Mr. Chrétien finally became leader of the Liberal Party, and that particular option was closed off to him, and I guess he dismissed that particular option in due course, as he did his French teacher, and went on with other matters of interest to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I really believe I know what I am talking about, at least on this particular issue. One is not perfect, but at least if one stands here and speaks one's mind, one is doing one's duty to some extent. One has to wonder if an hon. member is doing his or her duty if that member speaks their mind from their seat rather than on their feet.

I would certainly call upon the hon. minister and other members opposite. We have all night here. There is no law that says that once the Opposition exhausts the number of speakers that hon. members opposite, especially the Minister of Transportation who is chafing at the bit, can't get up. We have until 1:00 a.m. to complete this debate, so there's no reason in the world why a goodly number of members on the government side couldn't stand and defend the government's position on this matter, but so far all we have seen from the government benches are a few interjections from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and a few from the Minister of Labour. For whatever reason, I guess for reasons best know to them, which they don't appear to be inclined to inform the public about, they are not inclined to speak on this particular debate.

The Premier and other senior Ministers of the Crown have indicated that this is a very important bill. Obviously, given the single-mindedness with which this government is pursuing this bill, it must be a bill of some importance to this particular government. Yet, it's rather passing strange that a bill of such importance to this particular government is not being addressed by the members of the government, is not being supported by the members of the government, is not being supported by the back benches of the government.

This is in stark contrast to the great debate we had on Meech Lake, where every soul on the government side was trotted out to support the Premier's position. Some of them didn't necessarily agree with the Premier's position. A few disagreed publicly - not many, mind you. On this particular debate we have only had one disagree, but during Meech Lake certainly government members as well as Opposition members were encouraged, not only number one, to consult with their constituents on the issue and to bring their constituents' views before the Assembly, but, Mr. Chairman, they were also encouraged to be very forthright and come forward and speak.

Indeed, the government even promised a free vote in this Assembly, unfortunately a vote which didn't occur. But it showed, on that particular issue, where the government felt comfortable with the subject matter, felt comfortable with its point of view in terms of the public's point of view, everybody was encouraged to wade in and get involved.

Here we have what can only be described as a major piece of legislation, the subject of a massive government advertising campaign, the subject of a province-wide t.v. address by the Premier, the subject of a party leaders' debate on Province-wide television. Obviously a major piece of legislation, and yet all we've gotten from the government benches on this particular piece of legislation are a few catcalls and heckles from a couple of ministers in the front bench, Hardly a word from ministers in the middle bench, and nothing from members in the back bench. One has to wonder just why, apart as I indicated with an occasional interjection from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, why there is very little if anything said on the government side on this particular matter.

The hon. Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when he was in opposition, I wasn't in the Assembly, but I listened on the speaker in my office many times, I watched from the gallery many times, and the man was very active, as were the Members for Fogo and Gander. They were extremely active, extremely vocal, in their days in opposition, always bringing forth the common man's point of view, speaking up for the underdog. One has to wonder what has happened. Has the trip from the Opposition benches into the Cabinet room, the trip from the benches here to seats around the Cabinet table, has it really brought about such an abrupt, 180 degree about-face chance on the part of members opposite who've joined the Cabinet? It is like Paul on the road to Damascus. I guess if you were Paul in opposition you are Saul in government. You've been blinded by the light.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: Read your Bible, Mr. Minister. Mr. Chairman, one has to wonder just what happened to the hon. ministers opposite, when I remember seeing most of the front bench in opposition over the years and they were extremely vocal. They didn't mind going on with petitions for day after day. The current Minister of Education even got to the point of presenting petitions and reading the exact names on the petition to kill time. On one particular occasion he was wont on one particular day to read the names from the odd-numbered houses on a given street in St. Anthony and on the following day he would do the even-numbered houses and the names in those houses on the next day.

That was the sort of tactic that the hon. members, who are now ministers, used when they were in the opposition. They spoke forward, they spoke loud, they spoke long, they spoke often, and they always spoke. Now the most they can do is heckle from the front bench and be quiet from the back bench. That is not good enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HEWLETT: I know the hon. Member for Port de Grave is somewhat frustrated insofar as his favourite industry, the fishery and whatnot, right now is in desperate trouble. The Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa is going through the motions of pretending to take control and custody of the straddling fish stocks on our Continental Shelf. They've trotted out a private member's resolution giving faint praise to the federal minister. The Member for Port de Grave must feel awfully frustrated not being allowed to speak on an issue like this and being constrained by party considerations to speak in favour of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Tobin when he knows full well that what Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Tobin is about is essentially a public relations exercise.

We are aiming all the Canadian big guns at the 20 per cent ships offshore that fly flags of convenience while ignoring the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Germans, the Russians, the Baltic states who are doing the 80 per cent of the overfishing offshore. They stood and gave Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Tobin a round of applause there, a standing ovation, a short time ago in this Assembly. Now today we had introduced a private member's resolution giving somewhat less enthusiastic support to Mr. Tobin.

I heard the young Liberal president on the open line call in this morning from Ottawa, talking about what a wonderful convention they had, and how we were all going to kill some seals. That's all well and good, but they're not really going to do anything substantive on the fishery. They are about phasing people out of the industry. They are about ignoring the international situation, and the blatant overfishing. They are going to go through a token effort of trying to do something about that, but that's all, so it must be frustrating for members like the Member for Port de Grave, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, to sit here, to be constrained by the Premier on this particular bill, to basically have to bite his tongue, or at least be somewhat faint in his praise of the federal minister, the Liberal Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Tobin, in pursuit of his goals on fisheries, which are very weak and very shallow goals at most.

So here we are, the umpteenth day on this particular piece of legislation, and the only people who speak are the people over here. The government says it believes in what it's doing, but at the same time it is loathe to defend what it is doing. One has to really wonder where their hearts and their minds are.

It's not good enough that such a major piece of legislation, such a controversial piece of legislation, should be allowed to pass through this Assembly with only members of the Opposition speaking for it, and members of the government being silent by choice or by force; one has to wonder. It's not good enough at all.

Mr. Chairman, this particular bill, as well, in addition to dealing with an attack, I guess, on the Upper Churchill contract, delves into the field of labour relations. It also, for instance, allows for companies other than ones holding 20 per cent. It allows for greater than 20 per cent shares in a privatized Hydro. It's a bill which, in addition to one of general application on the control of power, basically facilitates Hydro, dives into labour relations, gets into federal tax laws regarding public utilities, and essentially gives great rebates and tax breaks to these utilities, electrical utilities, once the Crown corporation is privatized and both electrical utilities will be on an even footing, and both will be the recipients of largesse as a result of this particular legislation.

So one has to wonder just what is going on here. What is the government's agenda? Is it really the best interest of the people of the Province, or is it single-minded pursuit of a Premier's dream to seek redress on a contract that was allowed to happen by a former administration?

I note on a number of occasions ministers have said: We didn't build the Upper Churchill contract. Technically speaking, that's correct, but the administration of the day, the Smallwood administration, did allow for a statutory lease to come before this Legislature and be passed that gave the water rights to a company called BRINCO. They went to work, and they did a deal under our carte blanche, and that deal has not served us well.

What we are about to do with the two Hydro bills that are currently before the House, we are talking about privatizing our existing Crown corporation, our vehicle for economic and hydroelectric development, and basically putting hydroelectricity, major development, back in the hands of the private sector. Now that's exactly what happened before. The only difference here is that it's even worse.

At least Mr. Smallwood brought the lease before this Assembly. Under the current legislation, these companion bills that are before this House right now, the Minister of Finance - with all due respect to him - has the power to issue water rights to newly privatized Hydro, or any company for that matter. Therefore, water rights for the Lower Churchill River system, for instance, can be given out without even a public debate in this Legislature.

For all the mistakes that Mr. Smallwood made, at least he allowed debate on the issue in this Legislature, and when we do have matters before this Legislature, it is somewhat frustrating to be sitting here and to be speaking into a vacuum on the other side. The hon. members are loathe to speak, or not allowed to speak. I don't know what it is, but it's certainly not good enough. The most that is thrown up are a few occasional catcalls from the other side about severance pay or about Sprung greenhouse and so on and so forth. But let's be clear about one thing; In order to have a Sprung you have to try something, and the Wells Administration will never have a Sprung or any rubber boot factory or chocolate bar factories as Mr. Smallwood had. Because for all the mistakes that Mr. Smallwood made at least he was trying to do something.

The Wells Administration, apart from a few single-minded, inward looking, intellectual initiatives has not really gotten down to the guts of what you were elected for, and that was to create economic development, to create sufficient jobs to bring home every mother's son. Now the mother's sons and daughters, faced with massive cuts in the UI program, faced with a massive down sizing of the fishery, are not coming home. Those of them who can afford the air fare are off to British Columbia, the nearest place in Canada that is hiring. That is a rather sad commentary. The Premier of New Brunswick, another poor sister province, is known in the media as `Fast Frank.' Well, we are into the times of `Slow Clyde.' Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about (inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I cannot tell about the (inaudible) because they are safely back in (inaudible).

Mr. Chairman, like my colleague ahead of me this evening I take no pleasure in being here this evening, suffering through another gag order and a muzzle order by members opposite. Put forward by those who have the power and those who would like to have the power and who like to sit near the power, and sell the power. They don't believe in the power of the people because if they did they would go into public hearings like has been advocated for months. These men, these people across the way, on this bill, the electrical power control act, are willing to go to the back door to meet their aims and objectives which is to save out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: You talk about Santa Claus now, that is what you - you are in a dream world. I've heard you earlier this evening, sir, interrupting other men over here. When this article of two years ago in The Evening Telegram, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation said: I was born a Liberal and I will die a Liberal. That only shows me one thing. That a person is stagnant, narrow-minded, and not willing to improve himself one tiny bit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: Listen, we are here as the voice for the people. What little voice they have in this Province they are having it through members over here. Not through members over there who've been muzzled. They are not all yes men. When Clyde says no they say no. That is what you are about. What the Premier wants he gets.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) yes men?

MR. CAREEN: Oh yes, there are a couple of them, but they are only in a minority.

This back door way, this back door method they are using through this act, Bill No. 2, to get through privatization, is not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) clause 2.

MR. CAREEN: Clause 2. Is clause 2. You are going to be a (inaudible) - I've got a couple of things for you later on in the week. Anyway, all to test the legal theory of the Premier. Sad to say, it is going to weigh very heavily on the consumers and the rate payers of this Province. We are here to make sure that the people of this Province have a say.

It is a snobby way these people look at the people of this Province. Nobody likes snobs, and that is the reason we know over the past number of weeks their popularity is coming down and ready to go out the tubes. Because people don't like snobs. They can't operate forever as father knows best. That is not the way it is in this Province. Snobs! The way you look at the people of this Province, that you are the only ones with opinions and you are the only ones who count? Not so. I wish that some people over there who used to advocate having a bit of gumption about them would speak up. They have the backbone of a banana and just as yellow and they have seen it. You are slipping and you are slipping very badly in what you are supposed to advocate. Is this the man, where are you? You are gone, you are finished.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: We are talking about the man who advocated this bill whose name, the Premier, the hon. C.K. Wells, his name is on this bill, where is he when the dirty deed is being done this evening, where is he? He is up in Canada; he is not here with us, he is not here to advocate something that he had promoted but he has had others here to aid and abet in what he is trying to do.

This bill and what it is trying to do has to be stopped. The people of this Province can have no chance in hell of investing into a privatized Hydro. How can the people who are on social services, UI, those who are going to be cut off from TAGS, those who are not employed, how can they invest? No, my friends -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell them about Clyde and Bride.

MR. CAREEN: No, I am not talking about any Clyde and Bride here tonight, no Clyde here. This is too serious and those people over there do not take it one bit serious at all, because they have sold themselves out and they have sold out the people of this Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: He is still awake.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Yes, well he was the man who introduced the motion the other night. The great advocate of the people put forward a motion that dragged us back here for four minutes on Thursday night.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Ah, you will never gag the people. Look, sir, when -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I told the Minister of Justice months ago, that wherever he pops up, the likes of me pops up opposite and always will.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. CAREEN: Yes, well I got Ying and Yang somewhere here. Ying and Yang, back in 1969 but he still looks Ying and he still Yangs. Remember these men and the action committee for Joey to keep their dictator in place. Now, if he could never have power he was going to make sure he was going to be next to power. This is from the news in 1969 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it.

MR. CAREEN: No, I won't bother to read it, I will pass it over to (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: And where were you on this act, sir, and where were all of you on this act, what were you doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Were you? You were a lucky man then.

But as I was saying earlier the people, the ordinary Joes of this Province, ourselves, we cannot hope to invest in this measure when it is being sold out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: - anyway, what we have been advocating for months is public hearings and that too is falling on deaf ears. The people have a right and if any of us chose to ignore the rights of the people, well we are aiding and abetting in this suffocation of democracy. Where are all these hon. members? Where are all these –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: We have seen the deception that started last fall with the Fortis bill which came right up on through and has turned into Bills 1 and 2; and Bill 2 which I said earlier, is just another way to get into the privatization of Hydro which 75 per cent to 80 per cent of this Province have shown they are against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: Listen mother.

MR. SHELLEY: Don't be so paranoid.

MR. CAREEN: Mr. Chairman, I can't get over some of these people, the way they interrupt. There is a little, old story and I know the Chairman here is interested in poetry but it is only a little story, a little rhyme: The bee is a busy soul; It doesn't believe in birth control; And that's the reason in times like these we have so many sons of bees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: I see by the way some of these hon. members are getting on towards the rights of people on this side of the House and the rights of people out in the Province, they are totally ignoring what people have to say on a matter that is so important and vital, it has been -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: I am not going to tell you about Cape Prim, that's for another time. But, my friends, this is too serious; too serious indeed because we know and you know, we might disagree on some of the figures on how high the costs will be to the people of this Province. The electrical cost that people will have to bear, people who can't afford such measures today, where we have less work and with a less brighter outlook than we ever had, how are they going to cope, or do you care, or do you agree with Parzival Copes' statements in 1972 that Newfoundland can only support 250,000?

