March 10, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS               Vol. XLII  No. 9


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the gallery the former Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, Loyola Hearn.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I would like to welcome to the public galleries four different groups of individuals, three are from Improving Our Odds courses, one from the Eastern Community College at Bonavista together with their instructor's Linda Fraser and Jeff Green, the second is from the District of Ferryland accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Rosemary White, the third is from the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde with their instructor Donald Blundon, the fourth group is a group of people representing the Newfoundland and Labrador Injured Workers Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I yield to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, it's a force of habit.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, since the issue I am about to debate is regarding the state of emergency in the community of Rushoon.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I want to say to him that yesterday the community council there had to declare a state of emergency because the Rushoon River rafted. For the past three weeks, Mr. Speaker, the council and my office have been pleading with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to go down there, provide funding to put an excavator in so that they could trench that river which they have done for the past two or three years causing no problems. I want to ask the minister, why did his department not act and in doing so caused the flooding of several homes and causing several men, women and children to have to flee their homes and move in with neighbours and friends?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, this problem started roughly twenty-two years ago. Maybe I can redirect his question by saying, why didn't you do something my fellow colleague about the problem when you represented the government and was in Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the arrogance displayed by the minister is of small consolation to the people of Rushoon. I'd say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that yes there was a problem and the matter, we thought, was corrected. What we did as a government was went down, lifted up the homes, Mr. Speaker, and put concrete walls under them - that's what we did with about twenty homes down there. For the past two or three years, Mr. Speaker, government has been providing funding to put an excavator in to dig a drain down there to break up the ice so the water could flow. They asked for that to be done this year, Mr. Speaker, and they were told that government would not deal with it unless it became an emergency and people had to leave their homes. Why does the minister want to cause that kind of grief to the people of Rushoon? Will he start acting and put some sanity into the people who make these crazy decisions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, do I have your permission to explain to this hon. House what has happened in the past, sometime, in regard to Rushroon?

Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Government House Leader, related to the occurrences yesterday in the House of Assembly and the government's initiative.

It was only three days ago - three sitting days ago, at least sitting days from government business perspective - on Friday last, on March 4, that the Premier introduced second reading of Bill 1, the Hydro privatization bill. In fact, Mr. Speaker, since that day the Premier hasn't shown his face in this Legislature.

Now at that time, on Friday, he spoke for an hour; I spoke for an hour; the Leader of the NDP spoke for his half hour, and that's all the debate there has been on this particular bill - about two-and-a-half hours.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader tells us, and tells the people of the Province, that this is the most important piece of legislation since Confederation. Yet, he is shutting down the debate after only three days.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, there is something rotten about this deal. Something stinks. We are not being told the real story behind privatization, so I want to ask him: What is it that you're afraid of? Why are you using the tactics of the Third Reich to ram through this legislation before the people have a chance, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing like an intelligently conceived, calmly stated question to give one the true flavour of the Opposition's approach to this.

Now I am not going to engage in the kind of pseudo histrionics that my hon. friend engages in, this mock outrage, this charade, this play acting. The matter is very simple. Government get seven-and-a-half hours a week for government business, if the House sits from three until five for four days, and nine to noon on the fifth day - seven-and-a-half hours a week.

The House, at our request, with no objection - there was no division; there was no voice raised that I heard to the contrary - sat late on Monday and on Tuesday to deal with a bill which I have described as being one of two which together are among the most important ever dealt with by this House since Confederation.

Honourable gentlemen opposite, and the hon. woman opposite - she doesn't want to be called a lady, so the hon. woman opposite - true to their stated intention of using every trick in the book to delay it, took advantage of procedure and wasted two days on petitions. What we saw was a petition with say, ten or twelve pages on it, which would normally be presented here with one presentation, the same petition, in some cases being signed by the same people, being presented ten or twelve times. Now, fourteen hours, two days at seven hours a day, is equivalent merely to two full weeks of debate in this House. So, Mr. Speaker, what happened, very simply, is that the members on this side, the thirty-four of us who sit on this side, decided we would give the House the opportunity to bring this matter to a vote - so we could say what had to be said, and then we could bring it to a vote. We have put in place a proper parliamentary procedure that will enable us to do so. We are determined to bring this matter to a vote and we shall stand or fall by what happens. If the government lose this vote there will be an election call. This will be a matter of confidence. Hon. gentlemen opposite may want to welcome that. We would look forward to it. Given the most recent poll results, with the staggering improvement in the Opposition standing, they should come back with at least half as many seats as they have here now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to draw his remarks to a close.

MR. ROBERTS: I shall, Mr. Speaker. The trouble is, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition didn't ask a question, he simply wants to get up and make a speech. So I have been tempted - but the answer is we are acting properly, we are acting in what we believe to be to the best interest of the people of this Province and we shall gladly stand and answer for what we do.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Justice, this Government House Leader is now trying to accuse the Opposition of preventing debate on this piece of legislation, yet, I say to the Government House Leader, you are the one taking the shortcuts, you refuse to hold public hearings, you refuse to send the bill to the Legislation Review Committee. You are the one who has said, and did say during the election that rumours of Hydro privatization are all unfounded rumours, and you are the one who, on the very day this bill was introduced, called for night sittings. And since then, over the last couple of days, members of the Opposition have stood, member after member, presenting petitions and speaking on petitions that have been given to us by the people of this Province who oppose this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we have used the rules to give the people a chance to make their voices heard. I want to ask him again, did he not tell this House and the people, there is no rush? Did he not tell the people and this House that there is no deadline, no timetable? Why are you trying to silence the people of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have said in the House and outside that there is no deadline and I repeat that. There is no deadline. What there is, is a desire to stop the frustrating, time-wasting, prevaricating tactics of the Opposition.

Let me, before I complete that, make a reference to the Premier. The hon. gentleman made a snide remark about the Premier not showing his face in the House. The Premier has been away from St. John's, outside Newfoundland and Labrador, for the last three-and-a-half days on a public trip -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: - a trip that was long planned. The Premier is on his way back to St. John's, will be in the House, I am assured, in good time for the vote, and in good time to speak again, if hon. members opposite wish to hear him again. I'm sure he would be delighted to speak for a further twenty minutes on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the hon. gentleman saying they are using the rules to present things and to frustrate us, that is fine. All we are doing is using the rules to allow the House to come to a decision - perfectly properly. I suggest the hon. gentleman's ire is fuelled in large measure by the fact his own tactics have blown up in his own face, Mr. Speaker, and that is his problem, not ours.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. He says the Premier's plans to be away were long planned, made a long time ago. I suggest to the Government House Leader, his plan to get rid of Hydro is certainly a long plan, too. It has been on the go for years.

The Government House Leader is not willing to answer my questions as to why he is silencing the people, why he is not permitting the debate. If he is not aware of it, there is a rage building in the people around this Province. People are organizing meetings, rallies. They are going door-to-door with petitions. They want to try to stop this act of treachery. I say to the government that the closure motion, Mr. Speaker, is not aimed at the Opposition in the Legislature but at the opposition that is seething and burning throughout this Province.

I want to ask him: Why did the Government House Leader not move the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day, as he could have done any time during Monday and Tuesday sittings, if he was so interested in getting on with the debate? Answer that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer the question. The reason I didn't move it was the same reason none of the other fifty-one members of the House who were eligible to move it chose not to move it. Any member of the House may move a motion under Standing Order 21.

I am not allowed to ask a question of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition because he has no responsibility of office and accordingly he does not have to answer for his conduct of office, but were I allowed to ask him one, I would say: why did he choose deliberately to try to prevent the debate coming? I chose not to ask people of the House to move to the Orders of the Day for the same reason that I assumed that everybody on this side chose not to move it. We wanted to expose the Opposition for what they are; they don't want to debate this bill, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to discuss it on its merits, they simply want to obstruct, to prevaricate, to delay and generally to try to stymie the work of this House, well we are not going to put up with it, Sir, we are going to act within the rules of this House and ask the House to debate, to discuss and to decide; that is our role, Sir, and we will give the members a chance to do it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is about the biggest bluff I have ever heard from anybody on that side of the House with one exception, and that is possibly the bluffs that the Premier puts forward in this House from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader knows full well he could have had the debate any time he wanted, all he had to do was move the motion, he knows it, his colleague sitting to his right there could have showed him the Hansards where he did it many times before, Mr. Speaker, so all it is is a bluff, a weak explanation, because the reality is he did not want a debate, you want closure and that is what is happening here today, Mr. Speaker.

Now I want to ask him this: Wouldn't he admit that all he is doing and all the government is doing is hiding and cowering behind the closure motion, because the reality is he wants to force the closure before the people can get to his backbenchers in order to get them to speak up in favour or against privatization?... isn't that the fact, and, is the closure motion being introduced because you are afraid of what the people of the Province are going to say to you around public meetings and the phone calls that I know members are getting because they are calling me; isn't that what is really happening here? He is hiding from the people, he is hiding from the rage that the people are showing out around this Province because they are betrayed by their government.

Is it because of the foul stench of corruption that is seeping out around the Province in the nostrils of the people of this Province, is that what is wrong with him?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, certainly we are getting a calm, dispassionate reasoned approach fuelled by honest emotion and I really appreciate that for what it is.

Mr. Speaker, a number of questions were asked all beginning with `wouldn't it'. This is the sort of thing like - has one stopped beating one's spouse lately?

The answer to the questions, Mr. Speaker, is no, no, no, no and no. I think there were five. What I will say, the reason the answer is no to all of them is there is not a shred, not a jot, not a tittle, not a scintilla of truth in anything that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has said.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Can the minister confirm that the government is proposing significant changes to the Workers' Compensation Commission dealing mainly with the appeal process, in that he is confirming to change the appeal procedure which is now three people to a single adjudicator process? If he can confirm that, can the minister explain his reasoning why government is making such a move?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate the question and an opportunity to address the issue.

I have in fact had discussions with representatives of the Workers' Compensation Commission itself, the board at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal as it exists today. Also, it was a matter raised in a public meeting with representatives of the Injured Workers Association. In that particular meeting it was raised in the context of the issue that one of several frustrations that the claimants and injured workers who are impacted in the system and impacted by the system that Workers' Compensation have is that if they don't get a satisfactory resolution from the Commission in the first instance then, Mr. Speaker, they have to launch an appeal through an outside tribunal. One of the overbearing frustrations is the length of time that appeal process takes.

I indicated to all three groups that the concern for the government is to clearly try to find ways to shorten those time lines so people could get a resolution to their appeals more quickly than they do now. Because there are some disturbing stories about how long that takes. One of the options that I indicated that I would be looking at and possibly proposing to the government would be moving from a tribunal of three members to hear the appeal to single adjudicators, so that the single adjudicator could hear the appeal.

I have not at this point in time taken that issue forward to Cabinet for consideration, but I have had the discussions in those three groups. At some point in the future it is quite possible that I may very well take the proposal along those lines to the Cabinet for consideration, but that hasn't happened yet.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister that he and I have had discussions on this very issue, and that it is not the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal that is the problem when it comes to time lines in terms of turning over appeals or rectifying appeals. The problem, I say to the minister, is in the Workers' Compensation Act itself. It is that the Appeal Tribunal does not have the teeth in terms that its decisions are not final and binding. In those terms the Workers' Compensation Commission has then the legal right to overturn the Appeal Tribunal's decisions, to reassess the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board decisions, and in most cases, I say to the minister, in most cases the officials of the Workers' Compensation Commission -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, could I have some order in the House, please? I am trying to ask a question of the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Go ahead. I can hear the hon. member.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the minister that the very officials who review the case are the very officials who have turned them down in the first case. Let me ask the minister, will he through his department look at giving the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal the very teeth and impact that it needs and make their decisions final and binding in law so that injured workers do not have to suffer unduly in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to address one part of the issue in the hon. member's presenting the question. It is true that under current legislation the Workers' Compensation Board of Directors can in fact reconsider and have the Appeals Tribunal reconsider its decision, but only in the case where the Board of Directors of the Workers' Compensation Commission feels on a legal basis that the Appeals Tribunal has made a decision that goes outside of existing policy. Because that is beyond the mandate of the Appeals Tribunal.

However, one of the things that we are looking at in the review - and again, none of this has gone forward to Cabinet as government for consideration yet, but it is in the discussion stages - is the notion that the injured workers would probably be much better served if the relationship between the Appeals Tribunal and the Commission was spelled out more clearly, and if in fact what you propose were to become the case, that the decision of the

Appeals Tribunal would be the final decision.

You are right in describing that in certain circumstances, as the law currently exists, that is not the case, and that is the way it has been, by the way, since the Appeals Tribunal has been in place, I believe, since 1987, because it was in the latter stages of the government of the previous administration that the Appeals Tribunal external was put in place, and one of the things is now to review the whole appeal process to decide whether or not a single adjudicator, rather than a panel, might help speed up the process.

The point that you raised in your second question, to consider as well whether or not it makes sense that as long as the decisions don't violate existing policy, that the decision of the Appeals Tribunal be the final decision. We are certainly considering both of those items.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me explain for the minister how the Workers' Compensation Act works.

The Appeal Tribunal cannot rule in favour of an injured worker, or make decisions on behalf of an injured worker, outside existing policy. The law, as it now exists, gives complete discretion to the Workers' Compensation Commission, which has become more of a punitive system on injured workers than a system that represents, or takes care of, their needs.

So I say to the minister: Will he today commit to reviewing the legislation and bringing forward legislative changes to this House giving the Appeal Tribunal, as it now exists, the teeth and the impact that it needs in terms of making their decisions final and binding so injured workers can get on with their lives?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's not a matter of making a commitment today. We have been working on that for a period of time now, and I believe that it's unfortunate that some members representing the injured workers association, and also representatives of the media, last weekend when I gave notice of motion that we were introducing a bill to amend the Workers' Compensation Act, assumed that was the amendments we were bringing in.

We have not addressed that issue at Cabinet yet, but we will in the near future, and we will consider these two items in particular. They are two of several items that are on the agenda in terms of how the Workers' Compensation appeals system in particular, should work in the context of the whole act.

I wouldn't make any comment one way or the other as to whether or not Workers' Compensation works in a certain way to be punitive. All I can tell you is that the act is in place to make sure that any injured worker in Newfoundland and Labrador receives some benefit and entitlement if they are injured on the job, and are not left without some kind of benefit.

Then, as the members opposite would know, I don't know how they have dealt with it - I have some personal suspicions - but when we have been dealing with things since we've been the government since 1989, once a commission like the Workers' Compensation Commission is set up independent from government, not using taxpayers dollars, not one penny of taxes in it - it's paid for by employers of the Province through premium assessments - then, in fact, once the board is put in place they make decisions about policy. They run the commission, and if people want the legislation changed, as is the question today, we will deal with those issues. We have been for some time discussing and dealing with the issues of the Appeals Tribunal, and we will bring that forward to Cabinet some time in the near future.

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

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

Last Friday the Premier, in his private briefing session for the news media, said that the main reason for selling Newfoundland Hydro was to eliminate the debt that is guaranteed by the Province. Now the minister knows as well as I do that selling an asset that is worth $2 billion to $3 billion to eliminate $1 billion in debt will have a negative impact on the credit rating, not a positive impact.

Would the minister like to tell us why the Premier is making these false statements?

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

MR. BAKER: An interesting question, Mr. Speaker.

I suppose, if the hon. gentleman's assumptions are correct - I believe what he said, and he can correct me if I am wrong, was that we are selling an asset worth $2 billion or $3 billion for $1 billion.

I should inform the hon. member, and this hon. House, that that is not happening. If we have an asset that is worth $2 billion or $3 billion, then we would expect to get $3 billion or $4 billion for it.

So, Mr. Speaker, in this process we will see what it brings, but I say to the hon. member that some of his figures are grossly inflated. I would be glad to provide him with a proper briefing if he so requires.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, if the asset were sold properly we may indeed get $4 billion to $5 billion for it, because that is probably what it's worth.

Mr. Speaker, last fall an official of the Dominion Bond Rating Service of the Province said, we have always considered Newfoundland Hydro to be self-sustaining so we have excluded its debt from our debt calculations. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, a Mr. Stephen Defoe of Standard and Poors made a statement while being interviewed on CBC radio. He said Standard and Poors looked at Hydro's debt separately, it was self-supporting, it was not a burden on the Province and had no bearing on the Province's credit rating.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister knew that and I am sure the Premier knew that, so why has the Premier being lying to the people of this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: The simple fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that he has not. There is a combination of two things working here. One is the elimination of approximately, it is not quite, but approximately $1 billion of debt from the books of the Province. That is one side of the equation and the other side is taking out our assets, and we hope to get, for these assets, much more than the book value. It is taking out these assets and so reducing the cost of our borrowing in the years ahead, reducing every year from now to eternity, every year reducing the cost of our debt servicing. Mr. Speaker, if you ask these same people both sides of that equation they will indicate that if our debt servicing costs are less then that would certainly have a very positive impact upon our credit rating.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the minister, that eliminating some debt servicing costs will have a positive impact, but Mr. Defoe went on to say yesterday that the sale of Hydro could have a negative impact on the Province's credit rating if there was a loss of revenues resulting from tax breaks, so on the other side of the equation we find that in this proposal there is something like $100 million in tax concessions and subsidies to new Hydro and Newfoundland Light and Power. Would the minister now like to tell us how it is going to have a positive impact on the credit rating of the Province or is it not a fact that the Premier is feathering somebody's pockets? Who paid the Premier's salary?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is kind of unfortunate that the member opposite, for whom I have always had a great deal of respect, has to stoop to character assassination. It indicates that the strength of his other arguments simply do not exist. It is kind of unfortunate that he would stoop to character assassination. I have not seen him do this before and it is disappointing.