AN HON. MEMBER: Down with Parzival Copes.

MR. CAREEN: Well, I am glad I hear something good from the other side and I echo those sentiments, sir, down with Parzival Copes and anybody of that ilk; but, over here, we are concerned too; we are concerned about what these rate increases are going to do to the people of this Province. Another thing too, that is going on is that, when any government loses the trust of its people, whatever they do, they can't be trusted. I mean, we see what is going on now and over this past while, the Machiavellian way that the NLTA has been treated, teachers forced - and they said it was only a rumour - to draw their severance; something they had given up years ago, negotiated for severance, they had given up other options and they were forced to leave and it is obvious that this government knows the price of many things but they know the value of nothing. A good teacher is worth his weight in gold -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: But you didn't care what type of people left the classroom and what type came in to replace them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: My sister is a good teacher, my sister is a dedicated teacher and there are thousands more of them; Newfoundland has produced some great teachers. I don't like to see people being toyed with and fooled with for the sake of money.

MR. TOBIN: We produced a couple of bad ones also, Grimes and Baker.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, they -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Cowan.

MR. TOBIN: And Reid.

MR. CAREEN: There are a few of them over there alright.

The Premier is not even here, as I said earlier, to be present to promote his own bill. He left it for the others to advocate and `Skippy' is still off on the mainland. He is skipping and trotting along on the mainland while us poor souls here are trying to advocate freedom of speech. For freedom for people who cannot be here among us, for people out there. The teachers and the others who cannot be here, the unemployed who cannot be here, the people who are going to be turfed off TAGS. Because what this TAGS is coming down to is: Tag, you are it, you are gone. That is the way it is all going to be across this Province.

If we cannot stick up for what we were put in here for, it is not much odds about it. We can't all sell out. Is government, is being in Cabinet, that important? Is being that close to the seat of power that important? On an individual basis you will find that they are decent people when they are one-on-one, away from the crowd. Good people. But whatever happens to them when they get in a cluster - probably they were hypnotized by the blue-eyed man now who is up again in Ontario. He probably has them hypnotized.

Anyway: I slept and dreamt that life was beauty and woke to find that life is duty. We do have a duty here, to advocate what we think is best for our district, and what we think is best for this Province. I do not for one moment think that Bill No. 2 and its neighbour Bill No. 1 are good for the people of this Province. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Member for St. John's East is going to speak.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on Bill No. 2 at Committee stage even though we are not permitted to have a proper committee stage for this bill, a committee stage which would allow us to go through this legislation clause by clause. Hopefully after there had been widespread public discussion on the clause by clause aspects of it, after -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I would invite the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to join in this debate. He has been told to shut up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: The Premier of this Province bragged on t.v. how he was successful in getting the minister to shut up. Now the Premier has gone off and he has given the Minister of Justice the authority to tell the rest of them to shut up. You are not allowed to speak in the debate, you are not allowed to stand up and join in the debate, you haven't got guts enough to stand up and speak for twenty minutes, you've got closure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: You've got closure invoked, so I would invite the hon. member to be quiet and listen or get up and take twenty minutes and participate in the debate like everyone else. You've invoked closure, you are preventing clause by clause discussion of this legislation, you refuse to hold public hearings. This is a piece of legislation which you claim, which your government claims, is one of the most important pieces of legislation since Confederation and you've stifled public debate on it. I invite the hon. member to either keep his mouth quiet, and listen to the people who are wiling to speak in this debate, or get up and spend twenty minutes and give us his views.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: There are important aspects of this legislation but since I only have twenty minutes I can't talk about every clause. The principles that are contained in particular -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I've invited the member to speak. There are thirty-six clauses on this bill. Ordinarily there would be time during debate for each clause to be debated separately, ten minutes at a time, back and forth across the House. That is the normal procedure. We are not following the normal procedure in this debate so I will just speak about a couple of sections of the act that are seriously flawed in my view. I don't think that this piece of legislation can really be rehabilitated by amendments. I know the Official Opposition has a number of amendments which have attempted to take those things out of the bill which are contrary to the policy that is being pursued on this side of the House, about having to do with the maintenance of the public Hydro corporation. I would support those amendments.

The legislation as we have it is based on all electrical utilities in this Province being owned privately. That is the philosophy of this legislation contained in the policy that is set forth and contained in the declaration of policy implementation under clauses 3 and 4 of the legislation. They assume that all power in the Province is going to be private and they establish in 3(a)(iii) for this private power utility a provision directing the Public Utilities Board to set rates based on the provision of "...revenue to the producer or retailer of the power to enable it to earn a just and reasonable return as construed under the Public Utilities Act..."

That act, Mr. Chairman, has different rules in respect of public utilities and private utilities, but in this particular case what the government has done is taken away the provisions for public utilities and interfered with the general mandate that we have now under the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation. I guess the best way to explain it is by reading the mission statement of the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation contained in its 1992 annual report. It says that: The mission of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro group of companies is to provide electrical power and energy on behalf of the people of the Province at the lowest cost consistent with reliable service, due consideration for the environment, and safety of our employees and the customers which we serve.

That is the mandate of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. The setting of the rates is consistent with that. The goals of the Corporation are consistent with that. That diverts fundamentally with that of private power corporations, private utilities. They buy and sell their shares on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the other stock exchanges, and the mandate of those companies is to provide a return to their shareholders, a return that is going to be guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board and going to come from the rates and the rate payers of the Province.

That is the fundamental difference between this particular piece of legislation, the electrical power control act, and the previous Electrical Power Control Act which is repealed by this legislation. That is another clause that we would debate fully if we had an opportunity to do that. We can't do that. There is not enough time because the government is refusing to allow time. They refuse to hold public hearings on this, the most important piece of legislation that they've brought in since Confederation, according to the Minister of Justice.

What is the motive for doing this? There are few motives, I suppose. We get told various motives from time to time. Part of it is jumping on the bandwagon of the corporate agenda of the multinational corporations, jumping on that corporate agenda of privatizing everything that moves and everything that they can privatize. That is part of the agenda. Turning over to international capital as much as they possibly can. That is one of the motives. Another motive that they have here, the so-called hidden motive that the Premier disclosed to the public on Province-wide t.v., was supposedly to be able to have a situation in which this particular legislation would allow the Public Utilities Board at the request of a utility to take back power from the Churchill Falls contract.

Now this is a bit of a preposterous proposal constitutionally, legally. It hasn't been subjected to the kind of scrutiny that one would expect of such a major piece of government policy of such great importance, but let me say that even if it did work there is no guarantee whatsoever that any power that was received, that is now supposed to be sold, is already part of an existing contract to Hydro Quebec, will be available at a cost less than the production cost of new electricity in the first place, because surely any power taken from the Hydro contract would have to be compensated for it to Hydro Quebec, and not at the cost of production but at the cost that they would have to pay to replace it, and that's clear, common sense.

No arbitrator, court, or Public Utilities Board who is going to be required to take power, whether it be for emergency or for industrial use or whatever, is going to get it for nothing. They are going to have to compensate the people who now have the right to that power, just as in expropriation situations that people are entitled to and get the market value of the property that's been expropriated, unless you specifically say in this legislation - which, of course, it doesn't - that we are going to take back the power without any compensation to Hydro Quebec, or the customers of Hydro Quebec, who would lose the power which they are now entitled to under the contract.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation is ill conceived, and what are the consequences? Would any government of Quebec, whether it was a Liberal government, a PQ government, a Social Credit government, or Créditistes, or whatever they had up there, or whatever they might have in the future, would any government of Quebec negotiate with any government of Newfoundland while the government pretended to have in its back pocket a piece of legislation that was going to be capable, or even potentially capable, or destroying the Hydro Quebec contract? The answer, I think, is very clear. The people of Quebec are not stupid. They are no more stupid than the people of Newfoundland, who have rejected this deal overwhelmingly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying the people of Newfoundland are stupid?

MR. HARRIS: They are no more stupid than the people of Newfoundland. The people of Newfoundland have rejected this deal by 79 to 80 per cent, and the people of Quebec are not stupid either. They would not negotiate with a Newfoundland government who said: We've got this piece of legislation here which, by the way, we'll be able to use to take back the power from the Quebec deal. That's the kind of reality that we are faced with here in this Province and in Quebec. It's a very simple reality.

So why do we then have a government which is committed to private enterprise hydroelectric power at all costs? What's the justification for it? We haven't heard much of the justification. We have had people brought in. Mr. Kellogg came from Merrill Lynch in New York, and he said that privatized utilities are a good deal. Now Merrill Lynch, of course, would be very much in favour of that. It's like bringing in Colonel Saunders and asking him whether he thinks that chicken is fit to eat. What do you expect from Mr. Kellogg, coming down from Merrill Lynch in New York, who makes hundreds of millions of dollars every year on the stock markets, buying and selling in bonds and all this stuff?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him what he thinks of corn flakes.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, it's like asking Kellogg what they think of corn flakes. They would have the same attitude.

What about Louis Comeau? Louis Comeau comes over from Nova Scotia Power, and he thinks the privatization is great, too. He hopes that his measly salary of $200,000 is going to go up to the $459,000 that Angus Bruneau now gets as Chairman of Fortis. That's why he's in favour of it. He thinks it's a great idea, the privatization, because he's hoping - he's in a big dispute now in Nova Scotia over his own salary - but he's hoping that privatization will turn into big dollars for them.

Now what about Standard and Poor's, and the Canadian Bond Rating Service, and all the other people who the government has gotten to help out a little bit by saying that we think we're doing our numbers based on privatization, which is going to maybe do some good for the government's revenues for a period of time?

Now we have all heard the Premier, we have heard the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, and others, say that this $300 million, we don't have to borrow this year; we won't have to borrow next year - total poppycock. We are going to borrow this year, we are going to borrow next year, we are going to borrow the year after and the $300 million that is proposed that we might receive for the privatization is worth about what, is it one month or two months revenue for the government, one or is it two?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is?

MR. HARRIS: What's the Budget of the Province? We have $3 billion, $3.5 billion, and so $300 million is what?.. is it one-twelfth or one-tenth or a month or a month-and-a-half. I made an analogy in my speech about somebody selling their house to pay off their mortgage; well, Mr. Chairman, the $300 million is like saying you are going to sell it off and you can only pay your rent for the next two months after you get the money for which you sold off your house, so that is the kind of numbers that we are talking about here in reality, so it must be some other reason.

They are following the wishes of a certain group of people who are going to get the advantages from this kind of arrangement, the privatization of a public corporation, and they are leaving behind the advantage that the public now have by owning public utilities which are monopolies and which people have no choice but to pay the rates that are being charged, and, Mr. Chairman, that should be done for public benefit not for private benefit. Not only that, by getting rid of this enterprise we will also lose the terrific resource of the people we have running these organizations now in the interest of the people not in the interest of shareholders on the stock market.

Mr. Chairman, there is another section of this, but I haven't watched my time carefully enough, that I want to talk about because I have an amendment to section 23, or clause 23 of the bill. I will read the amendment first and then talk about it because we have heard the Premier and others say about how they have really looked after the interest of the people because nobody can own more than 20 per cent of this corporation; nobody can own more than 20 per cent of any corporation.

Well now, that wasn't even true when it was said first, because section 23 (1) says, Subject to subsection (3), no person, "without first obtaining leave of the Public Utilities Board shall own more than 20 per cent; so, Mr. Chairman, it wasn't even true when the Premier said this before they moved - they have an amendment on the floor now to replace it to 100 per cent or something, but even before they moved the amendment it wasn't true. They said it was true, but it wasn't true and we all know where truth and the Premier co-exist, where they part ways; as the Member for Grand Bank is well-aware of where they part ways, and so, Mr. Chairman, I want to move, and I have been offered a number of seconders over here but I am told by the Table that I don't need a seconder for this amendment but I have been offered it by the Opposition House Leader and the Member for Humber East and others, but I want to move to amend clause 23 by deleting the words: "without first obtaining leave of the Public Utilities Board," from subclause 23 (1) and to amend subparagraph 23 (1) (a), (b), (c) and (d) by deleting the figure 20 per cent where it appears and replacing it with the figure 10 per cent. So I would move those amendments, Mr. Chairman, and speak to them.

This is the section that says that as it presently exists, will allow Power Corporation of Quebec, allow Paul Desmarais, a friend of the Premier and a friend of the former Prime Minister, would allow Paul Desmarais' company to move in and take over a big chunk of this, if they wanted to, they have the money. I read a little story back in December where Paul Desmarais was talking about how they had a little pool of $300 or $400 million available for investing in varied projects here and there and this is just the kind of thing that they would like to get involved in, so you can control a publicly held corporation with 20 per cent, no problem - no problem.

In fact, you might be able to do it with as little as 7 per cent or 8 per cent or 9 per cent but 10 per cent is what the bank act says, nobody can own more than 10 per cent of a bank; no one corporation can own more that 10 per cent of a bank and I think 10 per cent is a figure here that ought to apply. Why should you allow someone to control any corporation like this, so I want to move this amendment, not that I seriously expect hon. members opposite to pass it, but you never know, the Premier did say: well you know, I am going to introduce the bill, I say twenty, but you know it might be less, it could be fifteen, it could be 15 per cent, it could be 10 per cent. He seemed to be willing to listen to reason. I'm offering a bit of reason here to see whether or not the members opposite are even listening to the debate or whether they are doing what they are told - keeping their heads down and mumbling and acting like crackys every now and then - or whether they are actually paying attention and might be able to actually make a decision on this.