In terms of the crux of his question, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that if you were to ask a question of a financial expert, a person in the financial world, and you were to say to him: if you were to do this transaction and it would have a totally negative impact on the Province would that be bad? The financial expert would say certainly it would be bad. I suggest you can ask a question to elicit whatever response you want to get. If you ask a question to a rating agency -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: My mistake, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps that I am trying to deal with the issue sensibly. If you were to ask the question that if we go ahead with this sale, and in order to do it we have to make inordinate tax concessions in order to make the sale, would that have a negative impact on the Province? If you asked me that question I would say, certainly, it would have a negative impact on the Province. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the assumptions that the hon. gentleman is using, and the assumptions that must have been put to this expert he is talking about, the assumptions are absolutely hypothetical, and I would say to him, totally, completely, 100 per cent false.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Energy. Now, the Premier has sweetened the Hydro deal with over $100 million in tax breaks and subsidies to new Hydro and Newfoundland Power. I ask the minister: Will the more than $100 million in tax breaks and subsidies from the taxpayers of this Province reduce the rates that consumers now pay for electricity?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I make the point first that there are no tax breaks and subsidies to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as a result of this. There are no tax breaks and subsidies to the corporation. The Province is going to be about revenue neutral in this. There will be approximately an extra $1 million in taxes paid by the new utility to municipalities throughout the Province. There are no big tax breaks at all, none at all. The plan is to put in a rate adjustment fund of $15 million that will go straight to the ratepayer, right to the bottom line of the ratepayer to keep the rates down. That is not a subsidy to the companies at all, it is not going to the companies, it is going to the rates and it is going to the people who pay their electricity bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

DR. GIBBONS: The new company, like Light and Power today, will pay provincial corporate taxes and it will pay federal corporate taxes. However, under the tax transfer agreement between us and the federal government we will receive back about 85 per cent of the federal taxes from both companies, the government will from the federal government, and we are putting those dollars straight back through the two companies, both Hydro and Light and Power, to the ratepayer again to keep the electricity rates down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: That's right you were told that already.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit the Annual Report of the Pippy Park Commission for the year ending March 31, 1993 and also the Report of the Public Tendering Act Exceptions for January, 1994 -

MR. WOODFORD: Exceptions?

MR. EFFORD: Exceptions.

MR. WOODFORD: None for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: None for Port de Grave, absolutely not.

- the Report of the Public Tendering Act Exceptions for November, 1993 and for December, 1993.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following motion:

WHEREAS outside St. John's, school bus transportation is provided by the Provincial Government through the Department of Education to students who live a long distance from their school at no direct cost to students or their parents; and

WHEREAS in the City of St. John's, where the St. John's Transportation Commission provides a bus service, school buses paid for by the Department of Education may not operate and students or their parents must directly pay the total cost for school bus transportation; and

WHEREAS this situation creates economic hardship to many families resulting in lost school time, lack of safety and other problems for students whose parents cannot afford to pay bus fares; and

WHEREAS this situation is unfair and results in inequality of treatment and discrimination against St. John's students and their families;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly go on record as supporting equality of treatment of all school students and their families regarding school bus transportation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the government be directed to provide school bus transportation to students within the city of St. John's on the same basis as is provided throughout the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MS. VERGE: Where is the Public Libraries Report?

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to rise and present a petition on behalf of residents of my district and I will just read, in short, the prayer of the petition: `To the Newfoundland House of Assembly, we, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, who wish to avail themselves of their right, thus to present a grievance common to the House of Assembly in certain assurance that the House will therefore provide a remedy, we submit' - and I will get down very quickly to - `Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.'

Now, the minister said today in the House: We are not giving tax breaks and concessions to people and companies involved in the transaction of Hydro. He is certainly giving no concessions to the taxpayers and the rate payers of this Province. He is foregoing the $9.2 million that the Minister of Finance has budgeted this year that he is receiving from Newfoundland Power; his government has decided to give that $9.2 million back. He has also decided - the Premier and the government, that the $25 million that you would receive in corporate income tax from that company refunded from the Government of Canada, he is giving back, the Premier, himself, on Friday, released to the media. Apparently, the Premier didn't notify the minister that considerable tax concessions are being given to companies, especially the new Hydro and to Newfoundland Power.

Now, the Premier, himself, in a media release, stated that there is going to be a minimum of $30 million that this Province is going to forego in tax concessions under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. Now, that's $9.2 million we have received this year and we are going to forego the $25 million, this newly-incorporated company would normally pay to the Government of Canada and rebate it back to this Province, and I also say to the minister, the $15 million he referred to, a tax adjustment fund that you are going to put in, that is for a three-year period, that is going to cushion the increases to residential consumers of electricity in this Province, and after three years, when they have cushioned in the increases and carried them, by the next election, rates will have hit the roof in this Province. That is what they are doing with the $15 million Tax Subsidization Fund.

Also, the Minister of Mines and Energy admitted in this House yesterday that the unfunded liability portion of the pension plan of the current members of Hydro is going to be transferred and that's $25 - $30 million he indicated is going to be transferred into the pension plan of new Hydro, not as a one-shot thing but is going to be on a credit note for fifteen years. That money, I'll inform the minister, is going to be over $100 million to the taxpayers of this Province over the next fifteen years, and that is based on the actuarial figures that are provided -

MR. MURPHY: By whom?

MR. SULLIVAN: by actuaries. In fact, above -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It's normally 4 to 5 per cent, and I'll explain to the Member for St. John's South: here's what is happening: this government is taking $25 million - $30 million - he said, `say it slowly' because he doesn't comprehend very quickly.

MS. VERGE: You should have gone to the meeting last night, you might have heard (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I'll inform the House what's happening: the $25 million - $30 million that this government is talking about with respect to the people at Hydro - and they have that right; they are transferring the unfunded liability and this Province is putting into new Hydro the $25 million - $30 million unfunded liability. At the same time, they are saying to the Public Service pensioners and potential pensioners, Newfoundland Teachers' Association employees and all other public pension people, that we are not going to make the same compensations for you in a pension plan that is underfunded by $1.725 billion - that's what they are doing. And it is going to cost over $100 million on this item alone and the minister stands and says, `no concessions'. Taxpayers are paying $100 million on this item alone. That new company plus Light and Power are going to be paying up to $40 million less -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: - that the Province is giving away under this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Just a minute to finish up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to conclude his remarks?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to rise to correct some false impressions given by members opposite, particularly by the last speaker. He mentioned the situation with regard to the unfunded liability of the pension fund. I would like to point out to members of the hon. House that all of the government pension funds have an unfunded liability. It is an obligation that government has. On the books of government there is an obligation for an unfunded liability in the public service pension plan, there is an obligation for an unfunded liability in the teachers' pension plan and these are the two largest of these plans. This is an obligation that government has, let's get that clear first, and at some point in time, these obligations have to be met, there is no doubt about it.

In terms of the people who, if Hydro is privatized, will be leaving the Public Service Pension Plan and going into a private plan, then certainly,we must make some arrangements over a number of years to live up to our obligations as a government that we have, no doubt about that. Whether Hydro is privatized or not that has to occur. So that isn't something that is occurring simply because of the privatization of Hydro, it is an obligation that we have as a government to all of our employees.

Mr. Speaker, previous to 1980, the governments of both political stripes took the pension money - did not invest it, did not match it - took the pension money and spent it on roads and other public works. Government has an obligation to make sure that that money is put back into these plans and that obligation is there regardless of privatization or no privatization; that is not an effect of privatization.

We have taken steps, so far, Mr. Speaker, to correct that problem, the most serious problem that we have, in terms of the teachers' pension plan. Three years ago we put $21 million in and we are now holding discussions with a view to correcting that problem in the long term. That pension plan is not funded adequately. Steps also have to be taken over the next eight or ten years to correct the problems in the other large plan that we have, the Public Service Pension Plan. This is an obligation that government will meet, that government must meet.

It is the result - unlike in many other provinces - of past governments making commitments to get out of a short-term problem that they may have had, making commitments to get out of trouble, political trouble, in the short term, and burdening the taxpayers of the future with what may be an insoluble problem, simply because they had no long-term planning. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you now, that the decisions that were made in the 1960s and the 1970s are now at the stage where these problems must be solved.

The commitments made of governments throughout the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s, these commitments that were made without any thought to long-range planning, now must be met by the people of the Province today and the taxpayers of the Province today. These obligations must be met. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer afford the short-sighted attitude of previous governments in these regards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition presented by the Member for Ferryland. The points that he made concerning the passing on of the assets of Hydro through this legislation and keeping to the Province the liabilities in this regard are valid. I don't care whether they arise from a previous government or from this government, they are still there. If the government proposes to sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and is going to transfer the assets, and if with those assets go certain liabilities for pension entitlements, then they have to take the warts, too.

What they are trying to do - and the Minister of Mines and Energy in his speech in the House today in response to questions said that we are going to pass over, supposedly, to the rate payers, $15 million. Well, that is only for four or five years, Mr. Speaker, that is not passing on the obligation to the new Hydro corporation to meet the obligations that currently exist with respect to rural electrification that are now being met by the people who pay their Hydro bills. They are now already being met. What the government proposes to do is have the taxpayers pay for that and pass it over to this new Hydro corporation.

MR. ROBERTS: That is not true, `Jack', and you know it.

MR. HARRIS: That is what is being proposed. That is what the $15 million is all about, Mr. Speaker. If it is not for that, what is it for, except to allow this new Hydro corporation to meet the obligations that are now there without any cost to the shareholders, the people who are going to make the mega-dollars by buying these shares and having a guaranteed rate of return on those shares, guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South wants to have something to say. He didn't want to have very much to say last night at the Holiday Inn, Mr. Speaker, because he wouldn't go into the room to talk - he wanted to stay out in the bar. He wouldn't go into the room when he was invited to do so. The people from his district don't know where he stands. He is going to send them a memo, we are told. So the Member for St. John's South, if he wants to participate in this debate, perhaps he should get up and speak.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, in support of the Member for Ferryland is that what the government is doing here, is it is doing everything that it can to sweeten the pot for the new shareholders, the people who have lots of money to buy shares, most of them out of the Province. Most of those shares will be going out of this Province and the dividends and the value added will be following them outside the Province.

What the government is doing through this legislation - you have to read it very carefully and see all the bits and pieces - they are passing over the assets and they are not ensuring that all of the liabilities go with that. That's what is happening here. The President of Treasury Board can say what he likes about unfunded liabilities, generally speaking in the public sector, but if they are passing on, or proposing to pass on, which they shouldn't be doing in the first place, if they are passing that on they are quite obviously trying to sweeten the pot for the shareholders, and are not passing on the liabilities with it. The Member for Ferryland is absolutely right. That is what is happening in this matter.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals from several different districts. These petitioners are opposed to the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and the privatization. They are from St. John's, and from St. John's East Extern, from Port au Choix, in the District of St. Barbe and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, from Naskaupi, in Labrador, Happy Valley - Goose Bay, in the District of the Minister of Justice, and others from St. John's as well. All of these petitioners, like others before them, want to have this deal stopped.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice rose in the House today and mocked the petitioners, and mocked the Opposition for bringing the petitioners' names to this House.

Now the Speaker ruled on this point the other day. On Tuesday evening you ruled that every person in this Province has the right to have their petition presented in this House, even if there is only one, and that is the only way -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I feel an obligation to correct the hon. member. I specifically said, I didn't rule on that question. I drew it to members attention that that apparently had been the practice to have three signatures. I said under our rules it doesn't appear that is the case, while I reserved the decision on the question for another day, and it wasn't necessary to decide it in order to allow the member's petitions from Humber East to be presented. I said Erskine May was an authority on it, but I did not rule for the purpose of our Session and our House that you needed either one or three signatures, but I pointed out the difference in interpretation, and I specifically said I left the question aside because our practice, or rulings, which we didn't have a chance (inaudible) other Speakers might be or otherwise.

I take the hon. member's point, but I didn't want to leave a misunderstanding on the record that I ruled on the point, although I might eventually do so.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understood what the Speaker just said. He clarified that perhaps the ruling wasn't that even a petition with a single name on it, he wasn't ruling on that, but the general tenor of the remarks was that the people of this Province have the right to have their petitions presented to this House with at least one name. Perhaps three might be required. Nevertheless, all of these petitions have more than that, but that is the way that the people of this Province want to have their voice heard, by signing petitions, and to have them presented to this House, and to have them, each individual petition, to be given credence in this House, is the way the people of this Province want to be heard, because they are very concerned about this and they want to stop it. They want to find a way to stop it. They know they have the support of hon. members on this side of the House, and they are looking for the support for their petition from members on that side of the House.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, they may have one so far. We are not sure yet, but are there others over there who are ready to listen to the voice of the people of this Province? That is the big question, and that is why this debate, and that is why these petitions are being presented in such a way, so that the voice of each and every one of these people gets heard in this House, because that is what's required - no closure motion to cut off debate, no attempts by government to stifle debate and prevent the voice of the people being heard - there must be a full and fair debate.

I have been getting calls, Mr. Speaker. Today I got a number of calls from people asking for a referendum on the issue. They don't have faith in the government's ability to handle this issue in the interests of the people. They want a referendum because they don't have faith in hon. members opposite, and unless there are more hon. members opposite than the Member for Pleasantville, who is prepared to stand up and be counted, then there must be a referendum in this Province in order for the people's voice to be heard.

This was not a part of the government's mandate. When the government was asked, before the election, whether or not there was any scheme afoot to privatize Hydro we were told it was wild speculation on the part of our members here on a question asked by this hon. member in the House. It was wild speculation, it was only speculation. What do we find, Mr. Speaker, right after the election in the fall of this year? A scheme afoot, it didn't come up in two or three weeks, Mr. Speaker, it was a plan afoot for many months and many years. That plan, Mr. Speaker, is now before this House the people of this Province want to have their say, they didn't have it in the election and they want to have their say now with a referendum. So, Mr. Speaker, we will continue - at least on my behalf, I will continue to present petitions as long as I have them so that the voice of the people will get heard in this House and hopefully the voice of the people will be listened to by hon. members opposite.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support the petition by the Member for St. John's East to stop this senseless act of privatizing Newfoundland Hydro. Now this government denied all last year that they had any intent to privatise Newfoundland Hydro. They went into the May election and denied it, denied it in the House in May until everybody found out that secretly there had been negotiations going on for some time. The Minister of Justice was aware of it, at the same time he held shares in Fortis, the company they were negotiating a merger with, and the people of this Province didn't find out about it until many months later. They finally admitted they had no mandate from the people to give away a right that was given to every single Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province, a right which we were born with and a right that they have to die with.

The water power and resources of this Province should not be given to people on Bay Street in Toronto or the eastern townships in Montreal. In fact, I'll inform the hon. member, that this act empowers the Minister of Finance - Mr. Speaker, if the Member for St. John's South would like to speak he should stand and be duly recognized and stop shouting and interfering with other members when they are speaking. He's been doing it since I came into this House. He didn't have the guts to go into a public meeting last night and give his opinion instead he stayed and hid but the media found him. The media found him much to his chagrin.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It was a public meeting called by the Member for Pleasantville.

Now I'll say again, Mr. Speaker, that this government is spreading innuendos to try to convince the people of this Province - they're mounting a big tremendous public relations campaign with the taxpayers dollars of this Province to try to convince the public that Hydro was best for that, they've used the Nova Scotia experience. They were told that Nova Scotia's credit rating was going to improve, it got worst. They were told with Nova Scotia Hydro that there would be no job loss and there were 400 jobs lost. Nova Scotia was in a much better position to be privatised because 90 per cent of its supply of energy is a non-renewable resource.

This Province has a fully renewable resource, the water and the rains from heaven can be recycled and provide energy for generations to come. It would take away and give the Minister of Finance powers to decide what water rights in this Province are going to be excluded without ever coming back to the Legislature of this Province and that's improper. We are going to lose ownership in an important resource that we now own, 100 per cent, lock, stock and barrel and the least we can hope to own is 10 per cent of the new company. That's all we own in Fortis, in the public company of Fortis. It's owned by Ontario municipal employees retirement fund, it's owned by investment companies in Montreal and Toronto and now the rights to our water - and never again will these water rights, as long as they are used for electricity in this Province, will ever, ever go back to the people of this Province again and that's in the act.

If the company that receives them decides not to use them for the generation of power, they're saying they may be repossessed by this Province. That will never, never happen. We will see, over the next ten years, $1 billion committed by this Province in tax concessions to Fortis, the parent company of Newfoundland Power, tax concessions to the new Hydro, in extra costs to the rate payers of this Province, while at the same time the Premier states that $25 million a year we are going to save on paying debt charges, for $250 million over ten years. If you took the difference in those two it is $750 million. Divided by the households in this Province it will cost every single household in this Province over $300 per year immediately. If you factor households, what the taxpayers are paying, and concessions to the companies. After three years the cost will be substantially more.

By their own admission, the Premier has admitted, rates in Labrador are going to increase by 30 per cent. Rates in this Province are going to go through the roof. Because the Premier is using an example of 700 kilowatt hours, enough to run a household without electric heat, in a $60 or $70 a month bill. When you look -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: I find I must stand again to comment on the `information', if I can put it in quotation marks, coming from members opposite.

First of all, the Member for Ferryland talked about some PR campaign of taxpayers money that we are going to spend, and so on. I would suggest to him that he stood in this House not too many days ago and asked us to get information out. Then, when you try to get information out, Mr. Speaker, he says we shouldn't get any information out. He can have it one way or the other, but he can't have it both ways. I would suggest that all he is doing is posturing politically. It has no semblance, no resemblance to sensible, reasoned debate. None whatsoever.

He talks about the fact that we own Hydro 100 per cent lock, stock and barrel. On the surface that might be right. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to buy a $100,000 house and have an $82,000 mortgage on it, that you probably could make the same claim, that you owned it lock, stock and barrel. But if you go to try to sell that house I would suggest you would have to pay the $82,000 to the bank which owns most of your house. So it is a deceptive comment. Eighty-two per cent of the amount of money that is into Hydro is held by bond holders, most of them in New York. It is as simple as that. So just a stretching of the facts.

He then tries to relate a rate increase in Labrador to the privatization of Hydro. Everybody knows - the member for Labrador West knows, and the people in Labrador know - that regardless of privatization there probably will be a change in the rate structure. There have been comments from the residents of Lab West long before this privatization issue came up that they didn't like the change in the rate structure, the plan was that no longer would extremely low price electricity be available for one area of the Province and not for the other areas of the Province. That was a change that was taking place anyway, and it has nothing to do with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Then the Member for Ferryland goes on to say - I'm trying to have a reasoned debate about the Hydro issue - that in the Island part of the Province, because of the privatization, the rates will go through the roof. I am using his own words.