I think it is important to concentrate on one of the areas - and this is why I've moved the amendment - of where the power really is going to be. What I suggest is that we take away the discretion in the Public Utilities Board to remove the legislation. We are not giving power to the Cabinet here. We are not saying that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can do this, not the government that is responsible here in the House. This legislation is asking us to give that power to the Public Utilities Board. The Public Utilities Board is going to have the power to say: Yes, you can take over 25 per cent, 30 per cent, 100 per cent. It is up to the Public Utilities Board to determine what the public interest is, not the people who are responsible to this House, not the people who are responsible to the voters, but the Public Utilities Board.

That is fundamentally wrong, Mr. Chairman, and ought to be changed to take away that power from the Public Utilities Board and to remove and lower the 20 per cent possibility of someone, some company, holding a 20 per cent chunk of a public utility. It ought not to be permitted because I think anybody who studied the financing of corporations and how shareholdings operate - anyone who has ever been to a shareholders meeting of a company, this is - if you believe in democracy just (inaudible) -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you?

MR. HARRIS: Yes, I have. If you believe in democracy and you want to have a laugh go to the shareholders meeting of a widely held public corporation and see who gets to vote and see who gets the say and see who can control the company. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, there is a -

MR. TOBIN: Something like the unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: I don't want to get into debate with my colleagues who are supporting me on this side of the House right now. At another time I would be quite happy to debate the relative democracy of a union versus the democracy of a private corporation. The basic difference I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West is that in a union there is one person, one vote; in a company it is one share, one vote. If you own all the shares you get all the votes. You can own one share, you can have 150 people owning one share each, and you can come to the company annual meeting and then yell and bawl and screech all you want, but if I own 151 and I'm one person you might as well stay home.

That is the way these corporations operate. If you have a widely held corporation - and these corporations are because you can buy them on the stock exchange, you can buy ten shares or a hundred shares. Newfoundland Light and Power has about a million or so many million shares out, Fortis Inc., rather. A million, a million and a half, a couple of a million shares. So somebody can go and buy a hundred shares and watch the price go up and down in the paper, but one hundred shares doesn't mean diddly at the annual meeting, I will guarantee you that. Diddly-squat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: That is why I would ask all hon. members opposite to vote (inaudible) - by leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a few remarks. I'm suffering from a very bad flu and -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do have to say a word, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, because it is a matter of great importance to the people of the Province. I wouldn't feel very good if I didn't stand in my place tonight and have a few words.

I want to say, it is too bad -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, you are not, no, that is fair enough. You've been talking since 4:00 p.m. even though you haven't been recognized, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) all day too!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible), Mr. Chairman. The hero of public meetings. Listens to his constituents and brings their messages to the floor of the Legislature, the Member for St. John's North.

What I was about to say is that it is too bad that the Member for St. John's East wasn't given some more time, because he was dealing with the bill in detail, and that's what this debate should have been about today and tomorrow, and for the next number of days. We should have been here in committee, going through this bill clause-by-clause.

We had a number of amendments that we wanted to propose, that the Member for Burin - Placentia West read into the record, which is all he could do with the time that he had. The Member for St. John's East just made a very sensible amendment which I would have not had any trouble whatsoever supporting. The government itself, the Government House Leader, tabled a number of amendments a few days ago. All of us had amendments that we wanted -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know that, brought the amendments to the floor, and within an hour invoked closure on members of the House.

It's very unfortunate, because this bill would have certainly got the scrutiny that it deserves, that it should get, but what do we see again? Of course, the Government House Leader, on instructions from the Premier, wouldn't allow us to debate this bill the way we wanted to.

We have a number of concerns on this piece of legislation, which we have talked about over the last number of days. There are some parts of the bill that we can support, and when I spoke in second reading on this bill I went through four or five concerns that we had, but there were parts of the bill that we certainly could support, and were willing to support, but there, as well, are parts of this bill that we could not support because in essence they were facilitating the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and we are so opposed to that as well, of course, as the people of the Province are so opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that we just could not support the part of the bill that facilitates the privatization of Hydro, and we wanted to go on record as saying that. If the government, in its wisdom, had decided to withdraw that part of the bill, then we would have supported the bill.

There are some other parts that we had some reservations about. The Premier's willingness to gamble on a court challenge, we felt, was a big gamble. It was going to cost the people of this Province millions of dollars that we can't afford, but since Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been so irritated and so upset with the Upper Churchill contract, if the Premier felt confident that he could proceed in the courts with the least chance of succeeding, then we said, well, maybe we can support it, but we want to warn you; we don't think that you have a chance of winning in the courts. On two previous occasions the courts have ruled, I think, seven to nothing against us. So it was a long shot but, having said that, once we outlined our concerns we could have lived with that part of the bill and give the Premier his chance to test his legal theory, but the part dealing with the privatization of Hydro, we just could not support for obvious reasons, no more than we can support Bill 1, "An Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation".

It's really unfortunate that for the third time since the 28th. day of February this government has invoked closure in this House. Three times the Government House Leader, on instructions from the Premier, has invoked closure, stifling debate, limiting members' time to scrutinize and properly debate the legislation, and I expect that whenever the government sees fit to call Bill 1, which it hasn't called now for about six weeks -

AN HON. MEMBER: Longer.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Longer than six weeks?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nearly two months.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Six to eight weeks - they have not called the Privatization Bill. Now I expect that once they call that bill, the Government House Leader, within minutes of calling it, will rise in his place and once again invoke closure on debate on that particular bill, which will be very, very unfortunate because the people of the Province are clearly opposed to the privatization. They don't want any part of it. They have been opposed to it since it became public what the government was up to. Seventy-nine or 80 per cent have consistently been opposed to the privatization, and they remain opposed today.

Just this past weekend I was in my district and attended three meetings down there - meetings, really, dealing with TAGS and the problems associated with that; most people won't qualify - but at each of those three meetings, the question came up: Do you really think he's going to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I just say this first, that at every meeting they questioned me and said: Do you really think he is going to proceed with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? To answer your question, in the town of Lawn, of the plant workers who were qualified under NCARP, it doesn't look like any of them will qualify for TAGS.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I would say upwards to a hundred.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry, I can't hear you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is attachment and all the other things. All they've done is groundfish there, I say to the member. They've only done groundfish in Lawn.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) right throughout the area (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, well, in the town of Lawn, and there is Lamaline, Lord's Cove, Point au Gaul. St. Lawrence I think might be okay but there is a lot of concern in that area of the district.

Mr. Chairman, no matter where I went the question was always asked about Hydro. People don't want Hydro sold. The Premier knows that, his ministers know that, his back benchers know that, but for some strange reason all of them except for one are doing what the Premier wants them to do. That is why they are doing it. It is only because Clyde says: My way. They are willing.

MR. EFFORD: Be nice.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that being truthful is always nice. As I said last week.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you are never wrong?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, I'm wrong at times. But telling the truth and being truthful is always nice. It is always the proper thing to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that is not so, I say, and there are times, I say to the Member for Harbour Grace, that I can be quite nasty and quite cantankerous. But on an issue like this we have to be truthful.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I have no problem with being truthful, but (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier on public television told everybody that he told you and all the others to be quiet.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct. (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Maybe I will have to read the transcripts again for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and really see who is being truthful again, Mr. Chairman. Maybe CBC will have to play it again for hon. members opposite so they can see it once again, what the Premier said.

I just want to say to members opposite that on an issue so important, on a government initiative that is going to be harmful to future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, I say to ministers and members, what you are doing is you are going to worsen the financial position of this Province.

MR. EFFORD: That is not correct.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is correct, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. If you needed any more proof to see Standard and Poor's downgrade the credit rating of this Province when they know, and you have told them, the Premier, that you are going to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, that you are going to get your $300 million or $350 million. Even as a result of that they still went and downgraded the Province's credit rating. How can members opposite say that it is in the best interest of the people of the Province? How can they say that it is going to improve or help the credit rating of the Province?

With each successive year that passes the credit rating of this Province will be further downgraded because we will have lost a very valuable asst, an asset worth billions of dollars that we are going to sell for $350 million or $400 million. That is the problem with this initiative. Still, members opposite can sit there - and ministers - and support the action of the Premier. It is absolutely appalling, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. For a minister who was so outspoken, who was so concerned about the resources of the people of this Province, to sit there in silence -

MR. EFFORD: Can I make one point?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you can't. You can get up in debate and be recognized. You have twenty minutes to make your point, I say to the minister.

MR. EFFORD: I remember (inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Why are you always using that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Does that make it right? Does that make it right forever?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, it wasn't right what happened to the Upper Churchill, I say to the minister. It wasn't right what happened to that. That's one of the biggest reasons why the people of this Province are so opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, because they see it as a giveaway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Greg Malone and Andy Wells (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never mind, now, Greg Malone and Andy Wells. They are two human beings who have every right to feel the way they want to feel about this, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) hundreds of thousands.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Exactly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) rubber boot crowd.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Government House Leader, the rubber boot crowd has rights as well, as well as the stuffed shirt crowd, the millionaires, and those who own Fortis shares, and those who own shares in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

They have rights, the rubber boot crowds, and the Greg Malones, and the Andy Wells'. They all have rights. They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They happen, today, to own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, I say to members opposite, so why shouldn't they be concerned about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you are always putting them down, I say to the minister. You're always putting them down and poking fun at them, as if they shouldn't exist, as if they shouldn't speak out. That's what you're doing. Day after day after day, someone over there is poking fun at people because they have an opinion on a very important issue to this Province. That's what's happening, and I say that you should not be pointing your fingers at the Greg Malones, and your Andy Wells', and your Cy Aberys, and your Bill Vetters. You should look inward at yourselves, I say to members opposite. Look inward; examine yourselves. It's not those people who are the problem with this issue. It's the short-sightedness and the blindness in this Cabinet and this government that's the problem. That's the problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Sprung.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sprung, I say to the minister, his old favourite, Sprung, if there was a problem with Sprung, there was a problem with Sprung, and it's behind us, but let's not, I say to the minister, make another blunder that you are now pushing forward into. Let's not do that. Let's learn from the past, if Sprung was so bad, and Upper Churchill was so bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, you haven't learned from the past. You have not learned from the past, I say to the minister, or you would oppose Clyde Wells and what he wants to do with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. You didn't learn from the past.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's the problem. You're all muzzled. You're being told what to do, I say to the Member for Eagle River. You're so silent, Danny, that it's frightening, I say to you, for someone who claims to be a bit of a maverick, because you are told to be quiet and toe the line or else, and you said `or else'.

That's what we have across the way over there, Mr. Chairman. That's what we have over there, a bunch who are kowtowing to the Premier, and they don't want to do it - most of them don't - but they won't stand up and be their own person. In their little cliques, behind closed doors in their offices, that's where it happens. That's where it happens, and that's where it is happening. Out and about this city, in little groups, that's where it's happening. On the floor of the Liberal convention, by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, that's where it's happening, but they won't stand up eyeball to eyeball to the Premier and tell him, `Don't do it', or `If you try to do it, this will be your consequence'. That's what needs to happen in this case.

If there were five, six, or seven more like the Member for Pleasantville, you would soon see the Premier pull in his horns on this issue, if you looked up and told him. And you've got lots of time to do it, because he's seldom in the Province any more. He has only been here for one day a week for the last month, so why don't you do it? Why don't you tell him? Why don't you stand up to your convictions? Why don't you stand up for the people who sent you here, and tell them? Why don't you stand up for the people who sent you here, why don't you express the views of the people who sent you instead of sitting in your places and, Mr. Chairman, if ever there was proof of what is happening over there.

Members, particularly in this section since four o'clock today, have not stood in their places to be recognized by Your Honour, but have continuously spoken from their seats, not stood up to be recognized and to take part in the debate and tell us why it is so great, not one over there stood in their place, clause-by-clause and told us why this bill should be passed in this Legislature, not one person, Mr. Chairman, not one person including the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You know why, Mr. Chairman? Because most of them over there don't think it is a good piece of legislation; most of them over there haven't read the bill, Mr. Chairman, most of them don't know the clauses in the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of them (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I certainly do, I say to the Member for Fogo and that I do; the same way we knew and we know the clauses in the privatization act, I say to the Member for Fogo, and that's the reason why the people in this Province know what is in the privatization bill I say to the Member for Fogo, because we knew and we have informed the people on the issue and that is why, Mr. Chairman, they are so opposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't profess to be perfect; I have made mistakes and I will make more.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will make more, but there is one thing I won't be, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, I tell him there is one thing I won't be.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I won't be a lapdog for anyone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I won't be a lapdog for anyone, that's one thing I won't be, a lapdog - a lapdog.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bulldog.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I say to the Member for Terra Nova that bulldogs do have some good qualities as well; or they are crackys and without going too far -

MR. SIMMS: You only have three minutes, don't get sidetracked.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Before I get myself in parliamentary trouble again, I might be tempted to tell the truth again tonight, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIMMS: What's the truth?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I might be tempted to tell the truth again tonight about the Premier and about bulldogs, and about people who know about bulldogs and about people who like bulldogs. I might be inclined to go on and on and tell the truth, I might be inclined to tell the real bulldog story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, tell them, tell them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, I don't think I will, I don't have time. I don't have time tonight to tell the bulldog story.