Mr. Speaker, these are scare tactics and it really surprises me that the Opposition is using them. I don't mind some members of the general public who don't understand the situation using these emotional arguments, but what I can't understand is the member opposite, who is to stand for re-election four years down the road - and if this deal goes through, at that point in time everybody in the Province will know that is a false statement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I would say to members opposite to be very careful about their untruths and exaggerations. To be very careful about them. Because they tend to come back to haunt them years down the road.

I am anxious to have a debate about this deal, and I have been prevented by the Opposition for the last two days in doing so. I am very anxious to have a debate about this particular prospect of privatizing Hydro, but I would like to have a debate based on common sense. If we get emotional about it, that is fine, it is all very fine, but a solely emotional argument is going to get us nowhere. We still have to look at the pros and cons of the deal, and there are pros and there are cons, absolutely, but let's debate them sensibly. I would like to suggest to members opposite, as well, that the level of the voice does not improve the quality of the argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you talking so loudly?

MR. BAKER: I am talking loudly because I have to. I would like to see a reasoned argument of the situation point by point. I have tried to deal with two or three points. I first of all dealt with the point about the unfunded liability in the pension plan, a total untruth that is being spread.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time has elapsed.

MR. BAKER: I will deal with the other issues as they arise.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the people of the district of Windsor - Buchans. Since they could not rely on their own member to present this petition on their behalf, they have come over and asked us to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I will read the prayer of the petition: `To the Newfoundland House of Assembly. We, the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, who wish to avail themselves of their right, thus do present a grievance common to the House of Assembly in the certain assurance that the House will therefore provide a remedy, we submit:

Whereas, we, citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, seek to stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro;

Whereas, the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not been proven to be in the best interest of the citizens of the Province;

Whereas the production of electricity is an essential service for the people of the Province, and should be controlled by the people;

Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.'

MR. FLIGHT: Did he say I would not present the petition?

MR. MANNING: No, Mr. Minister, I did not say you would not present it. I said the people couldn't rely on the minister opposite because he has to do what he is told. He is in Cabinet and he has to follow the leader. He has to join with the people across the House and sell Newfoundland Hydro, sell the water rights of this Province, and without a mandate, I say, Mr. Speaker, from the people of this Province. Back in April, during the election campaign, the people of this Province asked several times about the plans to sell Newfoundland Hydro and they were told that it was only a rumour. The Premier, himself, said it was only a rumour, groundless rumours brought up by members of the Opposition. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the plans were in the works to sell Newfoundland Hydro. They sought no mandate in April. They were given no mandate in May, and they have no mandate to do what they are doing here today, and to follow on over the next week and sell Newfoundland Hydro.

I challenge all members opposite to have the backbone of the Member for Pleasantville, to go out into their districts and hold public meetings to see what the people have to say about this. Listen to the people. Go out and ask the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: You didn't get a mandate in May. You didn't tell the people what the plans were. You had a hidden agenda in April and May, and you proceeded with the sale of Newfoundland Hydro after you fooled the people. I say to you, have the guts to go out and have a meeting like the Member for Pleasantville had.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, on a point of order.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member indicated when he stood up that he was presenting the petition because the people on whose behalf he was presenting it had asked their member to present it and I had refused to do it. Now, the fact is, that hon. member did not have a petition to present. The fact is, he walked over to the Member for St. John's East, the NDP member, and got a petition to present. He got the petition he is presenting right now, Mr. Speaker, from the Member for St. John's East. Then, he stands up here in this House and tries to show some credibility. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in this House nine months and any chance of his having any credibility, he has blown it these past two days.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, how it smarts when you get close to the bone, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking to the point of order?

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Your Honour already recognized me, I thought?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: Yes. I say, oh, how it smarts, Mr. Speaker! Oh, how it smarts! The hon. member is presenting a petition with a prayer - it doesn't say, to the Member for St. John's East. Who cares where he got it from? What difference does that make? It is signed by residents of your constituency!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: That's the point. That's the problem, Mr. Speaker. It is signed by people of Windsor - Buchans, and I have more here. I have more here, signed by people of Windsor - Buchans district, Grand Falls district, Exploits district, and the Member for St. John's East has all kinds of them. So what? What kind of a silly point of order is he trying to raise? There is no point of order in that exchange, Mr. Speaker, not one parliamentary, procedural rule being broken, not one. All it is, is an opportunity for the Member for Windsor - Buchans to somehow, sheepishly get up and explain away why he -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - the big, bold Cabinet Minister has to try to take on a young rookie member who is not even here a year in the House, and the minister is here for seventeen years - that's all it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture is speaking again to the point of order and I ask him to be brief.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I contend - and Your Honour will make the decision - that there is a genuine point of order, I have no objections to the hon. member presenting petitions from Windsor - Buchans or Badger or Millertown or Buchans Junction. I do object to that member indicating that the reason he is presenting the petition is because I was asked to and refused to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a deliberate misinterpretation and the member shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. That is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, there may be a disagreement between hon. members on what has been said, but that doesn't constitute a point of order. There is no point of order.

MR. SIMMS: What an embarrassment!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to continue dealing with some of the points that have been raised. I didn't have a chance last time to deal with the comment about the Nova Scotia credit rating.

Mr. Speaker, there is a kernel of truth in what the hon. member says when he mentions that drop in the Nova Scotia credit rating. In actual fact, the credit rating of the Province of Nova Scotia did drop, however, Mr. Speaker, that was a result of the Province of Nova Scotia being in a position where they were within a year or so of an election and they refused to deal with their deficit problems. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they went a full year-and-a-half without bringing in a budget. Mr. Speaker, the lowering of the credit rating of Nova Scotia was a result of their deteriorating financial position over a number of years and their seeming unwillingness to deal with the deficit problem, that was why the Nova Scotia credit rating dropped, I would suggest to hon. members.

I don't know - and I am trying to be totally honest here - I don't know, but perhaps if they had not gone through the process of privatization, their credit rating may have, indeed, dropped three or four points rather than the one or two that it did drop, so they had tremendous problems in terms of their rating agencies and they are not bringing in measures to deal with their current account deficits. Since then, Mr. Speaker, they have brought in measures to deal with their current account deficits, as have most governments in the country.

The Nova Scotia credit rating argument - and that is why these arguments are difficult to counter because there is a kernel of truth there, that the rating did drop, but for totally unrelated reasons. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that these untruths are being dragged into this debate and that there is no opportunity given by the Opposition for sensible and reasoned debate. And I would suggest to them again that perhaps we need to have a sensible and reasoned debate and deal with the issues one at a time. It is unfortunate that the last member who got up didn't have a chance to complete his speech, and the reason he didn't, Mr. Speaker, was that he immediately launched into a personal attack type of thing rather than deal with an issue. He launched into a personal attack to try to attack a member rather than deal with the issue, any of the issues having to do with the privatization of Hydro. I think that does a disservice, Mr. Speaker, to the people who signed that petition.

The people who signed that petition wanted a reasonable case made on their behalf, and if they feel that Hydro should not be privatized, they have every right to feel that, but I think it does a disservice to these people if, in the presentation of the petition, a reasoned argument is not made. It is simply ad hominem arguments, attacking individuals and, as we saw in Question Period, trying to smear character - character assassination.

Mr. Speaker, we should get out of that, and when we talk about this issue, we should deal with the issues, and get away from character assassination.

MS. VERGE: Why (inaudible)?

MR. BAKER: Why get away from character assassination? It is not becoming, I say to the hon. member. Get away from the character assassination, get away from untruths that have nothing to do with the deal, and let's debate, as I said, the pros and cons - there are both. Let's debate the pros and cons of the deal sensibly and logically.

MS. VERGE: We know about the cons but what about the pros?

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to rise and support this petition, and support this petition again, and support another thousand petitions if they come in.

I keep listening to the Minister of Finance over there, and everybody else, for the last couple of nights, coming in here and people saying: Oh, it's a waste of time! Why are you putting off debate? All of this, to me, is debate. I have only been here for ten months, elected, in this House. I can tell you, I can stay here until the cows come home, and present petition after petition, because you people are certainly not going to listen to... The hon. members opposite are not - well, most of them, I can say, except for one, thank god. Hon. members opposite are certainly not going to listen to people here, and it almost sickens me to hear one after another of the hon. crowd - as the minister told me I should call them - the hon. crowd next door here, to get up, one after another, except for one with a bit of backbone, and say: Why are you delaying this? Why are you doing this?

I will tell you why. Simply put, it is the only tactic we have left because of your attitude on that side. The only way that the people of this Province have one chance to speak, is through the names I have seen on my list, from the district of Baie Verte - White Bay. And I am very proud, any time I stand over here as a member elected by the people - not elected by my caucus; I represent the people who elected me - to stand here and say: Thank you for sending your names on a petition. You have all the right in the world to have a say on this, and I am going to give them every right and chance to say it, because those were the people who elected me - not my caucus, not my leader. He won't tell me to sit. I will have my chance to have a say, and if we have to use the tactics, as you people say, of petitions, that is the only way the people of this Province have a chance to speak.

On that note, I ask all people in this Province, all residents of this Province, to go after your MHAs - us, and hon. members on the other side. Go to your MHAs, write letters, go to their offices, phone them, go on open lines, and do whatever you can do to convince eight more over there to come up with some backbone so we can stop the biggest disaster that ever happened in this Province, which is another giveaway, next to Churchill Falls.

I ask anybody from my district, and districts all over this Province, to contact their MHAs. Do whatever you have to do, so that somebody will come to their senses, as did the hon. the Member for Pleasantville, so we can put a stop to the next biggest disaster since the 1960s in this Province.

We talk about facts, and the minister asked us to throw out facts when we stand up. I didn't plan on personal attacks. We are down to that level - if we have to get to that level, sobeit, but we have to have a chance to stand up and speak on it.

Two first facts I come up with: there is the loss of jobs. Is that not a fact?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SHELLEY: Not a loss of jobs? Very well - like Nova Scotia wasn't going to lose 400 jobs; they're gone. Are we going to lose 400 jobs?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, we're not going to lose 400 jobs? I hope the people in the gallery remember what the hon. Finance Minister said, we are not going to lose any jobs.

Is there going to be an increase in electricity rates, I ask the Minister?

MR. BAKER: Probably a small one.

MR. SHELLEY: Probably a small one. Very good. That's a good answer from the Minister of Finance.

Those are two facts, without going any further, if you want us to talk about facts when we stand. There is going to be a loss of jobs. There is going to be an increase in electricity rates. If anybody over there in the hon. crowd can argue that, then come and tell me. Show me some facts where that can be true.

Can somebody else over there - we will stick to facts - assure me, because the Premier is never here to assure anybody of anything. As the hon. House Leader said to us in this very House, this is the most important piece of legislation to go through this House - we are a part of history here - the most important piece of legislation to go through this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will be here.

MR. SHELLEY: The Premier is not here!

Now, can somebody over there in the hon. crowd tell me and guarantee me, in all honesty - I ask any minister there - to guarantee me that in two, three, four years from now we will not be crying about this when some company in Quebec, when they join with their 20 per cent, 20 per cent, 20 per cent, can they merge? Can they take over this whole Hydro altogether? No? Well, let's get that on record, that the hon. the Minister of Finance said it cannot.

Because I can tell you something, it is a real joke to me when I go out to my district and say: Listen guys, by the way now, you can all buy shares in Hydro. Well, what a laugh I had in my district! They can barely afford to feed their families, and we are offering them shares in Hydro? What a joke that is! The elite again, I would say, the Premier's friends, the hon. House Leader's friends, it is they who are going to buy the shares in Hydro. Newfoundland investment - the guy who won the million dollars maybe can buy some shares in Hydro, but I can tell you that a very few in my district - and I say to you, very few in your districts around this Province - are going to jump up and down and say, We'll buy your shares, we'll take over Hydro.

It is not going to be Newfoundlanders, I say to all hon. members, it is not going to be people in this Province who will take over those shares, it is going to be people in Quebec, up in Montreal, and Toronto. And sooner or later down the road, we are going to see a merger and the people who own the big bulk of shares for Newfoundland Hydro -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: - are going to be outside of this Province, not inside.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, I think, to the House now that the members opposite want to continue their tactics of delay and obfuscation.

MS. VERGE: We want to save Hydro.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It has been moved that we now proceed with Orders of the Day. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I -

MR. SIMMS: No, no, it is Orders of the Day, is it?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. It is (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What are we doing? Could you tell me, inform me, what we are doing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader had moved a motion to move to Orders of the Day. The motion was put and carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: So where are we now?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour will now call Orders of the Day?

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day, yes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Motion 5, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5, that the debate not be further delayed.

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. SIMMS: What is Motion 5, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 5 is on the Order Paper. It is, "...pursuant to Standing Order 50 that the debate on Bill No. 1 entitled, `An Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation', standing in the name of the Honourable the Premier and any amendments to that motion for Second Reading of Bill No. 1 shall not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any amendments relating to Second Reading of Bill No. 1 shall not be further postponed."

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

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I guess if the Government House Leader put it in plain terms, what we are debating here is the gag order, is closure, is that right?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

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

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I realize what the Government House Leader did, and I realize Your Honour put the vote, but I just want to, if I could, refer Your Honour to Standing Orders, on page 18, section 50.

It goes there that, "Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in Committee...," and so on, that the Government House Leader could only move then. I want to submit to Your Honour that we were in Petitions, which was not immediately before Orders of the Day. So I think the Government House Leader has breached procedure and I think he is out of order.

I know what Your Honour did, but I think the Government House Leader here was a little trigger-happy and a little premature, because we are still into Petitions. Immediately preceding the Orders of the Day, as I see it, is after Petitions were finished and then the Government House Leader could have risen in his place and moved the appropriate motion. I think he is completely out of order, Mr. Speaker, in what he has done.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we were at the stage on the routine proceedings called Petitions. I was recognized by Your Honour, I then moved Standing Order 21 motion, which Your Honour accepted, put to the House and I understood Your Honour ruled that it was carried.

Your Honour then, pursuant to the direction of the House in that motion, called Orders of the Day. I then stood, was recognized by Your Honour and asked Your Honour to call motion No. 5, which Your Honour did, which was then put to the House and it was my understanding Your Honour declared the motion carried.

Standing Order 50 says, "Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called". Now, when Your Honour recognizes me again and the point of order is disposed of, I will ask Your Honour to deal with Order No. 3, on the Orders of the Day which is the one dealing with the privatization bill. So I suggest that the procedure we have followed is entirely in order and appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader is correct in that Standing Order 50 says, "Immediately before the order of the day", not the Orders of the Day for resuming an adjourned debate and the adjourned debate has not been called yet. So there is no point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough, please, to call Order No. 3, which is the privatization act?

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 3.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank, I believe - did he conclude his debate or did he adjourn the debate?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) on a point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no. Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate Tuesday night - just about time, only a matter of a few seconds, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly, I was up on my feet at that time. Yes, maybe the Clerk could tell me.

MR. SIMMS: It doesn't matter, boy, the gag order is on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I know the gag order is on, Mr. Speaker, but I am just wondering if - sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just adjourned, yes, that's why I was wondering. I know we weren't quite to 10:00 p.m. and I just rose in my place to adjourn debate, but I don't know if we used up much time or not, at the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay, thank you.

MR. FLIGHT: Talk away, boy!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, that's exactly what I am going to do, talk away as much as the minister, all the other ministers, the Government House Leader and the Premier would not want anybody in this House or outside this House to talk in this debate.

I will just ask the Minister of Health now to control his exuberance and read his book that he has there. It must be something about Tom Thumb or Dick and Jane because it must be very elementary, I say to him. Certainly, he is not reading the privatization bill, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the Minister of Health is not reading through this horrendous piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that this government is trying to ram through this House without proper debate, trying to keep the issue hidden from the people of the Province, trying to get it through before people really - I guess information flow is sufficient enough to let people know how bad this piece of legislation is. Now that's what the Government House Leader, the Premier and the ministers are trying to do with this piece of legislation. Because, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, that most of the ministers in the Cabinet have not read the legislation and if they have read the legislation they don't understand it, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.

All this week, for the minister - can you imagine for the Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, has been responsible up until this piece of legislation is passed and then, of course, the old Minister of Finance has it all in his back pocket. This minister has not been able to stand in his place for a full week and answer one question that has been put to him on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - the minister responsible for the corporation. Now, I think that says it all, Mr. Speaker, that says it all. The Minister of Finance has stood in his place a number of times, both in Question Period and in response to presenting of petitions, and the Minister of Finance has not known what he has been talking about on this piece of legislation. And that is what's wrong with it all, Mr. Speaker. I submit to members opposite and the ministers of the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, who have to take ultimately responsibility, that we, on this side, have scrutinized this piece of legislation. We knew what was in the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Long before it came to the floor of this House we had seen the draft legislation. Our leader had a press conference on it a month or so ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course, the Minister of Mines and Energy says: How would he know anything about that? We knew, and we have been proven to be correct, and we have been scrutinizing this legislation for at least thirty days, and I can tell you with great confidence, and with sincerity, that we on this side know more about the privatization bill of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro than 99 per cent of members opposite, and I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Who are the people in Newfoundland and Labrador listening to today and believing? They are believing the Opposition. They are believing the power of the people. They are not listening to the Premier or the Government House Leader, or the Minister of Finance, because as of last night, I can tell members opposite, the overwhelming opposition to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is bigger than it was when we saw the poll published in The Evening Telegram weeks ago.

As of last night the opposition to this move by this government is even stronger, and members opposite know it, even those who are standing in their places on a daily basis and putting up a very weak defence of what they are doing, because you now what? You can see it on their faces. You can hear it in what they say. They are not committed or convicted, most of them, to what they are doing.

So why are they doing this, Mr. Speaker? Why are they pushing this piece of legislation through? Why are they ramming this down the throats of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who don't want it, who don't want to do away with a very valuable asset that they own?

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, out and about this Province every day people are asking: What is behind all of this? There must be a hidden agenda. What can it be? Why, why does Clyde Wells want this through so quickly, when it's so bad? Why do they want it so badly? Why does he want it?

There is a hidden agenda, and it is starting to be exposed. It is starting to come out what is really behind all of this, because there have been scandals in this Province before, there has been corruption in this Province before, but once all the facts are revealed on this issue, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, there is going to be such a kerfuffle in this Province like you have never seen before, and we have had some good ones.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydrogate.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, Hydrogate; there's no doubt about that. It will be Hydrogate, because we will have some other things to reveal over the next number of days in this House, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture - more things that he is not even aware of, even though he should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We will do it when the coward comes home and takes his seat, I say to the Minister. When the coward comes back into the House and takes his seat we will do it, but we are not going to do it while he is away because that has been his plan for this week. I will flick off to Toronto and Ottawa, and I will disguise some meetings with Tobin and others, and I will come back late in the week and you will have the dirty work done for me. It's not going to work, I say, because he thought that by the time he got back here today that most of this would be rammed through this House - not so. He is going to have to come back and face the music right from his seat in this House of Assembly, I say to the Minister, and he is going to get it good when he comes back, I can assure you of that. He is going to get it good.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask Your Honour, if I could, we are now stifled, and limited to twenty minutes, and if the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has the intestinal fortitude to get on his feet, he can get on some other time and take up his twenty minutes - not when I'm doing mine. I only have twenty minutes, and I want to say what I want to say.

Now I can tell the minister and others that there have been more phone calls come into our offices on a daily basis, on an hourly basis, you can't go anywhere in this Province where people are not opposed to the privatization of Hydro, and members opposite know it. They are getting the same roots as we are getting.

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't say anything.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They won't say anything. Why? They are here to represent their constituents. They are not here to represent Clyde Wells. How they can stay behind and pretend to support something as devastating to Newfoundland and Labrador I will never understand.

This is going to cost the people of this Province hundreds of millions of dollars - hundreds of millions of dollars - taxpayers and rate payers, hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet they listen to the Premier saying: I will get $300 million or $350 million for Hydro and apply it against the debt, which will be gone this time next year. It will be gone this time next and then we are back in the same boat. It is probably worth $3 billion. The debt is $1.2 billion. It will be gone for $300 million and generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are going to pay for it by way of tax increases and higher electricity rates. Now, anyway you try and cut the pie that is exactly what is going to happen. Subsidies, tax concessions, you name it, this government is giving to new Hydro. Now, we have enough FAX sheets done on this I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and if he wants to take them and read them, then maybe he might revolt in the Cabinet.

The arguments of credit rating have been shot down today, as before, by the Member for Mount Pearl. The Minister of Finance squirmed but the bond rating agencies are telling the Minister of Finance and the Premier that what they are saying is not true. There will be higher electricity rates.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: You provided us with the numbers, boy. Go read your own documents. It is right in your own documents and you cannot even see it. That is how stunned you are.

Why don't you shut up or go outside. That is the best thing you can do, Graham.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has admitted himself that there will be higher electricity rates. Mr. Speaker, this is a man who is supposed to have approved the legislation and he asks me why.

In the first year or so there will be a modest increase in electricity rates, but after the third, fourth and fifth year I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture it is going to cost you a lot more to heat your home and light your house, a lot more.

MR. FLIGHT: I have already -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, you should get in the furnace yourself, I say. You are a bit like a junk of wood to me the way you are behaving over there. Higher taxes, Mr. Speaker, which our people cannot afford. We are the highest taxed people in Canada now and why should we, because we are selling off the most valuable asset we have left, sell it off, give it away, and then impose higher taxes on our people? It is nothing short of criminal, Mr. Speaker. I give you another thing, Mr. Speaker, that there will be loss of jobs at Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There will be loss of jobs in an economy that already has an employment rate that is escalating on a monthly basis. There will be job loses, Mr. Speaker. The loss of ownership, something that we own, that the people own, we are going to give away.

MS. VERGE: Bay d'Espoir (inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the last bond paid on the Bay d'Espoir project within the last year, and here we are going to give it away. We are blowing it, Mr. Speaker. We own it outright.

Loss of economic opportunities, Mr. Speaker. No mandate, we have talked about any number of times, any number of times. I come back again to, why are we doing it? Did any of the ministers ask the Premier why he wanted to do it? He has been wanting to do it since 1986, I tell members. Since 1986 he has submitted papers through the systems calling to do the same thing which he is now doing in this Legislature. He was Chairman of Newfoundland Light and Power at that time. The very same piece of legislation we are debating here today Clyde Wells put together in 1986 when he was Chairman of Newfoundland Light and Power, and at that time, thank God, neither the Board of Directors of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, nor the government of the day, would give the proposal of Clyde Wells the light of day. That is the only reason it was not done then.

Do not shake your head at me and tell me I do not know what I am talking about, Minister, because I do. I have the information in my files since I was a Cabinet minister, I say to him. The very same piece of legislation we are debating today Clyde Wells initiated in 1986 when he was Chairman of the Newfoundland Light and Power.

MR. SIMMS: Did you know that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: And, do you know what he did? It was not two weeks after he became Premier, do you know what he called for?... he couldn't find his documents. What did he call Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro looking for?... the package that he had put to the system that had been rejected by the previous government. He said: send it over, send it over; and he said there is no one in the system who can stop it now, I am Premier. That is what Clyde Wells did. You talk about an agenda and a hidden agenda, Mr. Speaker, and as I said, over the next couple of days, we are going to tell you a bit more to just show what the agenda is.

AN HON. MEMBER: So what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Social Services, you can joke about this all you like, but you are part of it. You are part and parcel of it, you are supporting it. If you are not supporting it you are pretending you are supporting it and that is even worse, and you can cut your losses with Clyde Wells one of these days when he walks out of this House or he goes to a press conference and says: I am going to resign. Don't sigh and say then: Wells is gone, we weren't party to it, because every last one of you over there, are as damn bad as he is on this issue. You are just as bad as he is.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) Sprung, Bill.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, that could be right. Yes, you could say that, I won't duck behind Sprung, I say to the minister, I won't duck behind Sprung. If Sprung was a mistake, I will say it was a mistake but I will tell you one thing -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, Sprung did not cost the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sprung did not cost the taxpayers and the rate payers of this Province about a billion dollars which this deal is going to cost us. $1 billion I say to the members, $1 billion in tax breaks, I am telling the members opposite, you may as well listen to me because what I am telling you is correct. The taxpayers and the rate payers of this Province, you are going to cost them about $1 billion for what you are doing now and that is besides Hydro being gone. That is Hydro gone, that's -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is their strategy trying to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - shout us down.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, we have got the gag order and now we have the cronies and the lap dogs who will try to suck in, trying to suck into the seat vacated by the hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture, trying to suck into it. You should stand up for your people; put the interest of the people before your own interest, I say to the Member for Fogo.

Now, Mr. Speaker, any way they look at this - most of them haven't looked at it, but once you do a thorough analysis -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair has -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the Member for Fogo, that he should just be quiet and speak when you are recognized -

MR. TULK: I will speak when I am ready.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Go off and try to find some more questions for one of the ministers so you get yourself flicked out of another job, that is what you should do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we have done a very thorough analysis of this piece of legislation. We have talked to people who know the industry inside out; inside out, Mr. Speaker. We have talked to people who know the industry inside out. People who were in the industry, people who are now there who have looked at this legislation. We have looked at people who are very good at finance and I can tell you now that what you are doing with this piece of legislation will cost the taxpayers and the rate payers, Mr. Speaker, $1 billion. That is with Hydro sold, and you are getting $300 million or $350 million to put against the debt, it is going to cost another $1 billion, Mr. Speaker, over a ten-year period.

Now, I say to the Member for St. John's South, for whatever you do, don't you question Cy Abery's credibility, don't you ever because that is all I hear coming out of you. Don't you ever question Cy Abery's credibility on this issue because he can smother you on this issue. He can smother anybody over there on this issue I say including the Premier. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is where this all is, that is what it is all about. It is the biggest sellout, the biggest give away, the biggest scandal that this Province has ever seen and we have had some beauts. We have had some beauts, Mr. Speaker.

Now I see ministers looking, some of them are looking very serious; some of them look like they are taking the matter seriously and I say to them, so you should. I say to those private members from the government benches, you better come clean and come clean soon, because we are running out of time on this issue. There are enough people over there, Mr. Speaker, there are enough members that if they voted according to their own convictions this piece of legislation would be defeated here. If they listened to their constituents over there it would be overwhelmingly rejected.

I say to them, familiarize yourself with the facts. Go out to your people and ask them what they - you already know - but go out and confront them, go out and face them like the Member for Pleasantville did last night. He didn't hide away, he went down and faced them. They told him in no uncertain terms what they thought of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the same way the people in the District of Grand are telling me. He didn't hide away.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Meech Lake (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the minister - don't you have the face to bring up Meech Lake to me with the charade that Clyde Wells put on in this country, He has come now and he is giving away the most valuable asset owned by the people of this Province, in a corporate boardroom with five or six of his closest buddies who have been cronies of his for the last ten years. Giving away the most valuable asset that we have, and you have the nerve to bring up Meech Lake, where Clyde Wells cried because there is so much negotiations going on in back rooms, I say to the minister?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just say to you, if you only knew what the Premier has been up to the last six or eight months you wouldn't mention Meech Lake or anything else. You wouldn't mention anything else.

Mr. Speaker, I think I'm pretty well out of time. I just want to conclude by saying this. There is no doubt where I stand on this issue. I stand foursquare behind all those who are opposed to this privatization bill. I stand foursquare with the people of the District of Grand Bank, who are deadly opposed to it. I am opposed to it because it is a bad deal, it is not in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and why give away our most valuable asset for a short fix? Because that is what it is going to be. It will be a short fix for the next fiscal year, and after that we are back in the same state, Mr. Speaker, with no Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Carried.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take -

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order. What is the purpose of the motion not to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.? We've already got a closure motion under way, haven't we, already passed? Have we not?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is right. The motion is not in order, it is not necessary.

MR. SIMMS: So it is a silly motion, and it is redundant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take my time allotted in this hon. House of Assembly to express to the people of this Province my opinion on the privatization of Hydro, and as a minister in this government, I am speaking for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One of the questions that has been put forward by the members of the Opposition today is the mandate. I can very clearly say, before the last election privatization of Hydro was a topic of this government, a topic to the people of the Province, and the people of the Province voted this government in last May. That is a mandate to government. If the argument was to be said that the topic wasn't talked about all over the Province, the people voted this government in to govern the Province. To make decisions on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is the clear thing that we want to talk about. I talked about the privatization in my district. I have employees, I have people who work with Hydro living in my district, and in fact I've had two calls from the District of Port de Grave since all of this started. One is an employee today with Hydro. One said very clearly: The government is on the right track, you should do it and you should do it immediately.

The second and only other call I got was from a senior citizen in my hometown who asked me to explain some of the things that she was hearing over the news media because she didn't understand it, that's the only two calls I received from my district.

Now I understand very clearly what the Opposition is trying to do, I served four years on the Opposition, they're trying to make political points. I have no problem with that, you have a right, but when I look around the gallery this afternoon, since 2:00 p.m. this afternoon, and saw the gallery full, I suspect a lot of those people are here to hear from both sides of this House, from all speakers, the information that should be given to them, why or why not should the Hydro bill proceed.

I can tell you up until now and the past two or three days, I personally haven't heard anything from the Opposition on why it should not proceed and if I haven't heard it sitting here in this House what have the people out in the Province heard? The purpose of the House of Assembly is to debate issues and get information out to the general public regardless of what side of the House you are sitting on. That is the people's right and that's what we as members of this House of Assembly were elected for and it's imperative that we get that information out - but political posturing? I just heard the Member for Baie Verte speak to a petition and not one word came out explaining to me, to anybody, to the people in the gallery or the people in the Province, why Hydro should not be privatized.

The Opposition House Leader just spoke a few minutes ago, he stood for a full twenty minutes and he never said one word, never gave one fact or one reason why it should not be privatized, except to accuse ministers on this side of the House, MHAs on this side of the House, or the Premier for not sitting in his chair. Now that makes a whole lot of sense! Let's suppose I am out of the House, I stay out, John Efford the minister stays out of the House of Assembly for whatever reason, what has that got to do with informing the people of the House or the public why Hydro should not be privatized? Give them the facts and give them the information - the one comment I also heard this afternoon: this is the most devastating thing to hit this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wake up.

MR. EFFORD: Boy's look in the paper, look in the mirror, look in this Province for 550-odd years we have tried to survive on the resources of this Province and the waters around this Province.

The Member for Ferryland should hold his head down because he was one of the people who said: the most devastating crisis to hit this Province is the privatization of Hydro and he's from the largest fishing district in this whole island. In all of his district we have seen this totally wiped out. The lost of 40,000 jobs in this Province gone and I'll say to the people in this gallery and the people in this Province, if we would only put our energies all together. I spoke for two years across this Province saying what's going to affect every man, woman and child in this Province, regardless of where you live, the closure of the fishery will be the total destruction of Newfoundland. If we had put the same energies into that as we have into this Hydro bill, which the Opposition crowd are kicking up, we'd be a lot better off today then we're going to be in the future of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: We're talking about money, $1 billion lost on Hydro, they can't explain it but they keep repeating the number, over the next ten years. $700 million coming into this Province in value added product from the fishery, multiply that by fifty years, how many billion dollars is that? How many hundred thousand people will not be working in this Province? Never mind not being able to pay a light bill that may increase 2, 3, or 4 per cent. There will be nobody who will need a light bill because there'll be no houses there to heat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pick your priorities.

MR. EFFORD: You think I'm crazy? Look at the paper. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is they don't know what the real issue is here. Why should government be in the business of operating companies? Why should government ever be involved in private industry? It's the silliest thing ever anybody could possibly talk about.

I heard a comment on the news this morning, people talking about Hydro, and what Hydro is turning in to the Province. When was Hydro formed in this Province? Name me the year, and name me the amount of money that has been turned back in to the people, to the taxpayers, since the day Hydro opened its doors.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not one cent.

MR. EFFORD: Not one penny.

Now, let me tell the people in the gallery, the people in the Province: I was in private business a number of years before I got into politics, and when I went to a bank and borrowed money, I had to pay interest on it, and that interest was taken out of the profits, and if the interest was as great as the money that was coming into the company, on my profit sheet, it meant I got no money out of it.

Now, Hydro owes $1.2 billion, and I suspect on that money they must be paying interest. They must be paying interest. Do the people in the Province know how much interest is being paid on it? Last year they profited approximately $120 million. Out of that $120 million, approximately $100 million went in debt charges, and we say that Hydro should not be privatized? That government should keep paying those debt charges out to the financial markets of the world? That if that was privatized and that debt was no longer there, that $100 million would not come back into the Province?

The Member for Menihek smiles. You are a private businessman today, and you know what the profit and loss sheet means in a business, so don't stand up in this House of Assembly and say anything else, it would be hypocritical for you to repeat that the bottom line at the end of the year doesn't mean to the owners, and the owners of Hydro, and the taxpayers, the people in this Province, and the money that comes back is to their benefit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell the truth.

MR. EFFORD: Tell the truth. The problem is, I'm telling the truth and you don't want to listen to what is happening in this Province.

I just can't imagine. I look right around at all the tables over there. I look at the Member for St. John's East Extern, the Member for Baie Verte, the Member for Placentia, and the what-d'you-call-it from Green Bay, and all the other people, from Ferryland, every one of you affected by the industry that is most important in this Province, and I have been here for the last four or five years listening, and not once have I heard any really strong debate on trying to do something to save the future of this Province. Not once have I heard you. Yet you saw it sufficient enough yesterday, on the Hydro bill, to walk out of this House of Assembly. When have I heard people get out?

We have had demonstrations all over this city for two years, and not at one time did I see an Opposition member there. My friend from Pleasantville was there, and members on this side, but not one member of the Opposition was there, and did that matter to this Province? That mattered to the whole survival of this Province, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker, I agree totally. I was one Member of this House of Assembly from 1985 to 1989 who believed in the rights of oppositions to have an opportunity to speak, to debate, in the House of Assembly, and to get the message out to the general public. I spent night and day at it. We cried day after day, and we shouted day after day, to keep this House of Assembly opened, and how little did it accomplish. A short session in the spring of the year, close it, and no more until the next year. You talk about blindfolding and muzzling the people, and gagging the people.

MR. FLIGHT: Operate on special warrants. A full year on special warrants.

MR. EFFORD: A full year on special warrants, rather than open the House of Assembly so that the people of the Province could hear what was going on. Only for we were aggressive in our manner in Opposition, and no matter whether the House was opened or closed, we got the message out to the general public.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, let me tell the people of this Province, we just talked about the money that was paid on the debt that Hydro owes, that Hydro is paying, collecting in Hydro fees, the money that they sell their power for, collecting back from the people of this Province to pay that thing.

Let's use a figure, and I don't know if the accuracy is going to be there; I will just use it for an example, when Hydro is sold, and the money that the Province will receive. Let's use $300 million for a figure. I can't tell you if that is going to be accurate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four hundred million!

MR. EFFORD: I said, an example, $200 million, $300 million, $400, million, $500 million. I don't care what the figure is used, but let's use it for an example. If we get $500 million or $300 million for the sale of Hydro and it comes into the revenues of this government, we will not have to borrow that amount of money on the bond markets.

AN HON. MEMBER: One year! And it's gone forever!

MR. EFFORD: Make no wonder they got rid of you. I can tell you, the private businessman from Labrador wouldn't agree with you. Let me explain. If we borrow $300 million or $400 million this year, think about it, that will be a long-term debt, forever and ever, as long as -

MR. MURPHY: Every year.

MR. EFFORD: Every year that money will be there. We will have to pay - let's use the figure of 10 per cent interest. That will equal about $30 million a year in interest that we will pay - you, not we, you, the taxpayers of this Province - will pay forever and ever and ever. Remember what I said earlier. Hydro to date has not turned any money in to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Have returned no profits to us as of yet. If that sale goes through $30 million will be derived from it each and every year from here on in.

Do the people of the Province know that? We just talked about $100 million being paid out that is not going to be (inaudible) once that debt is paid off, and we will be receiving $30 million more into the revenues, interest paid on a $300 million loan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), explain that one!