AN HON. MEMBER: You started it, (inaudible) finish it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. I am on the bulldog clause now, but, Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude my remarks by saying I think it is most unfortunate that after one hour of debate, in Committee - one hour of debate in Committee I say to the minister, where we have thirty-six clauses that we wanted to debate, that inside of one hour the Government House Leader invoked closure and we cannot now, go through this bill clause-by-clause and debate each clause. There are some clauses in the bill that we support, I say to members opposite but there are some clauses we can't support; we had amendments for others that we wanted to debate -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why is the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations so uptight? I mean, I know he feels guilty these days with the teachers on strike but he doesn't have to show it, Mr. Chairman; a man who cried because he could only get 6 per cent for teachers and now he is out rolling it back 3.5 per cent - 4 per cent; it makes no wonder he feels guilty, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to follow in the footsteps of my colleague.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: As Bas Jamieson would say: There must be a full moon out again tonight on that side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the opportunity to shout my way through the next twenty minutes, I guess is what I am going to have to do, to follow such a superb speech as my colleague, the Opposition House Leader. Not to be missed, of course, was the terrific contribution by the Member for St. John's East who, I think, did address a number of the clauses and, of course, not to be outdone by all the other members on this side of the House who have spoken in this debate.

Mr. Chairman, what is missing, and what has been missing in this debate for the last five hours - more than five hours - has been a contribution made by members on this side of the House, and not a single contribution made by members on that side of the House, with those exceptions made, and interruptions made, and interjections made, and heckling done, by members on the opposite side, particularly those in the front benches who, perhaps, should have a little more respect, especially when there are people in the gallery, but that's been their only contribution for this entire debate.

Mr. Chairman, what has occurred here on committee stage in this bill, Bill 2, is unprecedented. What has occurred here is unprecedented. On committee stage of this bill, with one hour of debate on Thursday afternoon, the Government House Leader gave notice he's going to bring in closure - after one hour.

Mr. Chairman, that is unprecedented. It may have happened before on a second reading of a bill, or even a third reading of a bill, but it has not happened after only one hour of debate on committee stage, because in committee stage, as you well know, that is where the bill is analyzed, where it's debated, where it's picked apart, where flaws are found. In fact, the government itself has identified four flaws in this bill, because they have given us notice of four amendments that they wish to bring in - flaws that were meant to be corrected - and the advantage of committee stage of debate on a piece of legislation is to have the opportunity to pick out even more flaws, in the hope that the flaws that might be pointed out by members opposite, in the Opposition in particular, might have some substance, might be listened to by the government, might be included in improvements to the legislation, so you get a better piece of legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition may be opposed to the legislation. So that opportunity has been totally missed, and that is regrettable.

I know there are members on that side who have a bit more interest, I think, in parliamentary procedure, and aren't happy to see this occur. I know who they are; I can tell by looking across the way. It is very unfortunate, and it is unprecedented.

It's no good for members opposite to slough it off by saying: You've had seventeen hours of debate on second reading. Seventeen hours of debate on second reading, so what? Big deal. Seven or eight or ten days, so what? On a piece of legislation like this. We have sent legislation with much less significance to a parliamentary committee of the House, that has held hearings across the Province, and held hours and hours of public hearings to get input from the people, legislation on smoking laws, legislation to change the electoral boundaries, where the government spent $250,000 to send a commission around the Province not once but twice, legislation to determine the best public accounting practices in the Province. Committees have held public hearings - hours and hours - far more than seventeen hours.

So I say to members opposite, don't slough it off by saying we had seventeen hours on second reading. That may be so, and you can use it as an argument, but the committee stage of the bill is where you pick out the flaws in legislation, through clause-by-clause analysis, and that has been lost in one of the most significant pieces of legislation we've ever had in this Province, Bill No. 2, the electrical power control act.

The question must be asked: Why is the government bringing in closure, Mr. Chairman? That is the question. Is this bill urgent? The answer to that question is no, it is not urgent. It can be done a couple of weeks or a couple of months down the road, Bill No. 2. It doesn't have an urgency to it, so why is the Government House Leader invoking closure? Is the Opposition filibustering the Committee stage of the bill? No, we didn't even have a chance. There was one hour debate when he gave notice of closure. You have to ask yourself the question: Why is the government invoking closure? There has to be some other reason. We can all have our suspicions and we can all speculate what those reasons are.

I have a couple of suspicions but I will only mention one today. The other one I will save for a question period in the near future. One of the suspicions I have is that the government wants to cover up the exposure of the flaws in this legislation. They don't want any more of it to get out. There is a poll under way in the Province these days and they want to get this out of the way as quickly as they possibly can. Then of course they want to have this out of the way so they can jump on to the main piece of legislation that they want cleared out of the way, which is Bill No. 1. I suspect that is the reason why we are seeing closure. There is no other explanation. It is not urgent. We haven't filibustered the Committee stage. They must want to cover up what is in the legislation.

My second point is dealing with the clauses in the bill, similar to what my colleague, the Opposition House Leader, pointed to a few moments ago. I want to repeat it for the benefit of members of this House and I want to get it on the record. There are six parts to this piece of legislation, thirty-six clauses. The sixth part is simply a general section. We don't have any problems with it. The fifth part deals with the change of frequency. We don't have any difficulty with the fifth part of this legislation. The fourth part deals with the corporate governance of a retailer. We don't have any problem with that particular part of the legislation. The third part, power emergencies, we don't have any problem with that. We support that.

The last four parts of this legislation we don't have difficulties with, none whatsoever. We have said that to the Premier, we've said it to the Government House Leader. We've said: If you can find a way to deal with the problems we have you will get support on this legislation. Even on the second part of the legislation, Part II, which is Planning, Allocation and Re-Allocation of Power and Facilities, which you often hear the Premier referring to. That part of the legislation deals with a number of things but one thing it does deal with is the issue that the Premier surprised everybody with on March 22 when he went on Province-wide t.v. When he talked about having in the legislation an opportunity to grant authority to the Public Utilities Board through a government agency, or a private agency in his words, to access power from the Upper Churchill to use here in this Province, for electrical users here in this Province.

As the Opposition House Leader has pointed out, with respect to that particular initiative we in this party have pointed out our concerns with it. Because we think it will be a fruitless effort. We really believe that, based on the research we've done on it, the background to the two other cases which I know aren't quite the same, and also the fact that this idea of the Premier's was put forth in a letter when he was a lawyer for Newfoundland Power to the previous administration. Through the lawyers in the Department of Justice at the time they gave an opinion which said that this idea that the Premier now is advocating, which he advocated eight years ago in 1986, won't have a chance to survive at all. It will meet the same fate as the other two opportunities.

Now that's a fact. I have knowledge of those facts, and I know those are facts; however, having said that - even having said that - we would like to see success in the courts, if the government is going to end up in the courts, because that is what's going to happen; I don't think there's much doubt about that. Quebec Hydro and the Province of Quebec aren't just going to sit back and let this occur without some challenge coming forth, and I am sure the Premier knows that and understands it. In fact, I know he does from what he said in some of the comments he made in the letter he wrote when he was a lawyer for Newfoundland Power.

So we anticipate that it will go to the courts. We hope the government will be successful, if that's where they're going to end up, but don't forget, you're going to end up costing the people and the taxpayers of this Province tens of millions of dollars in legal fees, without question - millions of dollars in legal fees - and that is one of the points that we have made throughout this entire debate. We have brought that concern to the government opposite, and that's a concern we have with Part II of the bill.

Some of the other concerns we had, incidentally, were concerns that the paper companies in this Province had, which members opposite (inaudible) when I brought it up, which I was accused of instigating, and all this kind of nonsense, because I acted responsibly and called a paper company in my constituency and asked them if they had any concerns. I didn't tell them what they had concerns with. I asked them if they had any concerns. `Oh, the Leader of the Opposition is just trying to stir them up', and all this stuff. What do we find? We find the paper companies in this Province approached the Premier. They communicated with the Premier by telephone. They tell the Premier, yes, in fact, they do have some concerns; they have some offers of amendments to suggest, and what do we see today from the government? An amendment - lo and behold - an amendment put forward that hopefully takes care of the concerns of the paper companies.

I haven't bothered to call them and ask them, but I see the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture nodding his head, so I presume he has done his work and contacted the companies and ensured -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I would say the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has checked it out, now, because he accused me of making the calls and trying to foster this, which I did not. Those were false accusations, and I accused the Premier of making false statements when he said that.

Anyway, that's another issue in Part II of this bill that we had a problem with, but that has now been corrected, I hope. I hope it has been. So that is Part II. In Part II we had some concerns; we have expressed them.

Parts III, IV, V and VI, no problem with the bill, but then we come to Part I of the bill. Now that is where we part company with the government. Very clearly, Part I of the bill deals with privatization, for the most part. Most of the items, in fact, contained in Part I - most of them - there are five in particular, that are there for one purpose only. That's to make Hydro more attractive to private investors, to disguise the real cost of privatization by dispersing it to rate payers and taxpayers, and to pave the way for an eventual merger between Newfoundland Hydro and Fortis Incorporated, who operates Newfoundland Power.

Mr. Chairman, we have said over and over again that we do not agree and do not support the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Part I of this bill, Bill 2, is there to make it more attractive, to make it easier. It will instruct the Public Utilities Board to base their electricity rates on three criteria: costs, maintenance of credit worthiness, and a new item, a guaranteed profit for shareholders. We can't support that. People are going to have to pay.

Direct the Public Utilities Board to phase out the portion of the rural subsidy now paid by industrial users, now to be paid by all the people of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I can't agree with that.

To transfer the designation of the essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board, I really have a problem with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's what it says.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What is it, then? Why didn't the minister participate in the debate and tell us? It is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, why don't you explain it to somebody?

MS. VERGE: The Premier told him not to.

MR. SIMMS: It is right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How stunned are you at all.

MR. SIMMS: Well why don't you explain it to somebody?

Mr. Speaker, the other point is to empower the Public Utilities Board to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares, the point that my friend from St. John's East pointed out. Then you have the PUITTA issue, refund the federal taxes now paid by utilities - in the case of Newfoundland Power and in the future by the new Newfoundland Hydro company, whatever its going to be called - that are now rebated to the Province under the PUITTA agreement, the government wants to give those taxes back to the companies. Newfoundland Power in fact will now receive their rebate of $9 or $10 million and new Hydro, whatever it will pay, will also get back their federal taxes, Mr. Speaker. Now that's what's in this bill in Part I. Those are the items in Part I of this bill that are there solely to make it easier to sell off Newfoundland Hydro. Well if we can't support the sale of Newfoundland Hydro, how in the name of heavens does the government expect us to support Part I? I say to the Government House Leader, if the government was prepared to accept the amendments that we put forward, then clearly we would be prepared to give support in principle to the bill, Part II to Part VI but they're not going to do that so we will hold our ground just as they will hold theirs, I guess.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude with just one final comment about what has gone astray from the government strategy. What's gone wrong with the government strategy? Well I suggest to members opposite what has gone wrong is that people have lost their trust in the Premier and in the government because of the way he has treated the truth and by the way he has manipulated comments that have been made by others publicly. For example, his province-wide confession on March 26th, that was the first little game of manipulation played with the people. When he came on and said here's the real reason I want to privatize, to access power from the Upper Churchill. That was number one, that was the number one reason at the beginning for the people starting to lose their trust, I think, in what happened.

Then of course two nights later on the province-wide debate he said, `we don't need to privatize Hydro.' He completely changed his tune. Mr. Speaker, for those who don't remember we have the transcript. He says in answer to a question, `yes, it can be done with Hydro as a Crown corporation, I think it would work. Frankly I think Hydro as a Crown corporation would be able to access that power.' And later on, in answer to a question from the Member for St. John's East, `you don't need to privatize Hydro to do it. I can clearly say that without any doubt whatsoever.' Now which is it? You need to privatize Hydro he told us Tuesday night on t.v. to do it, or on Thursday night he tells us you don't need to privatize Hydro to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, is there any reason why people would believe that with that kind of manipulation going on?

Then, Mr. Speaker, the infamous promise that he made on province-wide t.v., which my friend got kicked out of the House for last week: The majority of the people in the Province if they don't support the legislation I wouldn't ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro. I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the issue, should use its majority in a Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of the Province and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that. Now he hasn't asked them to do it yet on Bill 1 but it's coming. He certainly has asked them to do it on Bill 2 which contains privatization measures.

Then there was the misleading of and the manipulation of answers. I asked him in the House on March 3 if this bill, Bill 2, would give the Public Utilities Board the authority to access power from the Upper Churchill and his answer was: I would have to look at it, and that was an untruth. He told us on the March 26 province-wide television broadcast that in fact it wasn't - he didn't have to look at it he already knew about it and he explained it to everybody in the Province, Mr. Speaker. Then he manipulated in the House the other day - and I'll conclude with this, I only got a minute - he issued the job losses in Nova Scotia. When I raised it here in the House a couple of weeks ago or whenever it was now, he said: no, no, no, there were no jobs lost, no lay-offs. Well you talk about trickery, you talk about manipulation, you talk about playing with people, you talk about playing loose with the truth, there were 400 jobs eliminated at the Nova Scotia privatization - 400 jobs eliminated. So it's more political trickery, manipulation, and that, but for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations intervention there, that just gives the best example - better example than I could - of why the people don't trust the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: Because they are playing loose with the truth, and they won't tell the people of the Province the truth, we will not support the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, we've had a long and tedious afternoon of speechifying, and I don't intend to delay the committee long, but I think there are one or two points that it would help to have placed on the record.

I may say, I have just heard the two most sensible speeches I have heard made by anybody in the Opposition in this whole debate, made by my friend from Grand Bank and my friend from Grand Falls. I don't agree with very much of what they said, but at least they came out and gave some reasons for their position.

I regret to say, and I think I have heard all the speeches today, that none of their colleagues even came close to it. We had speeches ranging from buffoonery - if that word is not parliamentary, I won't go on with it.