MR. EFFORD: That $100 million is going out in interest charges every (inaudible) the financial markets all over the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, they are on that side of the House of Assembly. Make no wonder this Province is in debt almost $7 billion. With an idea and a brain like that, make no wonder. One hundred million dollars interest and debt payment. What is that? You are not paying for it, so it is there. The debt is paid off and it is there. You don't have to pay that out any more. Then you -

MR. TOBIN: Let Beaton give you the answers.

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MR. FLIGHT: No, you provide the answers. You are going to be called on to provide the answers, don't worry.

MR. EFFORD: Hold on. Mr. Speaker, I will stand in this House of Assembly, I will stand anywhere in this Province. I took full responsibility as Minister of Social Services for the accusations that were made and the perceptions which followed. I resigned from that position. I stood out in the general public for two years and I fought for the fishery of this Province, and the people of Port de Grave gave me the largest majority ever in this Island and re-elected me to this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I hold no shame. If you think that you can get me insulted or insult me by saying that I received questions, or somebody has received questions, you can stand on the tallest building of this Province or in this country and you can shout it. I will hold my head with anybody in this Province, including you.

MR. TOBIN: Who cares, who cares?

MR. EFFORD: Well then, don't say it. If you don't care, don't repeat it.

MR. TOBIN: Who cares? You are getting up and you are asking questions, I say let Beaton get you the answers. I will say it again too.

MR. EFFORD: And you are representing those people? You should be ashamed of yourself.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have recognized the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take up too much more time in debating, because other hon. members want the opportunity to speak. All I want to do is for the rest of this evening, as long as this House of Assembly remains sitting, I am sitting here to listen, as well as the people of this Province, to listen to the true facts. It is time now, today - closure has been brought into the House of Assembly. It is time now for the people of the Province to hear both sides of the debate on what the values, what are the pros and cons of privatization or not privatizing Hydro. That is what this debate is all about.

I can honestly tell you, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that the people of Port de Grave District, who I have a very close relationship with, as all other members do, I've had two phone calls. Two simple phone calls and that is it. I know that it is costing the taxpayers of this Province - the rate payers, I should say - of this Province $100 million a year in debt charges. I know that if we don't borrow $300 million and we put it into our revenues, we will pay $30 million less next year on interest charges, and forever and ever and ever into the future. So that is $130 million that will be gained there.

There are all sorts of reasons, Mr. Speaker, but the main factor I conclude is that government should not be involved in private business. Leave that to the private entrepreneurs of this Province, and this country, to promote and develop. Let private industry do it. Governments should be in the position of setting policy and providing support, providing a good business climate in this Province so that private industry can go ahead, people will have jobs and pay taxes, and when people pay taxes government can provide the essential services that the people of this Province require. That is the extent to which government should be involved. As far as privatization being the worse crisis of this Province that is utter nonsense. The biggest crisis that hit this Province, Mr. Speaker, started a number of years ago in the fishery. It is here today and that is the thing we should be looking forward to straightening out in this Province. Let us stop this silly nonsense in this House of Assembly and tell the people of this Province the truth as to what is really happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with great interest to the presentation by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I listened to the comments earlier during the presentation of petitions by the Minister of Finance who was pleading for some details in this debate. Members opposite constantly interrupted the Opposition House Leader while he spoke in the debate and asked for details as to why. I thought for sure when the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation got up to speak he was going to give us all kinds of reasons, and the people of the Province, all kinds of reasons why the privatization of Hydro is such a great idea. Now the only thing I heard him mention was the same thing that the Premier talked about since last October, the idea of the short-term gain, the one shot $450 million, or whatever, and the fact that we would save $25 million in interest over the coming years. Now, that is the only two points the hon. minister made, nothing else.

MR. BAKER: That is per year.

MR. SIMMS: I understand, per year. The Minister of Finance can speak afterwards but I would appreciate it if he would let me carry on without interjecting because we only have twenty minutes since he put on the gag order. We only have twenty minutes to begin with.

Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a lot more input during the presentation of petitions because most of the petitions dealt with Hydro. They were petitions from people who wanted to ask the government to back off on this whole scheme. Again, nobody opposite made a case, except for the same points, the only couple of points they keep making. It is clear, I guess, Mr. Speaker, to anybody who is listening that members opposite are brainwashed. They are not prepared to have an open mind. They are not prepared to listen to what people are saying out in the public, on the airwaves, in the newspapers, and at public meetings.

To simply dismiss the feelings of the people by saying you only had two phone calls from your district, to me is an absolute derogation of your duties and responsibilities as an MHA. Surely, you will not judge simply because you only got a couple of phone calls that you do not think people are against this. One would have to be absolutely, totally, blind, and deaf to not know the outrage and the anger that is out there among the people of this Province over this particular issue. You would have to be just simply closing your eyes and putting you hands over your ears.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance wanted details, he said that in his presentation, during the presentation he made in petitions, but he did not give us any details. He did not give us any arguments. He just pleaded with us to give more detail, more argument, but yet they are the government, they are the ones who are bringing forth the legislation, and they are not telling anybody what the details are. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when this became public last October the Premier's point publicly was there will be no details, there will be no talk, there will be no discussion until the deal is finalized, and then we will bring it to the House of Assembly. Those are his very words, Mr. Speaker, reported publicly; and, Mr. Speaker, why would people call the Liberals in this Province anyway, why would they? They know that the Liberals opposite, the members opposite are not going to listen to them. They understand because I know some Liberals over there who have received phone calls and I know what the Liberals have said to the callers because they phoned me afterwards.

I know the Member for Terra Nova, I know the Member for St. George's had phone calls yesterday, for example, from an outraged lady who lives on Bell Island and she told me what they had to say. They absolutely have their minds closed and, Mr. Speaker, as long as there is a vacancy in Cabinet, you can be darn tootin' and you can be sure that none of them over there in the back benches is going to bolt, save for those who are approaching the issue with a degree of sensitivity and responsibility like the Member for Pleasantville. Mr. Speaker, that is what we are going to see, and of course, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, he is not hearing anything because he is not listening, that is why, Mr. Speaker, because he is not listening.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I want to mention before I get into some points that I want to make, is that everywhere I go around the Province, and I travel a fair bit, as much as any member on that side of the House I would say, around the Province. Every where I go people tell me what their concerns are.

AN HON. MEMBER: He went to Bell Island.

MR. SIMMS: Members opposite can interrupt, interject, they can laugh, they can joke and they can do all they want, all they want; if they are as stunned and stupid as I think they are, go outside in the coffee room and let people who want to have a sensible say in the debate, Mr. Speaker, have their say, and I hope that the Chair will protect members who want to speak on this side of the House, who want to give the Opposition's views without having to face that kind of a silly, stupid interjection.

Mr. Speaker, people will tell you everywhere they go some of their reasons. They are opposed to it because there will be higher electricity rates, even the Premier confirms there will be higher electricity rates and the debate is about how high, but there is no doubt there will be higher electricity rates. There will be a loss of jobs, even the Premier admits there will be a loss of jobs and again the debate is only about how many or how large. There will be a loss of ownership, Mr. Speaker, and a loss of control of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, of that there is no argument; there will be a loss of economic opportunities because we will have lost that economic lever, of that there is no argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if you could have the hyena over there from Windsor - Buchans, please leave the House, I would much appreciate it. Is Your Honour going to give members protection or not and let them speak?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has already indicated that I recognized the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and I ask hon. members to stop shouting across the House. The hon. member has a right to speak in this House and to be heard.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. It is pretty clear what their tactics are -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health, on a point of order.

MR. SIMMS: - they bring in the gag order of twenty minutes limitation to your speech and they interject and interrupt with points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health on a point of order.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that in this House, it was improper for a member to refer to another member by the name of an animal and the hon. member for the Opposition called the hon. Member for Windsor - Buchans a hyena, and I think that is unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker, and I think he should apologize.

MR. SIMMS: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. That is such a silly interruption I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the hon. member has withdrawn the comment.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: It is very obvious what their strategy is, Mr. Speaker, they are burning on this one, they are burning on it, they are feeling the heat, so the strategy is to go into the House with a limitation of twenty minutes per speaker, do all you can to interject, laugh loudly, talk, do everything you can to interject, points of order, do all of that and run out their twenty minutes of speaking time; and then the Minister of Finance asks us to try to put forward some arguments; why doesn't he try to control his own people over there to give us an opportunity to do that, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Ah, never mind. When you're after elephants you don't bother with rabbits, like the young man up there in the Northern Peninsula.

Then we often heard the Premier use the Nova Scotia argument. That is one of his great arguments. What a wonderful thing happened in Nova Scotia when they privatized their power operation. Well, Mr. Speaker, here is what happened in Nova Scotia, and if the Premier would tell the truth then he wouldn't use the same argument ever again.

In Nova Scotia, electricity rates have increased. In Nova Scotia, first of all, they don't generate their power through water resources. Ninety per cent of it is from coal and imported oil, so it's different altogether - a different operation. In Nova Scotia their credit rating was downgraded by two credit rating agencies. In Nova Scotia, a year after they were told there would be no job losses, there were 400 jobs eliminated, after the privatized company took over.

MR. FLIGHT: That had nothing to do with privatization.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, yes, it had all to do with privatization. See, there you go, Mr. Speaker. Now there you go. It's the Premier himself who keeps using Nova Scotia as a great example. This happened after privatization in Nova Scotia, I say to the hon. member, and it goes to show the Member for Windsor - Buchans, his role is that of a $100,000 interjector, I suppose. That's about the role he has been playing since this debate started.

It certainly didn't help the people of Nova Scotia, I say to the Minister of Finance, because a few months after the government changed, after the election up there, the provincial Liberals had promised during the election campaign there would not be any increases in taxes, and there were significant increases in a number of their taxes in the - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Had to be.

MR. SIMMS: Had to be.

So this was all after they had been told: Privatization will be great. It will be great for our credit rating. It will be great for our people - and it's been absolute nonsense and bunkum. That's the reality.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another fact is this, contrary to what the Premier has been saying. The Premier said undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador were excluded in the privatization bill. That's what he told the press last Friday. Now in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now be careful, I say to the minister, because one of the ministers in this House already confirmed the accusation that I made in Question Period the other day, that in fact that is not true. That is an inaccurate statement by the Premier, and that in fact the Minister of Finance will have the right to determine what undeveloped water rights are given away in the future. That is in the legislation, in your bill, so don't try to tell the people, and con the people, into thinking that undeveloped water rights on the Island and in Labrador were excluded in the bill, because they are not. It is a false statement.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the debt restructuring, the Premier also said that we would extinguish the debt of Hydro guaranteed by the Province, and that extinguishing that guaranteed debt would be positive for the Province's credit rating. He also said that.

Now my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl, addressed that topic here today. First of all I have to say this to members opposite. It is a fact, Hydro's debt is a guaranteed debt, but it is not part of the direct debt of the Province. We have never paid a cent towards that debt, and we would never have to pay because the cost of servicing and repaying the debt is included in Hydro's rate base, and members opposite don't understand that. That is backed up by a state-of-the-art group of assets that are worth two or three times the debt, and anybody in the industry will tell you that, because every time they've gone to the Public Utilities Board they have always had to have an assessment done of the operation of Hydro, and it's always come out as being one of the best operations in the country, the fourth largest utility in Canada, one of the most efficient utility operations in the whole country.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's true.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that is all true. The Minister of Finance can confirm it. Members opposite behind him don't believe him, because they are all interjecting and saying: na, na, na, na, na, but it is true, and the reality is that under this legislation, when this privatization occurs however, the Province will still guarantee, and therefore be liable as long as they guarantee, the amount of the old Hydro debt that will remain after reorganization.

They'll get whatever they get from the sale of shares and whatever that amount is left the Province will still guarantee it, under the legislation. It's in the legislation. So the fact is, the Province will continue to guarantee the debt, that's my whole point, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: Do you understand the rest of it?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I understand all of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, he talked about the defeasing, he brought in the defeasing and tried to explain the defeasing. How many people in this Province will understand defeasing? How many people? The Premier himself said it's a new word, he didn't totally understand it. Now, Mr. Speaker -

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

MR. SIMMS: He said that. Mr. Speaker, he said it himself, read Hansard if you want to. The point is, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to members opposite that they get somebody who's in the financial consulting business, somebody in that kind of business to get them to come in and explain to you what defeasing means and what defeasing means in this instance, what it means in the case of the Hydro privatization. You will be startled to find out that it's a little bit more, it's a little bit different than what the Premier explained here in the House as he tried to play that down as if that was somehow going to be a cost. In the long term it will be a cost because - what it means is they go out and they'll get - they have five years I think it is or up to five years to build up a portfolio of securities, perhaps Canada Treasury Notes or whatever, to get enough money to look after the arrangement that has been made over a period of time but Mr. Speaker, they'll use the cash flow from those securities and that will service the debt and repay all of the other debentures according to their maturity, up to the year 2017 I guess for most of them, not all, some are beyond 2017.

It also says in the legislation that new Hydro shall - this means it will, has to - include the cost of defeasing that debt in its rate base, amortized up to forty years but still, Mr. Speaker, it's going to cost the consumers of the Province in the long run.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) it's their debt.

MR. SIMMS: Well there, the minister now confirms, yes it will in fact cost consumers. So it will cost the consumers of the Province not new Hydro. It is going to cost the consumers who will pay off that remaining debt, whatever it is, in interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the same thing.

MR. SIMMS: It's not the same the thing, Mr. Speaker. It's going to cost the consumers. I understand new -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydro is controlled by the Public Utilities Board.

MR. SIMMS: Well now listen, now that's another argument. We'd need another twenty minute debate, Mr. Speaker, in this House when you say that new Hydro is controlled by the Public Utilities Board. Anybody who has done any research on applications before the Public Utilities Board in the past, will know, Mr. Speaker, will understand the Public Utilities Board has to undertake certain obligations. There are certain things they must do and what I'm talking about here in the case of defeasing has nothing to do with the Public Utilities Board because it's in the act, it's included in the rate base. That is before you even go to the Public Utilities Board to make your case for an increase or further increases.

All of these costs and expenses must be included and there are many other costs that must be included as the minister knows. I am just going to mention to him some of the things that they have in the act. All the debt premiums and costs relating to the portion of Hydro's debt that will be paid off from the proceeds of the sale of Hydro's shares, between twenty and thirty - the government says $20 million, there are those in the field who think that will be as much as $30 million. All the fees and commissions paid by new Hydro when they sell their shares on the issue and save on their shares, all the foreign currency exchange losses that might occur, part of the unfunded pension liabilities, all of those things in addition to that, compensation to anybody who is deprived of their interest in the land, up to $5 million, that's all there. Why you'd have that there if there is no land loss I don't quite understand but that's another issue.

The cost of purchasing, servicing and managing the investment securities that Hydro must acquire to defease. All of those costs, Mr. Speaker, have to be included in the rate base. That is before you even go. Then, to top it all off, as if they haven't covered enough, here is what the item number seven says in the act: All costs or expenses of any sort whatsoever relating directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever to the reorganization or distribution to the public of the shares of Hydro.

So they've covered off just about everything. Coffee, doughnuts and the whole bit. They've made sure - that will mean, all of those expenses charged out to the rate payers amount to - the government's figures - $165 million. There are others, including us, who are estimating it could be as much as $200 million. Not counting the costs and expenses in that point seven which says everything.

So those costs will be amortized over a period of fifteen to forty years. That means that the consumers of the Province, the rate payers, are going to pay the interest and other expenses associated during that amortization period. Now, if you amortize that amount of money - $165 million to $200 million - over say twenty-eight years, which is the median between fifteen and forty years, at 8 per cent, that will cost rate payers about $16 million to $18 million a year.

The Minister of Finance nods. He confirms. Members opposite unfortunately weren't listening to all this, because it is too detailed for them. All of those costs are going to mean to the rate payers $16 million to $18 million a year. That is point number one, $16 million to $18 million under that aspect.

I haven't even gotten into the debt, the 1 per cent guarantee fee, which is another $10 million to $12 million a year that we now get from Hydro which will be lost. The Premier has said that will not be charged any longer. That is true. The Minister of Finance confirms that. I don't have a lot of time to get into all the points, but already the Minister of Finance has now confirmed those costs I've pointed to - the amortization costs and all the rest of it - would amount to a $16 million or $18 million a year loss. He has also confirmed we will not get the 1 per cent fee. That is $10 million to $12 million. Already you are up to $28 million approximately a year that we are going to lose, and you say you are going to save $25 million.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that doesn't even talk about the extra money that is going to be because of the $300 million worth of equity that is going to be purchased by new Hydro from old Hydro. It doesn't even include those costs. It doesn't include the difference between the debt service cost and the rate of return on equity on that $300 million that will be converted from debt to equity, eventually, at the time of privatization, which is about another $10 million a year. The Minister of Finance nods.

It doesn't include the $5 million a year as more debt is converted to equity after privatization, in order to achieve that 50-50 equity debt ratio that we've talked about before, new Hydro is going to need in order to maintain its credibility. It doesn't include the $12 million that is going to be subsidized, that rural deficit, because of the rates - you know, the subsidy that is going to be removed for rural consumers, because the rates paid by home owners elsewhere will have to go up to cover that cost. That is estimated around $12 million a year.

You have to remember all this now, my friends. Then you will find out where the Opposition House Leader got his $100 million figure. I haven't even touched on the other points that you've already announced yourself as a cost to taxpayers. The $15 million rate adjustment fund. Members are familiar with that one. The $10 million in guarantee fee that I talked about. The $30 million to $40 million in federal transfers under PUITTA, under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. That is going to be lost to the Province because it is going back to Light and Power, and it will go back to the new private company instead of coming to the Province's revenues. That is $30 million to $40 million.

Then there is $30 million to $40 million worth of contribution made by the Province to new Hydro's pension plan. It will be amortized, we are told now - it makes it even worse - by the Minister of Mines and Energy yesterday. So, Mr. Speaker, in total the net cost of all these subsidies and all of these tax concessions -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Finance gives me leave. Thank you.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, just to finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up?

MR. SIMMS: The Member for Exploits doesn't want to give me leave. That's fine, Mr. Speaker. They've got one gag order on. What difference does it make?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I assure the hon. member that I will be here as long as he is, and maybe a lot longer. Let me tell you that, now. Last year about this time his people were out there running against me, and they were making statements like that. As a matter of fact, the president of his party was out, and one of the main claims that he had while the election was on was that the last time he ran he was very proud that he got his nomination fee back. Well I am going to tell you that he didn't get it back last year when he ran against me. So anyone who wants to come and run against me in Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir, let him come on.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to stand here today and speak on this bill. The privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is long overdue, and I would point out to members opposite, and to the people, that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a creature of a far-seeing Liberal government, because back in the sixties, when the Liberal government then was there, they realized that there was a problem in Newfoundland, that there was a shortage of Hydro, and a potential shortage of Hydro, nobody was interested. Private businesses at the time were not interested in getting involved in development of electricity in Bay d'Espoir, because they didn't think that it was a profitable business. It was a far-reaching Liberal government that went in there, developed it, created work, and now we realize how important it was that the Liberal government at that time made the decision, because we now have an asset that is now going to be privatized and put up for sale.

We hear people over there talk about the price, and we're not going to get a fair price for it, but let me tell the people that the fair price of anything is the price that you realize when you sell it. For whatever you can sell it for is a fair price. So I am sure that in the investigation that the government has made they realize that now is the time to get a fair price for this asset which was developed at a time when private businesses weren't interested in getting in it because it wasn't there. It would have had to be developed down through the years. There was no need for the power when it was developed. We had more power in Newfoundland than we needed.

All of a sudden, by virtue of the fact that there was a government that made that decision, we were able to supply power down through the years to Newfoundland as it was needed, and we now have a valuable asset which this government, in its wisdom, decides that it's time to be privatized.

When we look at privatization, privatization is not a new word. Privatization is something that is going on in the western world, all over the western world, all through Canada, every major Crown corporation has been privatized down through the years. The reason this was done is because of the fact that people have found that businesses operate better if they are handled by private interests rather than Crown corporations or governments.

Now the thing we hear about this privatization of Hydro, we hear a great hue and cry that there has been no public input. Now I had a call from a lady from Power to the People, and she asked about it. I pointed out to her that it was this government that really introduced the opportunity for people to have public input into the affairs that go on in this legislation. I am Chairman of one of the committees and when we go out and hear people, we hear members, when they want to on the opposite side, criticize us because we went out and had public hearings. Now, all of a sudden, in the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we are finding that we should be out there having public hearings. We had public hearings for the insurance bill, the smoking bill and now we should be out there.

Mr. Speaker, during the last six months we have had nothing else but public input into Newfoundland Hydro; every time that you picked up a paper or turned on the favourite program of some people, Bas, there has been a continual lobby against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. People have had every opportunity through those public forums to have their input. Now, what I have found about public hearings - when you have public hearings in a committee, you will find that the only people who show up are the people who have a vested interest, the people who are either dead set against it or, you know, vehemently for it.

I will give you an example. One of the pieces of legislation that the members of the Opposition who are on our committee asked us to have a public hearing on, and we announced and had a couple of people who wanted to appear, was a nursing assistants act. The only ones who showed up - there was a fight in the association among themselves, an internal fight, so they came down and appeared before this public committee that we set up to give them a forum. That, I don't think, is why we should have public input.

Now, everyone who has wanted to have anything to say or to have an input has had a chance to do this and make a statement regarding privatization. They have had it through the media, through the Open Lines and through the petitions that we have heard the members over there present for the last two or three days. Now, you can go out and get petitions and get people to give you their names and send them in. There is always enough people to sign a petition for you, to say: `Oh, yes, we are against it,' if the right person goes and asks them the question, but you know, if we were going to have petitions on this, you would almost think that the district that I represent, Burgeo - Bay d' Espoir, which is one of the few districts in the Province where there are 200 people working with Hydro, you would almost think that my office up there would have had all kinds of petitions and I would have all kinds of calls, but you know, Mr. Speaker, I haven't, and that is what surprised me.

When we talked first of all about the merger of Fortis and Hydro, I went down and had meetings with the town councils in my district, Milltown, St. Alban's, Burgeo, Ramea. I had meetings with those town councils and the thing about it, they had all received the propaganda that was sent out by members opposite telling them why this shouldn't happen and the same thing is done again, and I will give you an interesting little thing that happened in Milltown. The Mayor of Milltown is a worker with Newfoundland Hydro. Last week, he and his council came in to St. John's and one of the meetings they had was with the Minister of Mines and Energy; they had some concerns because - I am going to talk about the taking of the control centre out of Bay d'Espoir, I am going to talk about that before I am finished, but one of the things they did was, when they were taking the control centre out of Bay d'Espoir, back in the days when some of these gentlemen over there were in power, one of the bribes that they did to the Bay d'Espoir area was, they made an agreement with them, they were going to do certain things over the next four or five, six years, so the town council in Bay d'Espoir were concerned that now, with the possible privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, this agreement was going to be cancelled.

They came and talked to the minister and the minister assured them, no, that one of the things that Hydro would certainly be maintaining was the agreement that they had with Bay d'Espoir. Then, at the conclusion of that meeting, the Mayor of Bay d'Espoir and the delegation who was there said: `Mr. Minister, now that we understand what is going to happen, we agree with you and we think that privatization is the best thing that is going to happen to the Province, the best thing that is going to happen to Bay d'Espoir' -and that is where there are 200 employees working with Newfoundland Hydro down there. So there are those people down there.

When you talk about the public input, if there were going to be a need, or I felt there was a need, I would certainly be the first one to be up here saying: go slowly, let us have public hearings, but in the district that I represent, as I said, I am not getting complaints, you know, I am not getting the petitions. Now, if I wanted to go out, as the hon. woman from Corner Brook went out, and wanted to organize a group that was against it, I am sure that I could find a group down there, the same group who were out trying to defeat me last year, I am sure that I could get every one of them to come out and sign that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Would there be enough names?

MR. GILBERT: I don't know, there would be a few though, there would be a few, but I am sure that there is no great crying concern. The normal people of Newfoundland, the day-to-day people of Newfoundland, realize that the sale of Hydro is what it is, a private business deal that is going to be good for the Province and, in the long run, we are all going to benefit from this privatization.

If not, it would be awfully stupid of a government to sit here and make this decision, that if all the dire results that the members opposite are trying to get us to believe now when they take on to emotionalism, and they clutch the flag and say, if you are going to do this, you are destroying Newfoundland. If all the concerns those people have expressed, all the dire results that they say are going to happen, if they were going to happen, this government wouldn't be credited with much sense to make this decision. Because they are going to have to answer to the people in four years time for the decision that we are making now.

I stand here and support the decision that was made by government. I'm sure it was well thought out, and I'm sure that in the long run we are all going to benefit from it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: Some of the concerns that are expressed to me in the areas that, as I say, should be most concerned about the privatization of Hydro, are the people who work there. That is, from the people of Milltown and St. Alban's, where there are 200 employees.

I have related in the House a couple of times the feeling that they have about Hydro. They feel that, although some of my colleagues and some people will say that maybe Hydro is well managed now. I hear Mr. Abery say that it is, so I'm sure that he would have some idea about it. He says it is a well-managed company. The people who are on the street down in Bay d'Espoir don't think it is a well-managed company. I tell you, instead of getting petitions, I'm going to read a letter now - and I will enter it into the record - one that I received from Milltown on February 16, 1994.

It wasn't a petition, now, Mr. Speaker - I suppose it was a petition. It is a copy of a letter that was sent to me, the letter that was sent to Dave Mercer, the President of Hydro. It says:

Mr. D. Mercer

Hydro Place

Newfoundland Hydro

St. John's Newfoundland

I would like to bring to your attention some of the reasons why the residents of this area are upset with Hydro. When I look at my Hydro bill -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member.

MR. GILBERT: I will continue with the letter:

When I look at my Hydro bill, I see in it a reflection of your Hydro policies. On February 3, at approximately 1:35 p.m., I was driving from St. Alban's during a snowstorm when I heard on my scanner an employee of yours - now, Mr. Speaker, I have blocked out the name, because I don't think it is fair to put his name in, because it is to the letter, but the rest of it will go in - calling the Hydro plant asking where his wife was stuck. He arrived in St. Josephs Cove with a four-wheel drive truck, another employee, looking for his wife, who by now, was home.

I discreetly enquired if this was a policy, but could not get an answer. However, I was told that he did get a phone call saying his wife was now home. So he left the job taking a four-wheel drive and another employee and spent an hour-and-a-half away from the job, two men for a total of three hours. Again, on February 12, I heard on my scanner this same person saying that he was going to his cabin and if needed, the plant could reach him on the radio - again, Hydro gas and truck. This is just one employee, how many others? I hope you look into the matter before the media becomes involved.

Instead of the protest that I would be getting, the petitions and stuff like that, Mr. Speaker, that's the sort of letters I am getting from Bay d'Espoir. Now I have read it so I will table it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You could get a lot more, too.

MR. GILBERT: I could get a lot more, but the only thing about it - the last time I spoke in this House about Hydro I mentioned that the Mayor of St. Alban's told me when he was an employee of Newfoundland Hydro he was told to stay in a motel overnight rather than drive on because this month they weren't paying overtime; this month it was alright to pay hotels but not overtime.

So let me tell you, when I hear the hue and cry from that side, I think there is a community of interest that anything that this government brings in they're going to try and express dire results of it and I'm telling you that's what's happening right now. I don't think there's any great need or pressure out there from ordinary people to have this. There is a certain element who call Open Line who want to have it but in the districts - and the members here all represent districts and have to go back into that district at some time - they realize that it's not there or they wouldn't be supporting the option. The government made a decision, a wise one, and I think the sooner we get on with privatization, the better it's going to be for all of us.

Now, if I wanted another reason to say why we should privatize Newfoundland Hydro, I would talk about a situation that happened in 1987. It started in 1987 over there when, actually the other government decided, that they were going to - one of their friends was building a building downtown and they were going to rent it to put the control centre in, but we found out about it here in Opposition and we started asking questions about it. I can remember asking questions and then, The Sunday Express, I think, at the time, wrote a story on this building downtown that was vacant and known by a good supporter of the Tory Party. The next thing, very quickly after that, a decision was made that Hydro was going to build a place, build an office building in here. So the only way they could justify spending the taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, was to say that they were going to take the control centre out of Bay d'Espoir and move it into this new Taj Mahal that Mr. Abery was building so that he could have an office that was just as good as the people in Hydro Quebec, that he could have just as impressive an office as Hydro Quebec had when he went to have his meetings with the people who worked with Hydro Quebec. I asked Mr. Abery in this House when I was in Opposition over there about the move. Why was it necessary to have the move? There was no reason why they had to take the control centre out of Bay d'Espoir. As a matter of fact he said the control centre could be operated from Halifax or Montreal. It was just that we were building a building here in St. John's and we thought it would be nice to bring it in and put it in here.

Now, when people ask me about why I believe in privatization, Mr. Speaker, I tell them to come to St. John's, drive out over Columbus Drive and look at the most expensive office building in Newfoundland, built at the taxpayer's expense. Mr. Abery, is now saying that we should not privatize it. Well, I suppose to God he would. He is getting his pension from working there. He just wasted $15 million by bringing a building out of Bay d' Espoir and taking forty people out of Bay d'Espoir and bringing them into St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible) office suite -

MR. GILBERT: Now, the other thing, and I would have forgotten that, Mr. Abery the man who we hear now is one of the experts on Hydro, we realize Mr. Abery was a friend of Mr. Moores and Mr. Peckford, and one of the government employees here, so he was seconded to go over to run Hydro. I have no problem with that. He was a civil servant. He is an expert now that he has spent five or six years in Hydro before he took his $87,000 a year pension, or whatever he took. He is an expert but he was a civil servant here who was transferred over. I have some doubts about his degree of expertise. The thing that really frightens me about this, Mr. Speaker, is that here is the man who was instrumental in building this building on Columbus Drive and wasting $15, $16, or $17 million of the taxpayers money.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, $40 million.

MR. GILBERT: $40 million someone says. He went in to his penthouse office and when he went in there he discovered, oh my God, this is an air conditioned building. Is there a window here I can open? No, there is no window, Mr. Abery, because this is an air conditioned building. All of a sudden there was an executive order issued: we want those windows open so that we can have fresh air, and another $1.5 million was spent so that Cyril Abery could have an open window and breath fresh air. The people of the Province paid another $1.5 million. This is taxpayer's money we are talking about. This is part of the debt we have to pay off, Mr. Speaker, and this is what we are talking about.

Then when I hear that other great expert who is out there now talking about privatization of Hydro that makes me think a little bit, too, his cohort, Mr. Wells. I wonder why Mr. Wells would be against the privatization of Hydro?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which Wells now? Which one? Andy?

MR. GILBERT: That's Mr. Andy Wells, Mr. Abery's partner, his open line partner. Why would he be against it? Well, I suppose Mr. Wells is an expert, because he was another political appointment by the previous government - Mr. Andy Wells, the man they appointed to the Public Utilities Board to protect the consumer. Yet, I heard him on open line this morning - I had the occasion to listen this morning; they mentioned my brother-in-law's name - and he mentioned that while he was the consumer's rep on this Public Utilities Board, while he was there, he took the opportunity to go down to Texas and go to school to take his Masters degree.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did that cost?

MR. GILBERT: I don't know, and I wonder who was protecting the consumers then on the Public Utilities Board, while he was down in Texas going to school, if the taxpayers were paying for it? That is the sort of person who is leading the charge against the privatization of Hydro, and that is the reason that I support the privatization of Hydro first, the fact that I represent a district that is going to be most affected by it. The people there trust the government, and feel that it is a good thing. I feel that the government has made a good decision, and when I see the quality and the type of people, and the emotionalism that they are putting into it, the nationalism, I suppose, the last defence of a scoundrel, and when I see them clutching the flag, and start supporting that, and the type of people who are doing it, I proudly support the Hydro privatization, and the quicker the better.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!


 

March 10, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLII  No. 9A


[Continuation of sitting]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with some regret that I stand to speak in the debate, since the government have brought in closure. They have seen fit to implement the gag order, Mr. Speaker - they have put the boots to democracy in this Province. It is regrettable, after three speakers, the leaders of the three parties, that the government have seen fit to bring in closure. I don't know of any other democratic institution that has ever brought in closure after three speakers. I'm not sure that there has been ever, ever, closure brought in after three speakers anywhere in the British parliamentary system. I challenge anyone, Mr. Speaker, to show this House where anywhere in the British parliamentary system closure was introduced after three speakers on a motion, certainly on a motion as important as this one. I think it's regrettable and unfortunate but it's part of the mandate and the dictatorship of the Premier and the Government of this Province - I think that's where it comes from.

Mr. Speaker, today it was interesting that the Government House Leader stood in the middle of Petitions and made a motion that we move to Orders of the Day. Why didn't the Government House Leader do it before he brought in the gag order, Mr. Speaker? Why didn't the Government House Leader do it on Monday? Why didn't he do it on Tuesday? Why did he bring in a gag order and then introduce this motion?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just briefly want to touch on a few comments by the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir. First of all, let me say to the member, I think it's a little unfortunate that he decided to attack somebody with the credibility and the expertise of a Cy Abery, who isn't in the position to sit here and defend himself, Mr. Speaker. It is somewhat of a cowardly act when you attack someone who is not here to defend himself. Why didn't the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir have the courage this morning to phone Mr. Abery or Mr. Wells when they were on Open Line and debate the issues? Why did he wait until he got in this House, Mr. Speaker, away from these two gentlemen? Why did he not have the courage to phone these gentlemen this morning, rather than come in here?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Two weeks ago we had to vote on - what was it? when the two weren't here who were mouthing off that they were opposed to it; remember, on the resolution?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I remember something about that.

Why wasn't he in the House, Mr. Speaker? Why does he come here to attack the integrity of people like Cy Abery and Andy Wells, when he had the opportunity this morning? Why hide behind the cloak of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker? If you want to attack me, the Member for Grand Bank, the Member for Menihek or any other member, go ahead and do it. We have the right to stand and defend ourselves. But have more courage, more backbone, more principle than to stand and attack anyone. I find that shameful, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the member said anyone who wanted to have input into this bill had the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, the people of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir and the people of Trinity North didn't have an opportunity - the people of my district didn't have an opportunity, really, because there were no public hearings held anywhere in the Province.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How would the Member for Windsor - Buchans really know? The fact of the matter is, this government has decided to give away, basically, Newfoundland Hydro.

The Premier goes on to say: `By doing what we are doing we will not have to borrow money for one year.' What happens in the second year - when the money is gone, when government has to once again borrow, and Hydro is no longer ours? What do members have to say to that? How can members opposite stand in this House and vote for this motion, this gag order?

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Premier back. I tell him that he didn't miss much of this debate, because since he left, the only ones who had an opportunity to speak in the debate on this bill were the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for St. John's East, and, before me, the Member for Grand Bank, before the Government House Leader put the hob-nailed boots to it, took away the democratic right of members of this Legislature to debate and discuss an issue.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) joke.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Premier, that is no joke. It is no joke when your democratic rights are taken away, when there is no place in the British Commonwealth that has called closure after three speakers on a bill - no place. It is also interesting, I say for the benefit of the Premier, that on Monday and Tuesday there was no reference to calling the Orders of the Day, but today, in the middle of Petitions, when we were presenting petitions, the Member for Naskaupi decided to call Orders of the Day.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues and a lot of facts that have to come out as it relates to the Hydro bill. I have so many petitions here that I can't find all my notes. But I can tell you, there are a few matters, such as the pension plan for New Hydro, that causes me concern, I say to members opposite. I would like to know how a government can scuttle the pension plan of their own members when, at the same time, they are going to cause the people of this Province to pay a fortune - the ratepayers of this Province and the users of hydro - for the pension plan.

If you were to look at section 8 of the privatization act you will find - the Premier, anyway, said it at his press conference that Friday - that $35 million to $40 million would be transferred from the Public Service Pension Plan to the New Hydro plan. One would assume that is the value of the benefits that Hydro employees have accumulated in the public service plan. One would assume that's where that $35 million to $40 million is coming from. The Premier also said that day that government would make a contribution to New Hydro's pension plan of $30 million to $40 million from the Province's general revenues and that is very interesting.