Let me first of all say that the Premier cannot be with us tonight. He is on his way back to St. John's. He has been in Ottawa. He was there on the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Now, hon. members opposite were not interrupted by me. I did not interrupt their leader, nor their House Leader. I would ask them to do me the courtesy, but if they prefer not to, I tell them: (a) I can shout as loud as anybody in this Chamber, if I have to; and (b) I have dealt with better than all of them put together, over the years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: That includes the cracky dogs in the back benches.

Mr. Chairman, all I want to do is make a few points in a specific way. The Premier was in Ottawa for the National Liberal Convention, and I am sure members opposite would not begrudge him that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: He, among other good things there, made a magnificent contribution to the debate that led the National Liberal Party to adopt a resolution that will help to preserve and promote a proper and an appropriate seal hunt in this Province.

This morning the Premier and my friend and colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, attended a show in Ottawa sponsored by DACAON, a Defense Aerospace Contractors Association of Newfoundland, at which there was announced, among other things, the awarding of a contract for $10 million to a very successful local company, Newtech Instruments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: I was speaking with the Premier this afternoon, and he asked when we would finish. I said that I didn't know, that we would be in a closure debate shortly; I didn't know how long it would take. He said, when the airplane lands, if the House is open, he will be here.

For whatever reason, I assume we will finish before then. I am not sure when the flight that leaves Ottawa at 4:30 gets to St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: About 10:00.

MR. ROBERTS: About 10:00, my friend from Gander says, but the Premier will be here tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow and we will deal with these matters.

Mr. Chairman, the Member for Grand Bank made a point that I want to respond to. He said we should be debating this bill clause-by-clause. I concur. I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. The whole purpose of committee stage is for members to look at a bill clause-by-clause, but the Opposition made it quite clear on Thursday, speaking through the lips of the gentleman from Ferryland, that they had no intention of debating this bill clause-by-clause. They had every intention of doing at committee stage what they attempted to do at second reading, and what they did at committee stage and second reading on the companion piece of legislation, and that is simply to delay. Not to debate but to delay. The Opposition didn't want to debate, Mr. Chairman.

We spent eleven days at second reading of this bill. Twenty-three hours and seventeen minutes. As of the time I began to speak we had spent approximately twenty-nine hours and twenty-five minutes debating this bill since it was given introduction to the House back on March 2 or March 3 - I forget the date, very early in March, the start this session.

That is the longest time the House has devoted to discussing any measure to come before this House in the entire life of the Wells Administration and I venture to say, going back over it, there have been very few of any debates in the history of this House ever that have taken more time. I don't begrudge the time but what I do begrudge, Sir, is the way in which members opposite have abused the time, have abused the House, have abused their right to speak in this House.

Let me say a word about the history of closure. I don't claim to be a parliamentary scholar but I do read some history and I do try to understand it. Closure first came into the British House of Commons in the latter part of the 19th century, in the 1880s, when the Irish National Party - Parnell and all -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: God bless them, they stood for what they believed in. Ireland a hundred years later is still racked by civil war. I'm not sure either side could be proud of what is accomplished. But they went into the House of Commons after the 1885 election determined to destroy the House of Commons. The response of the government of the day to it - which if memory serves me was a Tory government - was to bring in a closure motion. What is closure? Closure is a means of enabling a House, a deliberative Assembly, to come to a decision. That is all closure is. We make no apology for using the rule in the proper and appropriate way, and we will do it again. We are not going to allow seventeen to rule over thirty-five.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty-five of us, Mr. Chairman, came here in a due election, properly elected, opposed by all who wanted to oppose it and supported by those who supported it.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. woman can scream and bawl all she wants. The fact remains thirty-five of us were sent here by the people -

MS. VERGE: No mandate to sell Hydro!

MR. ROBERTS: - thirty-five of us were sent here - no mandate? She belonged to the administration that spent millions on Sprung and didn't even bring it to the House of Assembly. Hide your head in shame, I say to her!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: How dare she talk of respect for parliament. She was part of the administration that skulked and slunked and slid. Wouldn't let the House meet. We bring it to the House, and we will stand or fall, Mr. Chairman, by what this House does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friends for Grand Bank and Grand Falls that they are crying crocodile tears. They brought closure on themselves deliberately. They want to do it, they want to wear the martyr's crown, the crown of thorns. What was it Brian said? You shall not press down - hon. gentlemen opposite, even the hon. woman, may know that quotation.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply not true to say that we are trying to foreclose debate. We've spent thirteen days on this bill to this point. Thirteen days and at least one more to go. The House will decide how much more. What have we heard? Speech after speech from members opposite marked by petty personal abuse, by incessant repetition, by questioning of motives, impugning integrity, casting aspersions. That is what we've heard. We haven't heard reasoned debate, with one or two significant exceptions.

We hear people up saying the members on this side are voting, as they say they intend to, because they are forced to. Do they look like they are forced?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Members on the other side saying: You've got a hidden agenda.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is true!

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, yes. They even believe it is true but they have no proof and they have no evidence. All they have is nasty little suspicious minds.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible)!

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. woman should possess her soul in patience, I say to her. She can give me the sweet smile. I'm turned on by the sweet smile - in a very non-physical way, I hasten to say to her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: But I have to say, having dealt with the likes of the real women members in this House - Hazel MacIsaac and Hazel Newhook and Ida Reid - she is -

MR. DECKER: A mere shadow.

MR. ROBERTS: A pale shadow, I say to my hon. friend.

Mr. Chairman, let me make one comment with respect to Churchill Falls and this bill. Hon. members opposite may believe what they wish. It is a free country; they've every right to believe what they wish. I will say to them as clearly as I can that this bill before the House, like the Hydro bill itself, is not a bill about Churchill Falls. Hon. members opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Premier.

MR. ROBERTS: The Premier has never said it is, he has said it is not. It is a bill that will apply to any power producer in this Province including Churchill Falls, and so it should. We have a right as a Legislature to adopt action within our power - the legal phrase is intra vires this House. This bill in our judgement is, and we will stand by it, and defend it, and we believe be upheld. It is not an attempt to redress what hon. members opposite say was the great error of the Churchill. I would love to debate that some time; I would like to hear the debate. Maybe the House should debate it, but this bill is not about the Churchill Falls, no matter what Mr. Abery or other paranoid people may think.

Mr. Chairman, they go on to say that we have neither explained nor defended the bill. That is simply not correct, simply not the fact. The case for the bill was laid out in detail, clearly, explicated every step of the way by the Premier when he introduced second reading. Since then we've deliberately refrained from speaking. Not because we can't, not because we are not ready or even anxious to do so. I've had to keep the tigers here down so they wouldn't make mincemeat of hon. members opposite. Imagine turning my friend for Eagle River loose on the likes of the gentleman for Baie Verte - White Bay, or my friend for Stephenville loose on the little cracky for St. Mary's - The Capes, you know?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, it would be like - again I must be careful to be parliamentary. We believe that saying something over and over doesn't make the case any stronger. I say to hon. members opposite that they ought to realize that. That saying something over and over doesn't make it any more persuasive or any stronger. We've probably had seventy to eighty speeches from the other side in the course of this debate. We've probably had seventy to eighty speeches in all, but what we've really had is one speech forty times and another speech forty times. That is what we have had. We've seen a deliberate policy of delay, of obstruction, of dilatory dallying. The case for the legislation is firmly, clearly and strongly on the public record.

I think I still have a minute or two left. The Opposition seem unable to accept that those of us who sit to Your Honour's left believe in the policy of this bill. They seem unable to accept that. The measure of their hypocrisy, the falsity of their argument, is that they won't extend to those of us who sit here and express that belief the same decency they seek to cloak themselves in. They are the only patriots, to hear them talk, they are the only people who speak for the truth. To hear them talk, anybody who disagrees with them is not only wrong they are traitorous, or they've sold out. That used to be the exclusive prerogative of the NDP in this Province, that if you were against them you were not only wrong you were immoral and traitorous in the bargain. Hon. members' opposite have come to that.

That kind of tactic is self-defeating and it will get what it deserves. I make no quarrel with the right of any person to disagree with this bill, to speak against it, to try to persuade us to withdraw it, to vote against it, to lobby against it, to do anything that is within the freedoms guaranteed to us by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the law, but I ask in return that hon. members opposite must acknowledge our right to support the bill, to vote for it and to answer to our constituents for it, and we will do that. Gladly!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I would like nothing better than to answer to my constituents.

Time flies by. I want to say, and I believe I speak for every member on this side, that we stand by this bill proudly. The time has come to put this matter to the test. Members were elected to debate and we have debated this bill. Members were elected to decide and we shall now do so. I ask my friends, Mr. Chairman, I ask those who support the government, to support this bill because it is in the best interests of all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 1 carry as amended?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, (inaudible) separately.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is looking for direction. Shall we consider the amendments from the Member for St. John's East first and then the Opposition and then the government?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments as moved by the Member for St. John's East carry? All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments as moved by the Official Opposition, moved by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: - the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Shall the amendments carry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would like to have silence while we are going through this process.

All those in favour of the amendments say `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against, say `nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The amendments as proposed by the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: So is it the wish of the Committee that we would consider each amendment?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think you have any choice. There are four separate - we agreed to let our nine go in block, if you would like. Nobody over there arguing to deal with them separately. But in this case there are four being proposed by the government. The first one we can support, which is to change the name of the bill. We have no problem with that. I think you should do one at a time.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let's call them one at a time as I said, Sir.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 1 as amended, carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 3 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall clause 12 carry?

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: I don't believe this is being conducted properly, Mr, Chairman. Because you ask whether (inaudible) carried or not. These people say aye and some of us over here say nay, and then you ask for the nays. If you are going to have one vote or two votes, if you ask if it going to be carried (inaudible) then you ask for ayes and nays afterwards, it is very confusing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Which clause are we on? Clause 11?

All those in favour of clause 11, say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against say nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 22 as amended carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 23 as amended, carried.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: We have the right, I guess, to call for a standing vote on every one of these individual clauses. We don't wish to do that, but we do want a standing vote recorded at some point at the end, maybe when we do the title or something - I don't know where or when - but we would like to have an opportunity to record the votes for and against this particular piece of legislation in committee stage under closure.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I am not certain the hon. gentleman is correct when he says that one can have a standing vote on every clause in the committee but, with that said, I am more than happy to ask that we have a standing vote. Perhaps the best place might be when we come to vote on the title.

My hon. friend, what I hear him say is that he wants one vote in which every member present in the Chamber stands for or against, at committee stage. I have no problem at all; we are under closure. I don't feel badly about that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: On the title, if that's agreeable, fine.

On motion, clause 34 to 36, carried.

Division

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think both sides are ready, the NDP I haven't asked but they're all here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favour.

CLERK: The hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the hon. the Minister of Social Services, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, Mr. L. Snow, Mr. Crane, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands, Mr. Tulk, Mrs. Young, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Penney, Mr. K. Aylward, Mr. Langdon, Mr. Oldford, Mr. Dumaresque, Mr. Gilbert, Mr. Smith, Mr. L. Matthews, Dr. Hulan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All those against.

CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. W. Matthews, Mr. Tobin, Mr. A. Snow, Mr. Woodford, Ms. Verge, Mr. Windsor, Mr. Hewlett, Mr. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Careen, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Chairman, twenty-seven -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Chairman, twenty-seven ayes and thirteen nays.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the title carried.

Shall I report the bill with amendments?

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report substantial progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report having passed Bill No. 2 with amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

On motion, amendments to Bill No. 2 read a first and second time.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. ROBERTS: Would you be good enough to call it now please, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the third reading, participate in this debate.

MR. ROBERTS: Carry on.

MR. SIMMS: Alright. I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by moving an amendment. I would like to move that Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Control Act 1994 be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following.

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

MR. SIMMS: Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Control Act –

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I won't get caught up in the fact Your Honour hadn't actually called the bill for third reading -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: - but I would point out that nobody has yet moved - and I believe only a minister can move it. If a minister can't, somebody has to move it. There has been no motion that the bill be read a third time but I'm in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I ask, Mr. Speaker, and Hansard will bear me out, that would Your Honour be good enough please to call the bill for third reading. Then I assume my hon. friend (inaudible) - but we will hear him tonight, there is no problem with that.

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

MR. SIMMS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was going by His Honour who recognized me to speak in the debate on third reading, but you are saying you didn't call the bill?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I recognized the hon. member. The hon. member stood. I didn't know what the hon. member's point was but I didn't have a chance to call the motion. I assumed that it was - my understanding of the procedure is that we would call the motion and then I would recognize the hon. member. In any event - yes, on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Let me try to - no, I thought you were calling third reading.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) are.

MR. SIMMS: And (inaudible) - sorry?

MR. ROBERTS: And once the Speaker calls it I will gladly ask my friends - I will not stand, and I will ask nobody on this side to stand. We will hear the hon. gentleman first off. But we should call it first for third reading. It hasn't been called.

MR. SIMMS: But I'm sure you -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) but I don't call them.

MR. SIMMS: Well then, why did the Speaker recognize me then if he didn't - he recognized me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: The Speaker can address that. I can't.

MR. SIMMS: I didn't hear what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Government House Leader asked that we call third reading. The hon. member stood up. I thought you might be objecting that it wasn't properly called third reading right now. I didn't actually call third reading.

MR. SIMMS: I asked you - I wish to participate in the debate on third reading and you -

MR. SPEAKER: In any event, to clarify the record, I would call the third reading and at this point I then recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Okay. Before I was so rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the amendment to begin with, just to get this out of the way so that we can have a debate.

I move that Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Control Act 1994, be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following: Bill No. 2, the Electrical Power Control Act 1994, be not now read a third time. That it be read a third time six months from now. That is the traditional six month hoist amendment.

The reason that we move this amendment and happen to have it at our fingertips is that we kind of anticipated the Government House Leader might try to pull this little trick. We kind of anticipated he might. I can tell him this, just for his information and for the information of all of his members over on that side of the House, once we finish debating, every member on this side of the House, the six month hoist amendment we will be moving a reasoned amendment, another amendment on third reading. If those are the kinds of games and tricks you are going to play then we won't play those games. We are going to do what is right; we are going to give the people of the Province a chance to hear what is being said and what is going on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: So I hope - oh yes, you want to believe it, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you, this is a filibuster. No question about it, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, this is a filibuster!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I'll tell him this and I will say this to him, I have an hour to speak in this debate so he may as well be prepared to listen to me for an hour on this amendment and then, Mr. Speaker, I will have an hour on the amendment moved by my colleague and friend the Member for Grand Bank about four or five o'clock in the morning. Then, Mr. Speaker, we may move another amendment and eventually, to get back to third reading, we'll be on the main bill and I'll be able to speak for another hour. So I say to member's opposite, in case the Government House Leader didn't warn you, in case the Government House Leader said to you: oh, we'll only be a little while don't worry about it, you'll get home in time to watch the game and all the rest of it. In case he said all of that to you then he has misled you. He has misled all of you because we are going to be here now for many, many hours more, Mr. Speaker. No closure; didn't have the intestinal fortitude to give the notice of closure that he did on committee stage. Now why wouldn't he do that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because he's trying to be tricky by half.

MR. SIMMS: Trying to be tricky by half, too smart by half, Mr. Speaker, that's what's going on here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the six month hoist amendment is moved for obvious reasons. It's because the people of this Province have still not had the opportunity to have input into this legislation, Bill No. 2, which the Premier himself has said on more than one occasion; on province-wide television, in the province-wide t.v.debate, on radio, radio ads and all the rest of it, is one of the most important pieces of legislation in this Province's history, he has said that. Yet, he has failed to give the opportunity - what did I tell you? - to the people of the Province. He's failed to give the people of this Province the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to have any input, to have any say, to question the members on this legislation; none whatsoever. No public hearings; no, Mr. Speaker, not on your life, no public hearings. How about a referendum Premier? No referendum. How about a plebiscite? Not a chance, we don't want anybody to find out what we're doing here. We're not going to have any public meetings or public hearings. This is the most important piece of legislation that we've ever had in the Province but we will have public hearings on smoking.

Let's get our members to form a committee or take one of the committee's of the House and have public hearings around the Province on smoking legislation, important. The Minister of Health I know would agree, important legislation. We will have public hearings. Name change to the Province; public hearings. Changes in the electoral boundaries of the Province; two public hearings. Well at least two, maybe a third one yet if they're not happy with the second set of recommendations costing $250,000 probably but on a bill that the Premier himself says is the most important piece of legislation since Confederation; no public hearings, no input at all, not even a public meeting called by the government where people from Hydro in the government Department of Mines and Energy could go out and explain to the people of the Province what's involved and what's included in Bill No. 2 which we talked about earlier when we were going through the clause by clause under closure. We only had twenty minutes so we didn't have time to address everything. So this amendment now, the six month hoist, gives us the opportunity to elaborate a bit more which I am now going to do, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that the - if I could find for my friend the Opposition House Leader, I'm looking for that bit of information we have. Here we are - one of the things that I want to elaborate on is what the Premier said on province-wide television, just in case, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite didn't hear clearly what was said by members on this side earlier tonight and in recent days, weeks and months. Rex Murphy said to the Premier: how about a plebiscite on the Hydro issue?... back on March 24. 'Well I don't think a plebiscite is the right way to go but I can say this to you, no government has the right to proceed and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that it can't maintain adequate public support for. By adequate I mean essentially majority support in the Province and if the majority of the people in this Province end up in the end being opposed to Hydro I would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro. Because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the issue, should use its majority in a Legislature to cause something to be done that is contrary of the wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that.'

Mr. Speaker, he said that not once, not twice, because he went on a second time and said, on page 4 of my transcript, he says to the question that I asked him, will you hold public hearings, after asking him about a plebiscite: Mr. Chairman, the government will make sure that before we proceed with a vote in the House of Assembly we will have the support of the people of the Province to proceed. Otherwise we will not proceed. That was his second comment.

Then he went on later on in the proceedings, towards the end of the debate, and said, if I can get to it quickly, in response to Rex Murphy: I've said it here tonight very clearly, and I've said - not here, I've said it on CBC radio yesterday, and I said it in other places - no government has the right to proceed with the implementation of major policy that it cannot sustain public support for. If we can't sustain public support for this proposition we have no right to ask the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.

The Premier said not once, not twice, but on three occasions during that one twenty-five minute Province-wide CBC television debate that he would not proceed with the legislation if he didn't have the support of the public. My friend for Grand Bank asked him the other day: What did you mean, Premier, were you telling the truth when you said that? Because if you were surely you know the public does not support the privatization of Hydro. If so, are you going to be a man of your word, are you going to be true to your word?

Is it any wonder the people of the Province are beginning to doubt the Premier? Is it any wonder that he is losing the trust and credibility himself that he used to possess and that his government used to possess? The danger with all of that of course is that the government starts losing credibility and then the other issues that it must try to deal with in the best interest of the people of the Province suffer because the people don't have the trust and the credibility in the government that they once had. It is being lost all because of the Premier's stubborn position on the Hydro privatization issue which is a Wells driven agenda. There is no question about that. This is not being driven by the members of the Cabinet; it is not being driven by the back benchers on the government side. They are following but they are not driving it. Everybody in the Province knows who is driving it.

All you have to do is to look back at the - go through the letter that the Premier wrote when he was a lawyer for Newfoundland Power back in 1986 which he wrote to Newfoundland Power when he said similar things to what is now contained in this legislation eight years later. If ever anybody had any question in their mind about where this was coming from I suggest you read that letter. Get a copy of that letter that he wrote in 1986 as lawyer for Newfoundland Light and Power. It is exactly the same thing you see here in this legislation.

It is not a new idea. It was an idea that in 1986 was submitted to a team of lawyers within that particular administration at that time, within the Department of Justice. A team of lawyers who had experience in dealing with constitutional matters and who also had a considerable amount of knowledge in dealing with the Upper Churchill contract issue on the two occasions, for example, that it had previously been put forth and dealt with in the Supreme Court of Canada.

They looked at the Premier's proposal in his famous letter, his 1986 letter. They looked at that proposal and they said to the government of the day: As far as we are concerned this idea of Mr. Wells' will meet the exact same fate as the other two tries did in the Supreme Court, which were both met with defeat. We lost seven to nothing in both cases, and the lawyers in this case, in this government at the time - in fact, I believe one of them in still in the Department of Justice, if I'm not mistaken - I won't mention any names, but the advice, I am sure, would be the same, or should be the same - maybe he won't give the same advice - but the advice then was that we should not proceed with this. It's only going to provoke a court challenge by Quebec, and all that's going to do is cost us tens and tens of millions of dollars, and our chances of winning it are going to be very similar to the other previous cases that we once pursued.

So make no mistake about it, the people of the Province know where this is coming from. They know who is driving this issue and this agenda, and it isn't members opposite, it isn't members of the Cabinet, and that's the reason - that's part of the reason - those little points that I touched on then are parts of the reason why the government's credibility on this issue has been whitewashed. The credibility has floundered because of what he said on Province-wide television, because of the fact that people are suspicious because it's being driven by the Premier and nobody else, they wonder what's behind it all, because of the other little areas of manipulation that we have seen and heard throughout this last six or seven months of debate wherein he began at the beginning with the Hydro Privatization Bill, and said to all of us that the Province's financial advisors had recommended privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Premier's speech to the Board of Trade back in November of 1993 you will see clearly that in fact the financial advisors of the Province, RBC Dominion Securities, I think is one, and ScotiaMcLeod the other one, did not recommend Hydro privatization. What they said, in fact, was that the existing situation, the status quo, was a very viable option, but if you, government, if you, Premier, want to pursue privatization of Hydro, then here is how you do it; there are two ways to do it.

One is to privatize through a merger - with Fortis, for example. The other way to do it, to privatize, is on a stand-alone basis, but the least preferable way is on a stand-alone basis. The best way is through the merger with Fortis, which is what the government originally tried and initially tried last fall.

So right at the beginning of this debate the Premier misled the people of the Province by suggesting that the financial advisors to the Province had, in fact, recommended privatization when they had not. It was totally misleading, and it just went downhill from there, I say to members opposite. If you ever want to look back on how this whole strategy fell apart and backfired on you, that's a good starting point - not to mention the very first public statement made on October 1, I think it was, when the Premier put out a one page statement and said that we are entering into negotiations, or we are having negotiations, or have been negotiating, I think it was, since August with Fortis to merge Hydro and Newfoundland Power, but there will not be any public statements made until an agreement is reached, until a deal is made, and then - and only then - will there be any public statement, and that will be in the House of Assembly when we bring the deal to the House for a vote, and the companies bring it to their shareholders for a vote.

Now that, too, was a bad step right at the beginning, because again people immediately started to get suspicious, wondering why the secrecy, why couldn't there be public hearings, why couldn't the government come out front and tell people what was going on, what was happening? So right from that point to the point, then, in November when he said to the Board of Trade that the Province's financial advisors recommended privatization, and that was blown apart and shown that was not true, right up until the time the Fortis deal fell through, then into February, and then we had the Province-wide debate and the Province-wide addresses by the party leaders.

Now members opposite have had a chance - the government has had a great chance - to put its case forward on the privatization of Hydro. They can never, ever, say they haven't had a chance to put their case forward.

People around the Province, for the past several months, have been listening to radio ads, newspaper ads, they have heard the Premier on Province-wide radio, Province-wide television. He has appeared on open line shows all across the Province. His ministers, particularly his Minister of Mines and Energy, has travelled around the Province and spoken to Chamber of Commerce debates in several parts of the Province, Corner Brook, Mount Pearl, I believe - no, the Premier replaced him, I think, in the end; the Premier spoke in the Mount Pearl one, the one out in - the one where he and the Member for Humber East had the debate, the First Chamber of Commerce, the largest one in the Province, in fact.

In fact, after they heard the Minister of Mines and Energy and the Member for Humber East present their positions on privatization, the First Chamber of Commerce, which happened to be the largest in the Province, took a vote among its members and voted in excess of 60 per cent opposed to privatization, which was another little bit of a crack, I think, in the armour over there.

Then you had, Mr. Speaker, the government doing all kinds of other things to get its story across. So I say to members opposite, you have had a chance to put your case forward. People have not bought it. They don't buy the argument. People are not prepared to buy the argument at all. The Premier is prepared to lead those members straight down the garden path, and they are prepared to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I would say this: If the Cabinet post vacated by the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, the Minister of Tourism's position, was filled, if that position had been filled long before now, then my suspicion is you might have had one or two other breaks in the armour over there. That would be my suspicion.

I know the Member for Pleasantville is not the only person who has questions on his or her mind on this privatization of Hydro issue. I am sure of that. I am positive.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I won't name them. Unlike the hon. Minister of Health, I don't want to embarrass his own colleagues. He should know who they are, but I can tell him, including a member of the Cabinet, by the way.

It has been referred to earlier in debates where the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture spoke to some Liberals attending the Liberal convention in Corner Brook last fall, and the comment was made to them. They told us that, at a public meeting held in Corner Brook, they referred to his comments. They said that the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture was relating to them his big problem, his big concern.

I am paraphrasing now: We spent seventeen years in the political wilderness for selling out Upper Churchill, and he said to these Liberal people, Liberal delegates, that we will be another seventeen years in the political wilderness if we sell off Hydro.

I am telling you, and members opposite know it, ministers know it, that there are a lot of cracks in the armour. Now they have been fairly solid in terms of not going public, but I can guarantee you they haven't been absolutely quiet behind the scenes, behind closed doors, or even behind open doors in some cases. So the Member for Pleasantville is not the only one who has major reservations, and he's not the only one who is getting input from his constituents, and he's not the only one who would like to speak up for his constituents. I know there are a couple of more over there who would like to. I know there are a couple of more over there who would love to be able to stand and be counted. They really want to, but that darn vacancy, that darn Department of Tourism vacancy, that darn minister's job, is still there.

I give the Premier credit. From a political, strategic perspective, it's probably a wise move on his part, because I'm sure he knows -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he should always have a vacancy if he wants to keep them in order, as the Minister of Education suggests.

I suspect it was a well thought out strategy on his part, because for sure there is absolutely no reason to keep the Ministry of Tourism position vacant for four months; let's face it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Minister of Trade is gone.

MR. SIMMS: And the Minister of Trade, who is the acting Minister of Tourism, is away and has been away for several months.

I said at our convention in Gander a couple of weeks ago, if only a company like Triton Airlines could get hold of Chuck Furey's travel and the Premier's travel, they could probably make a go of it, a small company like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, almost as much as Hal Barrett, maybe so. I'm not sure about that any more, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Mount Pearl (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, he never moved outside the door, the Member for Mount Pearl, when he was minister. Very quiet!

Mr. Speaker, there is no real reason why that Ministry of Tourism position isn't filled. I say to the members on the back bench, it is not one of those departments that you really have to have major educational background and requirements for, major training. All you have to have is common sense. Maybe therein lies the problem. If the major requirement to become Minister of Tourism is that you must have common sense maybe that is the problem with the Premier. That is the Premier's problem. God, all along I thought he was just holding it out. Nobody has any common sense, maybe that is the problem.

The Department of Tourism is a lovely department, a great portfolio. Anybody –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The game is on, yes. You should talk to the Government House Leader. He is the one who made the boo-boo, or whatever. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going -

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjourn the debate.