First when I heard that, I assumed that what he was talking about was a cash donation up front, a one-shot deal, but yesterday we were told by the Minister of Mines and Energy, no, that was not the case - that was money that was going to be put out in the form of a note and amortized over a period of ten, fifteen, or twenty years.

Mr. Speaker, do you know how much that $30 million to $40 million is going to cost? It is going to cost the ratepayers and the taxpayers of this Province approximately $100 million. So that $100 million, with the $40 million that has been transferred, is $140 million - very interesting, I say to members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also said that day that Hydro would charge $20 million to $30 million to electrical ratepayers to cover part of the unfunded liability - another very interesting statistic. So under the privatization act, New Hydro will recover this amount from the ratepayers over an amortized period of fifteen years. Now, here is another $20 million to $30 million, in addition to the $30 million to $40 million that is going to be done in the form of a note, as the Minister of Mines and Energy said, amortized over a period of fifteen years, which will cost $100 million. Here is another $20 million to $30 million amortized, that will cost us another $100 million for the pension plan.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you talking about?

MR. TOBIN: I am talking about the pension plan. The point I am talking about is what it is going to cost the taxpayers and the ratepayers of this Province for the pension plan alone. That is the point I am making.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, let me tell the member how it works. If you amortize $30 million over a fifteen-year period, which is what the member said there, and you pay the interest on that over that period of time, that $20 million to $30 million will cost the taxpayers and ratepayers, who are going to pay for it, approximately $100 million.

MR. SULLIVAN: And it's not just the financing, it's what that plan could have earned on the job - on the regular market.

MR. TOBIN: That is a very valid point, what that sum of money could have earned if it were out there making money.

The other thing, and I didn't hear the Minister of Fisheries - Fisheries - what am I saying? I meant to say the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I said the Minister of Fisheries. Probably he should be the Minister of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I said, I meant to say the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and I said the Minister of Fisheries. Probably it is wishful thinking on my part - and probably not only wishful thinking on my part, but wishful thinking on the parts of both of us.

Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, when he was up speaking, never said how much money the ratepayers were going to pay for the pension plan alone, and that is the area I am trying to deal with now, the pension plan, I say to my friend, the Member for Port de Grave.

Now, on this $20 million to $30 million over fifteen years, the taxpayers will contribute in total - in total, Mr. Speaker - approximately $300 million. Approximately $300 million is what the ratepayers and the taxpayers will pay for the pension plan alone. When that has been done -

MR. SULLIVAN: The ratepayers is over about forty years, probably, but the other one, the taxpayers, is over fifteen years.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. That has been done, Mr. Speaker. The ratepayers and the taxpayers, the ratepayers in particular, the people who burn electricity, who use the stoves and heaters, and hot water and everything else, will be expected to pay about $200 million to $300 million. I guess they are one and the same anyway, because taxpayers and ratepayers are one and the same in any case.

MR. SULLIVAN: The same thing - they will be hit twice.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, they will be hit twice.

MR. SULLIVAN: A double-whammy.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir address that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for St. John's South, if he wants to talk to the Premier as his parliamentary assistant, he would probably want to do so in another place or be a little more quiet, because your conversation can be picked up over here, I say to both the Premier and the Member for St. John's South.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Probably it doesn't, but I wanted to -

In any case, Mr. Speaker, what we are saying here and what we are seeing here is that a government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I won't say it. I can tell you, it was picked up over here, but I won't say what the conversation was about.

Mr. Speaker, I just pointed out where the pension plan is going to cost the ratepayers and the taxpayers, who are one and the same, about $300 million. Now, let's talk for a minute about the role of the Minister of Finance in all of this, the role the Minister of Finance will play. The Minister of Finance will have more power in this Province than the Premier or anyone else ever had.

MR. WOODFORD: More power than Churchill Falls.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, he will have more power than Churchill Falls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Temporarily.

MR. TOBIN: Temporarily - so you are going to change that. He will have more power than Churchill Falls, and I think that would include both the Upper and the Lower.

MR. WOODFORD: The Premier is going to see how he can handle it.

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Premier, I made an awful mistake in my district the other day. I was speaking to a group of people who were - and I explained it to the Minister of Finance - they were attacking the minister. I said: I have to tell you this, that I find the Minister of Finance to be a good fellow. I found out during the course of the conversation that I had to tell them he wasn't a good fellow or I would have been shot. Those aren't the words I used either.

The Minister of Finance has a lot of power under this act. Can you believe that nothing has to come back to the Legislature under this present act as it relates to our water rights? Under this act, the Minister of Finance will determine which undeveloped water rights, if any, will be excluded from the deal. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that the minister may give New Hydro any or all of the undeveloped water rights in the Province, including undeveloped water rights in Labrador, without further reference to this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is totally wrong.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not totally wrong.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What did he say?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Premier that there is legal advice out there that says exactly what I said.

MR. ROBERTS: That could be, but it is bad legal advice.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Justice would like to be the lawyer, the judge and the jury on every decision in this Province. Mr. Speaker, he is not - there are other opinions. We have a legal opinion that tells us that.

MR. ROBERTS: I don't doubt that, but it is a wrong legal opinion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the act also leaves it to the Minister of Finance to determine which, if any, water rights are excluded. He can make a decision at any time and if it so happens that undeveloped water rights are not included in the deal now they can be included at any later date without further reference to this Legislature, I say to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: They were right in 1966, weren't they?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they were right in 1996. Never before in this Province has there been legislation that empowers a minister, or even a Cabinet, to give away water rights - never before. Each new grant of water rights had to go before the Legislature for debate and approval of the elected Assembly of the people of this Province. The reason for that was obvious. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador regard the waters and surrounding lands as their birthright and no government before has ever contemplated passing over the power to give away water rights without special authorization of the Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Jim Chalker.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Jim Chalker wrote it. How is that? Have you a legal opinion from Jim Chalker?

Mr. Speaker, never before has one minister, one person, had such unconditional authority to give away water and surrounding lands that make up more than half the territory of Newfoundland and Labrador and that's what this act gives to this Minister of Finance. You heard reference today about the financial situation of Hydro and what it all meant. You heard the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation talk about the Hydro debt. Hydro itself is self-supporting financially. The Premier has said that.

My colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl mentioned today in Question Period, what was said, that Hydro was self-sustaining and in no way had it any bearing on the credit rating of this Province. That was said by an official from - where was it, `Neil'? What company?

MR. WINDSOR: Standard and Poor's.

MR. SULLIVAN: Stephen Defoe.

MR. TOBIN: Standard and Poor's. Stephen Defoe was the name, Mr. Speaker. He said no way had it any bearing on the credit rating of this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

MR. ROBERTS: Another couple of minutes (inaudible).

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thought I got up to speak at 4:57 p.m. It is 5:15 p.m. now.

MR. SPEAKER: I (inaudible) the stopwatch when the member stood up, and I stand to be corrected by the Table, but I would say it is about twenty-one minutes by my count now. I didn't notice the time when he started, but I ask the Clerk, has the member's time technically elapsed?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it has.

MR. TOBIN: We won't get into it. I guess at -

MR. SPEAKER: The member has leave so we will allow him to continue notwithstanding the challenge to the Chair.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know there are other people who want to speak. I know that I have a limit of twenty minutes because of the gag order that has been brought in by the President of Treasury Board.

Let me say in conclusion, I challenge anyone in this House, including our expert, the Government House Leader, to show me, anywhere in the British Commonwealth parliamentary system, where after three speakers, the gag order was brought in and closure introduced - never have we seen it.

This is a bad piece of legislation, it is a bad bill. The people of Newfoundland are not satisfied with it and they have been denied public hearings, except in a couple of instances, one last night, one on the West Coast, and there will be more hopefully this weekend. I conclude by saying I think it is a terrible decision to bring in closure and to run away from the debate. I think it is regrettable that the Member for St. John's South refused a meeting with his constituents when requested, and I think it is regrettable that this government, the backbenchers in particular, lack the courage, the sensitivity, and the conviction to stand up and defend the birthright of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this debate and to speak to this very important resolution. From the outset, I would like to say to the House, and to all the people of Eagle River, that I will be supporting the resolution as put, and I want to take some time this afternoon to outline why.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, one of the main tenets of liberalism, as enunciated first by Adam Smith, back long before our days, was that there is a role for government to play in the economy, but there is a much bigger role for the private sector to play, and if there is ever a time when there is a discussion about having government involved, then the benefit of the doubt should go to the private sector.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: There are times when government is called upon to do something in the public interest. That is not unlike the case in 1960 when, at the time, we needed government to direct some taxpayers' funds to see that important hydroelectric developments in this Province took place; but we have now run the course. We have now come to the point where we know, through, for example, Newfoundland Light and Power and that of other provinces in Canada, the Province of Alberta and the Province of Nova Scotia, that we no longer need to be the kind of influence we have been in the generation and distribution of electricity in this Province. I submit to the people of this Province that neither is it the time for us to be in the business of raising chickens; nor is it the business of government to be into computing services; nor is it the business of government to be in any number of other facilities and other services in this Province. It is time we made that decision, and I am proud that we are upholding that main principle upon which liberalism is founded.

So, to all of those out there who are saying there is no public policy reason for us to be taking it to the private sector, I say that I have just outlined one, but I want to give hon. members another reason why I have reached this conclusion that we must support this privatization, and it is one that I know all hon. members are dealing with on an everyday basis.

We are seeing it in my own area of Labrador where we have a chronic care facility that was just opened in January. We know the kind of response the people have had to that opening. It was so badly needed; it has been received extremely well, but I know, as I speak, that the government of this day is having difficulty trying to find the funds to keep that facility open.

We have heard from many other members of this House on the necessity of keeping our standards in health care in every part of this Province. We have heard members opposite coming out day after day - the Member for Ferryland... talking about the cutbacks in health care.

We value those programs. We value the standard that we have established in health care, in education, in social services. We value those programs and we must maintain them, and we know there are a number of ways in which we can maintain or enhance them. The Premier of this Province has said so many times, there are three ways that we can do it.

We can raise taxes to get the extra money, and hon. gentlemen opposite would be duly upset if we were to even venture to raise taxes of the magnitude that would be necessary in this case, because we know that the people of this Province, the business community of the Province and everybody concerned, have been taxed to the hilt; we cannot take taxes any more.

We could borrow the money, but we all know that at $6 billion of direct and indirect debt we have reached the end of our borrowing limits in this Province. We cannot go that course. We are now in the very precarious position of having a very significant - I think some thirty-seven cents of provincially generated funds now have to go to servicing our debt. Now, we are seeing some significant adjustments in Ottawa, and we know what will happen if the adjustments in Ottawa are so to our detriment that we are going to have to take even more of our precious provincial tax dollars to service our debt. We cannot go that course.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the third way we could arrive at those savings is to cut different programs and essential services. We have heard it, and we know in our own districts, that the cutbacks we have had to take in the line of maintaining public confidence in our financial ability has been cut to the bone. We have made those adjustments, and we cannot go very much further, if any further, on that level.

So here we are with a situation where we can't raise taxes any more, we can't borrow any more, we can't cut the programs and services that are so dear to our people out there in every part of this Province. And the Opposition would be very, very upset if we ever tried to do that. So I submit that it's time the government came to look at some of its assets, to look at some way that we can get the much needed cash to be able to support the chronic care facility in Forteau, the social services offices throughout this Province, the people who have been displaced and need some income support, education, the small schools in Norman Bay, Pinsent Arm, and those places. We need cash, and it is incumbent upon governments of courage and leadership and responsibility to look around and see where they can find that cash.

Yes, we have an asset right now that is able to garner us very significant funds, that can put us in a position to maintain these services and not have to borrow next year and probably part of the following year.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the people of this Province will voice their approval when the Minister of Finance, next year, stands in his place and says: I am proud to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we will not have to borrow one red cent to meet our needs. It will be a great day for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: It will be a great day, I submit, and members opposite will have to account to the people of this Province for what they are doing today out there in the rural Newfoundland and Labrador communities, and certainly also here in St. John's. They will have to account for the scaremongering they are undertaking, and the outrageous predictions they are making.

I heard the Member for Menihek on a Labrador radio show, saying that the rates in Labrador are going to go up 50 per cent to 60 per cent. It is totally and utterly irresponsible to be making such statements when there is absolutely no basis in fact for such adjustments in the rates, Mr. Speaker. We have heard the evidence put forward to the people by our government on what the rates would be. We know there are going to be some adjustments in rates but you won't see more than an average of 5 per cent a year over the next five years and, Mr. Speaker, the record will speak for itself. The 5 per cent a year I'm talking about is the total increase, not the increase as a result of privatization, that's the total increase, an average of 5 per cent a year. Then we'll see - I submit to the Member for Grand Bank, that yes, we will see. I believe that we will be here and we will be able to show the people of this Province that we have taken the right action and the results are there for everybody to see.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with a couple of the issues that have been brought up by members opposite that I think are confusing people out there immensely. One of these issues is that we may be selling Hydro for something significantly less than the value of Hydro. Mr. Speaker, it's terrible to be out there saying that type of thing when you say that the assets of Hydro are some $2 billion but the real value is what you have to consider. Let me give you an example; we have a diesel plant down in L'Anse-au-Loup, Labrador servicing the Labrador Straits. If you were to go and replace the generators in that diesel plant it would probably cost you around $2 million, Mr. Speaker. So if somebody had to go down there today and look at that diesel plant, and put it on the balance sheet, they would say here's a plant worth $2 million. Therefore it's going to go in now, be totalled up and at the end of the day we're going to have some $2 billion worth of assets in Hydro. But I submit to the people of this Province and to this House, that if the L'Anse-au-Loup fish plant goes next year as a result of what's happening in our cod fishery and the people are told that they're going to have to move out of that community, you can go down and take the plant lock, stock and barrel for $10,000, and that's the real value you have to look at. Mr. Speaker, it is unfair to be telling people - and all the diesel plants are the same, there is no exception, that if these communities are not there - and that's what is, I guess, most scary about all of this.

We see the energies of the Opposition today being put to all kinds of tests to try to generate some response and I must admit, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely telling the kind of response they're getting. I listened to the radio this morning, and I heard the clarion calls coming from the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to this deal. They were saying: `Be there tomorrow, be there in the galleries and show your distaste for this deal. Protest and call your member, this is the telephone line, this is the number, this is the collect call you can make.' Mr. Speaker, I was there all day and not one call came into my office. We know who is in the gallery this evening, Mr. Speaker - they are not there. The people out there are trusting this government, they know that what we're doing is in the best interest of the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I tell the hon. member, referendums come every three or four years. We had one last May, the real referendum, when the votes were marked and counted, and when the results came in we know where the people put their trust, we know which side of the House they wanted to send the Liberal Party and the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt about that. Now, we know, anytime that you go to private enterprise with a public utility or anything of a public nature there's going to be tremendous outcry.

One of the books, Mr. Speaker, that I've been looking at, that I know other hon. members got - it was being written by a Madison Pyrie, I guess is how you would pronounce it. Dr. Pyrie was one of the main architects of the privatization efforts of the British government in the motherland, Mr. Speaker, where they saw tremendous privatization efforts over there over the last fifteen years, and obviously now through four successive majority governments in England.

I would just like to read -

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were a Liberal.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Absolutely. I know the hon. member wasn't here earlier, but I am a Liberal. One of the main tenets of Liberalism is to let the private sector do what it does best - go out and provide services and maintain efficiency in those places, Mr. Speaker.

Also it must be noted, as this doctor says: It should be pointed out that privatization only becomes a popular policy after it has succeeded. Virtually no individual sale commanded public support in advance. Only when it was done and had been seen to succeed did it attract public support. He says: It takes a brave government to lead so determinedly from the front and Britain had the advantage of brave leadership at that time.

I submit today that we have that brave government, we have that brave leadership, we have the courage to deal with it head on, and we will win the day on this issue, because it is the right thing to do! Let there be no doubt about that. It is easy to go outside this House and find a parade, to jump in front of it and try to lead it, but the people of this Province have seen that tactic before.

They had a leader who said: `I don't have the necessary ruthlessness to do what has to be done,' and they said: `Thank you, good-bye, good riddance.' We want somebody who is going to take the problems of this Province and challenge them to their very core and put a program and a mechanism in place that are going to lead to economic recovery and a standard of living maintained in this Province. That is the result of what we have done five years to date and it will be the result in four years time when we go back to the electorate and say to them: Give us your vote of confidence again. I have absolutely no doubt of the result that will be there for us.

Yes, I am here today as a Liberal, the MHA for Eagle River, and a member of this government, proudly standing up and advocating that this deal should be put through because it is going to really benefit everybody in this Province. That is a point that has been missed by many people in the general public. They say: Well, if we offer it and we get so many millions of dollars then the people who are out there are not going to get a cheque in the mail so we are not going to get anything from it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Because if we can get the necessary money to keep that chronic care facility open, to keep the employment generation program going for new businesses, to keep the roads up and standard and to build new roads, to keep the social services money going to those who need it, there is absolutely no doubt about the people reaping the benefits of this particular sale. There will be no doubt in anybody's mind in a year or two when they know that these programs have been saved because of the action we have taken.

I hope, and I would encourage with gusto that government carry on with the privatization agenda, carry on with seeing the things that the private sector can do. Let them go out and do it. Let them provide the efficiency, the productivity, the mechanism to make money and to reinvest it in this Province.