MR. SIMMS: Adjourn the debate? Until tomorrow? I'm not sure if the minister is toying with me or what. I would be prepared to do it if he would like to do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He is just teasing me, is he? Because if he would like to adjourn till tomorrow we would be quite happy to do that, no problem. We don't particularly want to stand up here all night long and debate. I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, you are only kidding me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So you are prepared to support a motion to adjourn till tomorrow?

MR. ROBERTS: Not if the hon. gentleman moved it, no, (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who recommended -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) adjourn we will not (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation says I would be.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) I didn't (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You said you would support me. I see, now you are backing off. I guess we called his bluff, Mr. Speaker, we sure called his bluff pretty quick. I think his words were: The House Leader is outside, move adjournment until tomorrow, I say to the House Leader. You might want to have a little chat.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) bring back Baker (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, if we had Baker back - I would say to the Government House Leader, if we had Baker back in that position now you would have Bill No. 2 long ago. Bill No. 2 would have been passed long ago. You wouldn't have put your members through the agony you are putting them through now, I can tell you that. Because part of the reason is the way you negotiate. That is one of the problems. You cause more problems for members opposite. The members sitting behind you who are laughing behind your back and nodding their heads to me when I'm speaking are the very ones who say –

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) such a warm, outgoing person.

MR. SIMMS: - to me that if Wins Baker was there in that seat as the Government House Leader, by God, we would have a deal.

MR. ROBERTS: I agree. Winston, do you want to head back here?

MR. SIMMS: Bill No. 2, he would never have dragged this out as long as it has been dragged out now.

MR. ROBERTS: `Bring Back Baker,' `Bring Back Baker'!

MR. SIMMS: Yes. If only the Government House Leader knew how much the members behind him agreed.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) move it any time.

MR. SIMMS: I shouldn't say that, I suppose.

MR. ROBERTS: Move it any time.

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, back to the reason why members opposite aren't speaking out on the legislation. The reason they aren't speaking out as I say, I suspect, is because of the Tourism portfolio vacancy. Any member opposite - I will tell you who would be - who was it asked me who was going to get - was it you? Somebody asked me who did I think would become the new Minister of Tourism. Somebody over there. Well, first of all -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, it wasn't you. One of your colleagues asked me who did I think was going to get the position.

AN HON. MEMBER: Might have been the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: No, the Premier hasn't been here for so long I don't know what he thinks about anything. I think maybe it was the Minister of Health, was it, asked me who did I think was going to get it, the Tourism portfolio? Oh yes, the Minister of Education, right.

I've given that little thought. Let me say, it could be any of the existing front bench members, including the Cabinet members in the second bench there. It could be one of those. It will be seen by some to be a promotion or a demotion, depending on which way you look at it. I know who members in the Cabinet opposite would like to see given the Tourism portfolio.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, that's who they would like to see get the tourism portfolio for many reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well I think they'd be quite happy if it just took you out of the House. I don't care if you have to go out of the Province and I don't think they would care either, I say to the Government House Leader. Now that's one option that the Premier has but I say to my friends opposite, who were all smiles when I made that suggestion, that is not likely to happen because the only minister over there that's got the ear of the Premier, as all of you know, is the Minister of Justice and the Government House Leader. They're in cahoots, particularly on this bill, they're the ones who side by side, bit by bit, bum to bum and cheek to cheek have carried you down this long road with no return on Hydro privatization, it is their baby. So he will never put him in tourism unless the Minister of Justice asks to go in tourism and that's not likely because he wants to be the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well I can tell him the feeling would be mutual if you were going to be gone. I'd be happy to do that, be happy to stop speaking if the hon. Government House Leader would leave.

Now if he doesn't get the tourism portfolio - there are a couple of other options over there if he doesn't get the tourism portfolio. Now my suspicion by the way is that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, I say to the members in the backbench, all those guys and women who have been waiting with bated breath, who have been drooling for the last two months, my suspicion and my prediction is that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is going to be invited back into the Cabinet. That's my suspicion because I think if they ever get the investigation out of the way - whatever is going on with it, it's been going on for weeks and weeks and weeks and I understand that they're really doing a thorough investigation - I suppose I shouldn't comment to much on this publicly, with some reservation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, no. I just said I shouldn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I said I shouldn't comment on it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I'm not playing fun, I'm serious. I think the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island will be invited back into Cabinet. I think he'll be invited back in the Cabinet. I'm only making a prediction; I guess I can do that without hurting the investigation. I think -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I was hoping that I would, yes. I was hoping that I would against immeasurable odds. I'm sure the Government House Leader would agree, immeasurable odds, in the end a six point spread between both the Liberals and the PCs. It wasn't quite as immeasurable as most thought.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I remember 1975 was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: 1975. Anyway I think the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island will be - certainly if he's cleared of the investigation and exonerated I'm sure the Premier will want to do the right thing and invite him back into the Cabinet. Now if he does that then that puts an end to the aspirations of the Minister of Justice. He will never get in as Minister of Tourism and Culture for sure and then - but worst then that, far worst then that, it puts an end to the aspirations of all the other members up in the backbench who have for the last two months stood fast behind the Premier, supported him on the Hydro privatization, in the hope that they might put him in the Cabinet. Now that's what could happen.

I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, while he was out his colleague the Minister of Education asked - I said one of the reasons why you weren't speaking out, particularly backbench members, was because of the tourism portfolio being vacant and the Minister of Education, your colleague, asked me who I thought might get the portfolio. So just to summarize, just to recap for the minister who was outside, so now I'm at the stage of the other backbenchers now who probably didn't realize that the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island might very well be coming back into the Cabinet and if that's the case then they've been doing this for two months for nothing. They could have gone out, listened to their constituents, spoke up, been a man or a woman, like the Member for Pleasantville, and told it like it is. He could have done that but he didn't do it. None of them did it on that side of the House. Now they may have figured out the possibility of the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island coming back into the Cabinet. Maybe they were smart enough to figure it out and now they're thinking yes but Graham Flight is leaving; Graham is going to retire. Walter Carter is going to retire. I believe it was all in The Evening Telegram, all of these names, wasn't it? It was, wasn't it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, I don't think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am just saying what was in the newspaper. Well, the backbenchers read it, let me tell him. He says nobody reads it. They read it.

When they see that the Minister of Health, the Minister of Fisheries, and the Minister of Forestry might be resigning, all they see is perks and plush offices and everything dancing in their heads. So maybe that's the reason they've backed off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear what Graham said?

MR. SIMMS: What did Graham say?

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't read it; they wrote it.

MR. SIMMS: Wrote what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, wrote the article in The Evening Telegram. I don't believe that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, not by a long shot, I say to the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I would say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, yes, because the editorial was misrepresenting my position - totally misrepresenting it - and I would suggest to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that he would be smart to do the same thing, because I can tell him that his position has been misunderstood by an awful lot of people in this Province, according to what he tells us in the House of Assembly from time to time, from day to day. He would be wise to do it himself.

Mr. Speaker, this is not meant to be a filibuster except I have been interrupted by members opposite, asked to comment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, asked to comment on side issues which are, to a certain extent, related and could easily be related if, say, we were debating third reading of the bill where you are not allowed to move or stray too far away from the principle of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, we are on the six-month hoist now, but even if we were on the bill, third reading, where you aren't allowed to stray from the principle of the bill too far, you could even use this kind of commentary about why members opposite didn't speak out in favour of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, you could. Of course, it wouldn't be up to the Minister of Finance, I would say. It would be up to the Speaker to determine what is relevant and what isn't relevant, and the very worst that could happen is that for thirty minutes of speaking the Speaker would be ruling us out of order, asking us to sit down, we are irrelevant, so the time will still be spent in a worthwhile fashion, as –

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, no, no. We don't plan to do that, but sometimes when you are speaking in a debate you get carried away if somebody interjects, somebody heckles, and that often happens on that side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never on the other side.

MR. SIMMS: Never on this side; very rarely on this side. Somebody intervenes, and you can get thrown off, but the Speaker, you see, all wise Speakers - and I know of where I speak, by the way, having been a wise Speaker at one time and occupying that Chair - most wise Speakers will take into account what prompted the member to stray, as well as what he is actually saying, and if he has been prompted by members opposite, driven to stray, he will be very gentle in reminding that member to come back to the point.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: This Speaker? This Speaker is one of the best Speakers this House has ever seen, certainly since 1982; I can tell members opposite that, for sure. He is one of the best Speakers we have ever had, no question about it, certainly since 1982.

Mr. Speaker, I still haven't got a real good feel as to why the Government House Leader decided to pull this little stunt now, all of a sudden, at nine o'clock. I can't understand why he would do this, what difference it would make, about waiting for another day. I don't quite understand. I don't know what great political strategy he had in his mind, because it didn't seem to work very well, because we can move amendment after amendment, as he knows; we can talk all night. That will give much more coverage to the issue than ever he wanted to see or hear about - much more coverage, which we want.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, he's not all for it. He can say he is, but he's not.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He screwed up (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I think the Member for Grand Bank is right. I think he screwed up, trying to be too smart by a half.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he didn't include the third reading in the closure motion; that's where he screwed up.

MR. SIMMS: Didn't include what, third reading in the closure motion?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's where he screwed up.

MR. SIMMS: Well, he would have had to have a separate closure motion for third reading, but he could have had both of them put forward, and called both of them if he wanted to.

Anyway, I say - my friend from Grand Bank will agree with me - if Wins Baker, the Member for Gander, the Minister of Finance, was occupying the position of Government House Leader, this would be done; there would be no problem. The members on the backbenches would not have to stay up all night tonight, miss the hockey game, home with their families watching the hockey game and enjoying a nice evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I didn't try to get him elected as President, I say to the Minister of Finance, I asked him to run, of course I did, and encouraged others to seek office as well. We had so many running that was the problem; we had four running for President. Anyway, what are you trying, to take my attention away from this bill or what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried!

MR. SIMMS: Oh no, Mr. Speaker. Everybody on this side of the House is going to speak to this bill on third reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't know. I must ask the Clerk, but I thank the Minister of Education for such a good speech, only three minutes.

When did I start, Elizabeth, 10:08?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: 10:08. I only have about twenty-four minutes left, that's on this amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes. Thank you, but I have lots of material here that I can use. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me recap for Your Honour, because I know Your Honour has had a difficult time listening to what members opposite have been saying and what we have been saying because of the interjections across the other side of the House.

We have said, Mr. Speaker, that even though the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro flies in the face of energy policies declared in the Electrical Power Resources Act, this government has still insisted on inserting five specific measures into this act, Bill 2, that are intended to do nothing more than make Hydro an easier sale. That's all it is in there for and the members -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I say to the Minister of Finance, you are sounding like the Premier. I mean, you don't have to copy everything he says and everything he does; I know he said that, it stands on its own, but if you don't need, I say to the Minister of Finance, section 1, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You don't know that yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well if you don't know it yet why are you passing it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But the rest of it is all so important that it can stand on its own; why don't you deal with all the rest of it, hold section 1 in abeyance and get on and let the other bill carry on, on its own, get the Newfoundland Light and Power - you don't even have to wait for Hydro to be privatized to make the application as the Minister of Mines and Energy knows, you don't have to wait for Hydro to be privatized to make that application to the Public Utilities Board, once the legislation is changed. A private company can do it and he knows, he is smiling; the Premier said it in his letter, so Newfoundland Power can make the application or any other private electrical generation operation. So go ahead and do that, if that is what you are hell-bent and determined to do, but we don't think you have much of a chance at it but we hope you have success with it; we would love to see you be successful.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes, we would, absolutely; I say to the Minister of Finance, in the best interest of the people we would certainly be happy if you had success accessing that power. We tried it twice before and didn't have success but our fear is that it won't be successful, our fear is that it will cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal fees and you won't have any better fate than we had or previous administrations had; and we have reason to be fearful, we have reason to hold that caution because of some of the history that we know about the Premier's proposal, eight years ago.

It is a proposal that was made by him in 1986, as a lawyer for Newfoundland Power, it is all pretty well the same here in this bill and at that particular time in 1986, lawyers in the government said no, you won't have a chance, so here are the five points that are in this bill that we don't want to see there; we would like to see them eliminated. If you were to eliminate these five points, these five measures I say to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Mines and Energy, in section 1 in particular, we would probably support Bill 2 anyway and you would have the support of the House; you wouldn't have the opposition that you have now.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Bill 1?

MR. SIMMS: Well the Minister of Health needn't ask about Bill 1, he knows where we stand on that, we've been quite clear on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon me? No, I guess he isn't. Why am I not surprised that the Minister of Health wouldn't be sure if we are for or against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The clause that instructs the Public Utilities Board to base electricity rates on three criteria: The costs, the maintenance of credit worthiness, and a guaranteed profit for shareholders. That is there to make the sale of Hydro more expedient. The Minister of Mines and Energy knows that. You wouldn't need it otherwise. Guaranteed profits for shareholders means the rate payers in this Province are going to pay a lot more for their electricity. Okay? So that is one clause.

The clause that directs the Public Utilities Board to phase out the portion of the rural subsidy that is now being charged to industrial customers by the end of 1999.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He knows the clause I'm referring to. What that is there for of course is to cushion the impact of privatization on the cost of electricity to major industries.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a good move.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, in a way it is good, but it also hurts the consumers in other parts of the Province then, because the consumers in the other parts of the Province are eventually going to have to pay the cost that the industrial customers now are paying as a rural subsidy. Customers in rural Newfoundland in particular are the ones who are going to pick up the tab for it. If that was eliminated from Bill No. 2 then it would make us able to accept Bill No. 2 much easier.

The transferring of the responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the Labour Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board. I haven't yet heard a reasonable, rational explanation as to why the government insists on that being done. The Labour Relations Board deals with such issues now. The Board is made up of people with some experience and knowledge and expertise in that kind of field, as the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, in the field of designating essential employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but they have no expertise - they could advise the Labour Relations Board. The problem is you are taking it totally out of your hands and you are taking it totally out of the Labour Relations Board, which is the right body to deal with that kind of an issue in our view, in my view. It is not a big enough issue now to cancel the bill or cancel the process or anything like that, I'm not suggesting that, but it is a point in the legislation under section one that is there solely to make the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro much easier.

MR. ROBERTS: Up till now there has been no legislative measure (inaudible) to determine essential employees.

MR. SIMMS: So I say to the Government House Leader then, if you want to do it for Newfoundland Power you can do it. You don't need to privatize Newfoundland Hydro to do that, if you wanted to do it, right?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, but you don't need that for privatization of Hydro.

MR. ROBERTS: No. (Inaudible) on the contrary whether we privatize the Hydro or not (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You believe you would need it in the case of Newfoundland Power. I'm not so sure. What kind of reasoning do you have for it?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: There is no emergency....

MR. ROBERTS: Power (inaudible) emergency employee designation.

MR. SIMMS: So they could have legislation that still puts it in the hands of the Labour Relations Board?

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, sure, it could be, yes, (inaudible). No argument with that.

MR. SIMMS: My argument is why is that authority being transferred from the Labour Relations Board which has the expertise in that field to a Public Utilities Board?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: They don't have - pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. member wants to yield for a minute I can give him an answer.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I know they don't have the expertise in electrical industries. I'm not talking about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is what you need to determine where they are needed.

MR. SIMMS: I guess that can be argued and debated. If that is the only reason then I'm not sure that is a real good reason. Anyway, that is another point, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, who is taking notes there. I think he is. Sometime he is going to speak, I guess. He is planning to speak? Or, he is putting his memoirs together, yes. Then there was -

AN HON. MEMBER: The longest night (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The night of the long knives?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, the longest night.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, the longest night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes. This is not going to be it tonight. We've had longer nights than this. We've gone till 2:00 p.m. the next day, haven't we, before, under this regime, I believe we have. Yes, the Minister of Mines and Energy nods his head, he remembers.

Anyway the fourth point that's in this legislation dealing with privatization or making it - only there to make it more attractive for privatization is the Public Utilities Board having the power to approve the ownership of more then 20 per cent of ownership of the shares of an electrical utility and that, to our way of thinking among other things, is only going to pave the way for a merger between Fortis and Newfoundland Power, make it possibly quite easier to do. So we don't support that. We don't agree with it.

Then finally the other item that I mentioned earlier, the fifth item, is the clause in Section 1 dealing with the refund of the federal taxes now paid by the electrical utility, Newfoundland Power and to be paid by the new electrical utility, new Hydro or whatever it's called, which is presently rebated to the Province under what's known as the PUITTA Agreement.

So those are five points, five privatization measures in the act. Now we have opposed the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, no bones about that, nobody has any questions about our position on that issue I'm certain.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: But no, we don't oppose it simply because we're the Opposition. I say to the Minister of Finance even he, if he were to show the usual heart and understanding that he often shows in this House and outside the House, even he would have to admit that as an Opposition we have often supported some of his measures that he's brought in, often, with very little debate or argument. The role of an Opposition, as he knows, is to pick out the flaws or to find the flaws and faults in government legislation, government policy, the Budget or whatever, pick out the flaws, the holes and so on and try to put forth their reasons for saying that this is flawed to the government in the hope that the government might listen, pray that they might listen and hope that what you're saying makes some sense. Not everything can be dismissed as nonsense. If the government listens to some of these arguments and puts it together then they could improve the legislation by correcting these flaws. I mean even the government itself -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't have a speech.

The government in itself, Mr. Speaker, the government itself has found four flaws in the legislation. They have themselves found four flaws in the legislation as I mentioned perhaps earlier tonight when I spoke. So if they found those four flaws, one of them was at the provoking of the Opposition although they take both positions on it, the issue of trying to do something to ease the minds of the paper companies in that particular clause when everybody on the other side said; oh no, that was the Opposition, that was the Leader of the Opposition phoning the paper companies, telling them they should have concerns. Well I say I'm glad I did because they did have concerns as it turns out and there's an amendment being put forward by the government; but, Mr. Speaker, had the Government House Leader not jumped the gun, not moved so quickly to have closure invoked on Bill 2 at committee stage, we may have had an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, we may have had an opportunity to put forth some other alternatives.

We may have been able to point out some of the flaws and problems in the legislation by having a thorough analysis, clause by clause of the thirty-six clauses in this bill but the Government House Leader took away that right and that opportunity. They use as a very weak excuse for doing it the fact that we spent twenty-three hours or something debating second reading on the bill. Well so what? Twenty-three hours, that's not even a twenty-four hour sitting and we've had lots of those. It's a couple of weeks debate or something - ten days I believe was what the Premier said - on what the Premier himself said is the most important piece of legislation that we've had in this House. Ten days is hardly an extravagant amount of time. Twenty-three hours is hardly an extravagant amount of time to debate it and besides that was on second reading. That's no excuse, I say to the Government House Leader and the government members, that's no excuse to take away and to revoke the right of members of this House to analyze the clause-by-clause section of the legislation. That is what they've done. This is unprecedented, by invoking closure after only an hour's debate.

The Government House Leader said it wasn't - he almost, he didn't go quite so far because I know he is not sure - but he ventures to say not too many pieces of legislation have received such thorough debate, such an amount of debate, twenty-three hours or something, ten days, or whatever it is.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I'm not quite sure - no, no, we are in Committee stage now, we are not on second reading. We are in Committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We are in third reading right now but we had eight or nine hours in Committee stage. But to invoke closure on Committee stage after one hour and to use as your excuse the reason that we had twenty-three hours of debate on second reading doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There were lots of debates in this House, I say to the Government House Leader. Perhaps he could get the Hansard people or maybe Norma Jean to do some research and just find out. I know one, I certainly remember one, because I was in the Chair for it. That was the great flag debate of 1980 when I was in the Chair. That debate, I can say to the Government House Leader, certainly went on for more than twenty-three hours.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible) change that flag.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be one bit at all surprised when I hear the Minister of Health saying we have to change that flag. That wouldn't surprise me one bit if that is the next thing this crowd tried to do. They are after muffing just about everything they've touched. They might as well touch the flag and get the whole world against them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro's flag is a new flag.

MS. VERGE: `Clydro'!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, members opposite -

AN HON. MEMBER: Swastika (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I wonder is that parliamentary?

AN HON. MEMBER: Swastika (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I say to the Minister of Health there have been some suggestions over here already for the new flag. Swastika, to begin with, would be one idea. Somebody over here suggested it, I didn't. It is just a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I didn't say who, no, I didn't say who. Mr. Speaker, they've made such a mess of everything they've touched over the last year in particular they might as well take on the flag. Then they will have the whole world against them, not just 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the world against them. They will have the whole world against them. The whole world in his hands.

Those are some of the reasons why on third reading we think there should be a six month hoist. We think this bill should be set aside for at least six months to give the people a chance to have some input, to give the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No. I only have five minutes left.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, by leave.

MR. SIMMS: No, I'll be back when we move the second amendment, and the third and fourth amendments.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, we've already got them. They're printed in Beauchesne. Did you notice I already had that one ready? Ah, boy, I'll tell you, we read the Government House Leader right. He didn't know what he was doing.

If the Member for Gander was here, he would have had the notice given on closure for third reading, and you would have been able to call your closure motion on third reading. That would have been in the end of it, in six or eight hours. Instead, now you're going to have your members put up with at least another ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen hours, probably, of debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's true, and this is why we're still here, and this is why we're speaking, but I say to the Government House Leader, if he were to look around at his members and colleagues sitting behind him, I don't think they would agree with him that they are having fun, with one or two possible exceptions on the front bench. I don't think the rest are -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, that will be fun, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, I made no bones about it. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations had left the House. I made no bones about it, we are now in a filibuster. I can tell him that; we're in a filibuster.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't know. Members opposite interject; they keep us going, fuelling us. They don't realize they are fuelling us, which is great. The more -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what I keep telling them.

MR. SIMMS: I know you keep telling them, because you notice for half an hour there they don't say anything, so you know that the Government House Leader has said: Now, sh, don't interrupt, don't interject, don't give them any fuel. Just let them go on, talk on, and eventually they will sit down.

There are some members in this House and in this government who just can't bite their tongue. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, there are just certain ministers in this House who can't bite their tongue. Notwithstanding the Government House Leader asking them to keep quiet, not to interject, don't give them any fuel, let them go on and they will sit down after awhile, there are a couple of ministers here who just can't help but interject and make some smart alec comment and fuel the person who is speaking, and I said the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is one of them, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is another. That is what I was saying, nothing nasty or offensive, I say to the minister. I would never be nasty or offensive to the minister; he knows that, although occasionally he misinterprets or misunderstands what I am saying and his ear cocks up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) dialect.

MR. SIMMS: I understand his dialect, I love his dialect, and I have even tried to interpret the dialect once in awhile. I can't do it. The member's dialect is much... I want to say this to the Government House Leader: The minister's dialect, I can tell him, is much, much easier on the ears than the dialect of the Government House Leader. That I can tell him for certain - much easier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, that's true. Now, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has been very helpful to me. He provided me with a great line.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did he say?

MR. SIMMS: He said: The minister's dialect is much easier on the ears than the Government House Leader's diatribe, which is what we usually hear most of the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: I thank the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So far. Well, not all of them. The one quoted today on the report from the House was, I must say modestly, one of my lines, one where I asked the Minister of Education, when he was answering my question if he would be prepared to table a copy of the exams, and when they asked me outside what I was up to, I said I was considering the youth vote down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote the line for you?

MR. SIMMS: Nobody. It just came like that, like most of the lines. Unlike the Minister of Justice, I am using current material, not stuff from the sixties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Although, I must confess, I wasn't back here in the sixties, but I tell you, I was in the Chair in the eighties when the hon. Government House Leader - same lines then; I read Hansards from the sixties - same lines then; and I have listened to him now for the last couple of years - same lines as back in the sixties, nothing new.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, there's one that he keeps using, the halfwit one. I haven't heard you use that one too much in the last couple of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: You want to do battle of wits, come half-armed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, I suspect what it is, is that members opposite are much more educated now than the Minister of Justice gives us credit for - much more educated than he gives us credit for - and we are way ahead of the Minister. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations laughs at it. He laughs at anything, for God's sake.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I made it clear this is a filibuster so I'm not embarrassed at all by being deterred and detracted from the main message here. The main message is: This is a six month hoist. We want the bill to be held in abeyance for at least six months. We would like the government to consider having some public hearings. One last gasp, one effort, one last request: Would the government please consider holding some public hearings on this bill?

Now I must say, I have a funny feeling we are not going to get too far with this. But I will tell you this, there are ten of us. That is five hours. That will bring us to 3:00 a.m.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SIMMS: No, 3:00 a.m. Then my friend, the Member for Grand Bank, will move another amendment and we will have six hours then, because I will be able to get up again for another hour. That will be five and six is eleven. Then we can move another reasoned amendment, or we can even go back on third reading of the bill, to bring us around to 2:00 p.m. What happens then at 2:00 p.m.?

MR. DECKER: We are going to be here all summer.

MR. SIMMS: I tell you, I agree with the hon. Minister of Education. He is probably going to be here all summer, I can tell him that, he will probably be here. What happens at 2:00 p.m.? So does 2:00 p.m. become a new day?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, will 2:00 p.m. tomorrow be a new day or will it be a continuation of this day? That is the question.

AN HON. MEMBER: To be or not to be.

MR. SIMMS: To be or not to be. I'm not sure if the Government House Leader can tell me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: We are just in time to hear the Premier's speech, Mr. Speaker. He came in very - he obviously waited outside and found out what time my speaking time was up. Wouldn't come in until he knew my time was expired. Because it is 10:07 p.m. now, my time is up, and the Premier walks in. We look forward to hearing what the Premier had to tell the Rotarians in Ottawa and the Liberal convention in Ottawa, and all the other people up in Toronto who he has been visiting and seeing over the last week or two. We would sure like to know.

MS. VERGE: The investment dealers and the lawyers (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The investment dealers and all those other people. Perhaps he can tell us, Mr. Speaker, when he decides to grace us with his presence. I believe my time is expired. Who's next?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman for Grand Falls has been unusually candid and said that he intends to filibuster, and he has given us quite a graphic, eloquent, and at times even funny exposition of how he intends to get on with this filibuster. I'm caught off guard, entirely unprepared. We will have to do something that he doesn't expect or even want me to do.

With great reluctance, given the abuse of the historical traditions of parliament that my hon. friend wants to perpetrate, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 50, that the debate or further consideration of third reading of Bill No. 2, entitled An Act To Regulate The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador - it is now An Act To Control The Electrical Power Resources Of Newfoundland And Labrador - one might anticipate that this thing may have been drafted a little before - standing in the name of the Premier, and any amendments to that motion for third reading of Bill No. 2, shall not be further adjourned, and that further consideration of any amendments relating to third reading of Bill No. 2 shall not be further postponed.

I would ask Your Honour to rule that the motion is in order or not, as Your Honour wishes, and I would like to carry on with my speech, if I may, on third reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: That is notice, yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: So why are you asking?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. Government House Leader giving notice of motion or giving the motion?

MR. ROBERTS: I'm giving notice of motion, Your Honour.

MR. SPEAKER: Notice of motion, yes.

MR. ROBERTS: To confirm that I have given the notice?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No, I'm sorry -

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour. I move that the debate now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: Moved and seconded - well, the debate is now adjourned.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) by half.

MR. SIMMS: You got caught, boy.

MR. SPEAKER: The debate is adjourned.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the debate adjourned?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the House do now adjourn and we will carry on tomorrow.

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