If there is one thing we want to do and one message that we want to leave this Province with, when we are ready to go from public office, it is to be able to look people in the eye in this Province and say that we came in here with a mandate for real change. We renewed that mandate for meeting the challenges, and I submit that on election day, come the next time around, the people will say: `You have delivered on `Real Change', you gave us the `Meeting the Challenge' program, Mr. Speaker, in full force, and you have now given us a basis for financial integrity, our social programs can be kept and maintained, and there will be job creation.' The business community knows that what we are doing is the right thing for investment, and that is what is going to create the kind of economic benefit that we all so desperately want for our future, for our children, and the generations to come.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy and proud today to be standing here in support of this significant and important piece of legislation, because I do believe that it is one of the main tenets to economic recovery, economic stability, and financial integrity that is so important to building a brighter tomorrow. I encourage all hon. members to think about those things and to make sure that when the times comes, they will have, and let it not be said that we never had, what it took to deal with these problems and make the adjustments, significant policy adjustments, I might add, that were necessary.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the time. I appreciate it, and look forward to other members debating it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take a few minutes of your time to run through some of the real costs and facts, step-by-step. I have dealt with this in each opportunity I have had. In debating on petitions I dealt with specific facts and issues, and I have challenged the Minister of Finance and members over there to state otherwise.

First of all, I would like to discuss the effect it is going to have on us, the taxpayers of this Province. Most of these figures have been confirmed by different government ministers or the Premier on different occasions.

Number one, in the fiscal year 1994-1995, there will be a tax adjustment fund of $15 million that will be paid out of the Treasury of this Province. That cost - and I will just elaborate slightly - is a one-time cost which will go into a fund to be administered under New Hydro that will help cushion the increases in electricity to rural consumers of electricity over the next three years. That is a $15 million outlay of funds in 1994-1995.

Number two, we are now receiving a fee for guaranteeing the debt of Hydro. That fee varies with the debt, from $12 million down to $10 million a year now, based upon the $1 billion debt of Hydro. That is going to be foregone now from the revenues of this Province forever, and the government has admitted that. That is $25 million, by their own admission.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I can say it's been there since I have been here. I can't speak about the past - I can speak about since I have been here.

The intention was for it to be there forever, until the $1 billion-plus debt of Hydro is retired. It would be 1 per cent of that debt. It is there, we are receiving it now, badly-needed money, and it is going to be gone.

Number three -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get into what it is going to cost, and I will get back, if there is time in my presentation at the end, if anybody wanted to entertain any exchanges.

Next, there is the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, under which Newfoundland Power now pays corporate income tax like other corporations in this Province, and the Federal Government refunds 85 per cent of the corporate tax to the province in which that private utility is located.

The Minister of Finance will confirm, in the Budget this year, a $9.199 million projection, and from my experience these past two years, his projections have always been off on his Budget, so I can't say if it will be higher or lower, but I can tell you, in the two years I have been here, it has been $9.99 million and $9.2 million this Province receives from the Federal Government in corporate tax refund that it keeps in the Treasury and revenues of this Province and does not turn it back to the private utility in this Province. That option is there. This Province has used it as a source of revenue.

They may argue that it could go back to affect the rates and so on and the base rate that consumers pay. That is an argument you could put forward. Fine, I will accept that as an argument. But we do receive it now - $9.2 million, $9.99 million last year - and that is going to be gone from the revenue sheet of this Province. What they are going to do - and we can argue that point later, too - is you will look at what it is going to do to cushion the increase of electricity (inaudible). We will deal with that later when we look at how it is going to affect rateholders. I'm looking at how it is going to affect - and I will say to the Premier again -

PREMIER WELLS: Rateholders?

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm talking about how it is going to affect taxpayers in the Province, not ratepayers. I will address that secondly.

In addition to foregoing that $9.2 million, New Hydro is going to be a private utility company in this Province and they are going to pay the Federal Government corporate income tax, and the Federal Government is going to refund 85 per cent of that corporate income tax into the coffers of this Province. And this Province is saying: We are going to forego that 85 per cent now - we are not going to take that, we are not going to keep it. We are going to channel it back or refuse to take it under this deal and give it to New Hydro.

That, by Hydro being a much larger utility now, it is going to be -and by the government's admission - two of these combined with Newfoundland Power, they say $30 million. I think it could be $32 million, $38 million, $40 million. The government has admitted it is going to be $30 million potential and actual revenues out of the Treasury of this Province.

Fourthly, under taxpayers of this Province - and this is direct cost to the taxpayers. We can argue if taxpayers don't pay it, ratepayers will pay it, and I will entertain that a little later. The fourth argument - and these figures are substantiated, the lower ones by government, and they have always taken the route of going with the cheaper figure to make it look better. Also, what it is proposing to do - we all know there is a $1.725 billion unfunded liability in all the public sector pension funds and NTA funds and so on. By virtue of establishing a new company called New Hydro, the Province has to accept its share of responsibility for an unfunded liability in that fund. They are going to make a transfer of what is there now in the fund and a portion of that liability will be borne by New Hydro, and I get to that under the increase in the base rate.

This government has acknowledged that they are going to be responsible for a minimum of $30 million. Once again you can add on a proportionate amount, $30 million to $40 million. They are going to accept responsibility for that, and at the same time now, when they are stripping pension funds in this Province, here is what they are going to do; when they are fighting to claw back other pension funds, they are going to transfer into this new company not just a $30 million or $40 million that is unfunded, they are going to take out a credit note over fifteen years and they will finance that over fifteen years, not at the rate of lending, but at the actuarial rate that that unfunded pension could have earned in various investments across this country. Whether it is OMERF in Ontario, or the Ontario Teachers Federation, whatever any funds could achieve, it is going to be paid at a rate that is higher than the borrowing rate. That could cost taxpayers 12 per cent or 13 per cent.

If you look at the performance of equity funds in the market this past year, from as high as, in more volatile ones, up to 100 per cent, 30-some per cent was a very reasonable rate of return in certain equity funds. And those investment managers move these funds from one area to another, whether it is equity or bonds and stocks and so on, to minimize the risk and increase their return, and this Province is going to pay out up to $100 million by virtue of establishing a credit note and spreading it over fifteen years. That, per year, to the taxpayers of this Province - let's say $105 million, a nice, round figure, divided by fifteen years, is $7 million a year it is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province by the unfunded liability in that pension fund. At the same time, they are allowing the pension funds of other public sector employees to whittle away and be diminished, the unfunded liabilities increasing, and they hang out to dry the rest of the public sector people who are going to hope to obtain pensions in the future.

I have no problem with accepting unfunded liability - none whatsoever. I do have a problem when an unfunded liability is accepted on behalf of one of the small group of sectors in the public service and nothing is done for the remainder of the people in the public sector, the teachers and the public sector here, the different unions, and pension funds built up. That is an injustice; it is not proper, and the taxpayers of this Province are paying $7 million a year over the next fifteen years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who caused the (inaudible) problem?

MR. SULLIVAN: Once again, whoever caused the problem is not the problem now - that is history. What I am relating to now, and I will just sum up these four points before I move into some other areas - I will just sum them up and recap them without explaining -we are going to pay $15 million out of the Treasury in the upcoming year, on a tax adjustment fund - a rate adjustment fund; is that correct? We are going to forego the $10 million guarantee we are now receiving; is that correct? The Minister of Finance confirms that.

We, by your figures, by ours, are going to give up -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Wait until I am finished. Yes, exactly, I explained all of that, so I won't get into detail; I will just say yes or no.

We are going to forego the PUITTA that we now receive, $9.199 million, I believe, or $9.198 million, and we are going to say: We cannot do it to Newfoundland Power and not give it back to them. If we keep it, we have to keep it on New Hydro, too, so what are we going to do? We are not going to charge it to New Hydro, so we are going to give it back to Newfoundland Power. Once again, the rate part is an argument we can address after, we are going to give that back. That is $30 million there, potential and actual revenues that could be coming to this Province, and the unfunded liability figure that the Premier gave to the media in his closed meeting on Friday, I think he stated $30 million, and possibly up to $40 million - those are the figures that currently exist - and that alone is going to cost the taxpayers, over fifteen years, rounded off to the nearest whole number, about $7 million a year.

That is how the taxpayer is going to be affected. Now, how is the ratepayer of electricity in this Province going to be affected? Let's look at some areas that the person who is going to be paying the light bill over the next two, three, and forty years we hope they are going to be around in this Province to pay the bill. How are they going to be affected?

Well, first of all, by the government's admission, the debt premiums and costs related to the portion of Hydro's debt that would be paid off from the proceeds of Hydro is going to be added on - and we will just do a total - and that is going to be spread out, amortized over a period of probably up to forty years; it could be twenty-five years, thirty-five years, possibly up to forty years, would be a normal amount of time over which to amortize those costs. We could even take a medial number and say twenty-five or thirty years. So there is $20 million to $30 million in those costs there - $20 million by the government's admission.

The next one, the fees and commissions that are going to be paid by the issuing of these new shares, to put them on the market, $15 million to $20 million, and I think the Premier indicated to the media last Friday, I think the figure he used was $15 million. It is going to be a cost to the ratepayers in this Province.

We have a foreign currency exchange, and he used the figure $90 million, possibly $100 million or more, because at the time, they availed of the cheapest money on the market that they could buy, or bonds in foreign currencies, that they could get at the time with this Hydro debt -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, or back in - whenever it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'll get to that in a second. Wait until I finish, let me finish and I'll explain. If you think I'm wrong I'll entertain an interjection with my permission and I'll carry on from there.

What happened was, they brought in Japanese yen and Swiss francs and so on because they got a better competitive borrowing rate at the time, no doubt about it, but the currency in Canada has fluctuated, the Canadian dollar now is much lower and devalued. So as of the sale date or whatever date we get into, there is going to be a shortfall based on the currency exchange of our currency to the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen of $90-$100 million now as of the date of transaction. And that's going to be added on - and we'll get to this in a few minutes - to the electricity rates in this Province, we're going to add on our $15-$20 million I mentioned earlier -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I'm not debating who's paying. I'm telling you what is going - I'll tell you - I said I'll entertain discussions on the rationale behind these. I want to give facts, stick to facts and deal with these. I'll entertain these and I stand to be corrected on these figures. They're your figures with slight inflations we're allowing and nobody has contradicted me. So please, don't contradict fact. If you want to speculate on discussion, I'll entertain that if there's time or if you want to give me leave, I'll do it.

Now, I want to come back to that again. People don't realize this, the debt premiums and costs, take that $20-$30 million, take the fees and commissions of $15-$20 million, take the foreign currency exchange that we're going to lose of $90-$100 million because we have to be deemed to have cashed in as of that time. There's also going to be another fee of $25-$30 million. That's the portion that New Hydro is going to assume on the unfunded pension liability and that lower figure is the one used by government. When you total these up - with a few extra figures I'll just touch on first before we get a total here - we're looking at - if people are deprived of their land and so on and it has to be reclaimed for some reason for the generation of power, for use of power, they will be compensated by New Hydro up to $5 million. After that, the burden comes back - the government has to pay them more than that, that's $5 more million. Also - and here's an interesting one - the cost of defeasing the debt is $10-$15 million.

So what's happening is, there is a $1 billion Hydro debt out there. This Province initially said you might have the guarantee -the Premier said last fall, I read it in the Telegram on the first page. So what they have done and what defeasance is doing, they're taking this $1 billion debt and they're going to go out with a custodian and they're going to take and put out into the market - New Hydro is going to assume another $1 billion debt in place of that. This $1 billion debt that they're going to assume is going to be in similar types of stocks or bonds to those the current debts of Hydro are in and that's going to be called a defeasance. What they are telling you is going to happen is that this debt is going to be safe from the Province having to react because we're going to try to invest it in the same types of securities that Hydro now has on its debt guaranteed by the Province. That defeasance agreement usually can work, that's on reasonable solid financial grounds, because if the new securities of Hydro fail, well, obviously the government ones are going to fail so that's fairly secure in shifting the burden of debt, reasonably secure but not entirely. We still have the technical and final responsibility in this Province for that debt if something happens that they don't buy up the same types of securities that Hydro now owes, and that comes back on the Treasury of this Province. That could cost us dearly, but it may not if they can get the same proportionate securities that they have now on the Hydro debt. That's another additional cost.

Our Opposition Leader stated - and I'll just read this section - that all costs or expenses of any sort whatsoever relating directly or indirectly or any way whatsoever to the reorganization or any distribution of the public, the shares of New Hydro, are going to be borne by New Hydro.

When you total up those costs I just referred to, we are looking at upwards of $200 million extra that it is going to cost the ratepayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, amortized over whatever period of time they choose to amortize it. If it is forty years or twenty years or whatever it is - let's take only twenty-five to thirty years. Let's not go the full forty years. That means, at that rate, that will put on the consumers of electricity in this Province an extra $18 million a year, the cost of repaying and amortizing those costs, the principle plus interest, over that twenty-five year period. If we amortize it over forty years they will pay a bit less each year and we will have it for forty years. That is what is happening in the specific instance here to ratepayers in this Province, and that, I think, is criminal.

On top of all that, we haven't even had an opportunity to assess other costs that I will just touch on. Hydro has been guaranteed a margin of profit of 5 per cent to 8 per cent over the past number of years. As a public utility now that is privatized, this New Hydro is going to be given the same rate of return, and the shareholders deserve a same rate of return on their investment as any others can get in a company of a similar stature in this country, because, if not, people won't invest in it. They will pull their money out and sell their shares and devalue it and everybody will lose their value. That is part of the game in doing business on the stock market today.

The Public Utilities Board has no choice but to give this new company a 13.74 per cent - it is what they've given over the last five years, average, to Newfoundland Power - return to their shareholders. This increase of an extra 6 per cent to 7 per cent above and what they allow Hydro to give to this new company is now going to cost us, the ratepayers in this Province, another $20 million a year. Because public utility boards bill in your profit, your increase, onto the expense side of the column; you are allowed to make a specific profit, return to shareholders after those increased costs.

On top of that, because it is a private company, we are going to see a decrease in the debt to equity ratio occurring over the next number of years. That is going to cost us - with a 3 per cent to 4 per cent difference, that is the difference between the debt service cost and the rate of return - and that is going to put another estimated about $10 million a year cost on this new company and we have a $5-million-a-year debt as we convert more equity after privatization. You add up, and look at rural consumers on this tax adjustment fund, you look at the transfer of that $15 million under New Hydro to ease the burden from industry to rural consumers -

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could I have a minute or two to finish?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: This is a very unfair process. What is happening here - and I will parallel this to something else. The shifting of the debt from industry or anybody to a rural consumer is improper. If you look at what is happening in this Province, with the number of people in a rural community, and look at the roads, the cost of paving highways to rural areas, it is much higher per capita. Because there are fewer people, you have to pave a road at exorbitant cost. In the city of St. John's, to do streets and so on, the cost per capita is much less. The cost of putting electricity out into every home with telephone poles, the cost is much greater per capita in rural Newfoundland than here.

We are saying to the people of this Province that you are going to have user-pay. What this is doing to this Province - I've seen it done in municipalities, I've seen it here in its most blatant form - is issuing an invitation or an order for people to move out of rural Newfoundland and into an area where they are going to be able to afford to keep a light on in a house. And that is going to cause an exodus. More people are going to leave rural communities because we can't sustain the levels of local governments in these communities due to increasing costs. That's happening here, believe it or not. I said back a year ago, there's an agenda and everything around it is geared to urbanize.

Seventy per cent of the people in this country will be living in urban areas by the year 2000. Numbers in some provinces now - over 50 per cent of the people in Manitoba live in Winnipeg, and if you look out over the whole country there and the cities, I can give them to you and the figures there. I won't waste time on that, but the point I'm making here is that there's a tremendous shift from rural to urban and we're accelerating that. We are closing down rural Newfoundland, which is going to be needed, hopefully if we have a revived fishery in the future and that's important. It's making it so prohibitive and costly to be able to do that - and it's a part of a whole scheme of things that's going to be devastating upon this Province. I am opposed totally for financial reasons to taxpayers, for cost to ratepayers in the future and for the total agenda of what's happening here and the squeeze it's put on the people in this Province. I think it's intolerable, I can't support it and I'll encourage everybody I can to vote against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Actually, I was expecting to be speaking on this bill next week. I didn't expect to have to come in so soon, but with the closure moved yesterday -

MR. BAKER: We'll still be here next week, though, don't worry.

MR. J. BYRNE: We'll be here but we won't be discussing this bill.

MR. BAKER: Yes, we will.

MR. J. BYRNE: No, I don't think so.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when I heard about the closure on this bill I tried to come up with some words, in my mind, that would represent what's going on here. What came to my mind was that members of this House who voted for closure, who will vote for this bill, are basically betraying a trust, one that was given to them when they were elected to the House last May. I would like to remind MHAs that the people elected to this House are elected to represent the people of their districts, and from what I can gather, I don't think that is happening at this point in time. I believe those members who voted for closure are voting away their own right and the people's right to be heard on this issue. I have spoken to hundreds of people with respect to the privatization of Hydro. I followed the media very closely, I had the opportunity in the past couple of weeks to listen to the Open Line shows, I attended a public meeting, and from what I can gather, by far the majority of people who have concerns with Hydro are against the privatization of Hydro. If they are not against it they are certainly wanting public hearings to have the full story. They are basically demanding public hearings. The Member for Pleasantville, himself, is saying that 70 per cent of the people in his district are against this deal and they want public hearings. I believe the opposition is even higher.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: `There are none so blind as those who will not see.' I believe that members opposite, from what I'm hearing today, are refusing to see. They are refusing to believe what they are hearing. A basic question needs to be asked: Who is going to benefit from the privatization of Hydro? I would like the members opposite - there aren't many of them here now, I realize - but I would like for them to sit back and think about that question. Who is going to benefit from the privatization of Hydro? I honestly don't believe that it is going to be the ordinary Newfoundlander who will benefit with their increased electricity rates. The Premier, himself, has stated that electricity rates will increase. That is straight from the horse's mouth.

We are being asked to buy something we already own. Profits will leave the Province. In my estimation, a fair amount of profits of the new Hydro would go to the Province of Quebec and companies or individuals living in Quebec. I believe the Newfoundland people have given enough to the Province of Quebec with the give-away of the Churchill Falls back twenty or thirty years ago. The Premier stated himself that there are going to be hundreds of job losses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: You stated it, yes - yes, Sir. Along that line, of some of the policies that the Premier has brought in over the past four or five years, I can't think of one that created any jobs. All I see are job losses. The amalgamation of the municipalities lost jobs. We had the layoff of the civil servants, 1,600, 1,700 people, job losses. Even with the ATV regulations being brought in and being bullheadedly put through the House, there are people losing jobs.

The rating companies, themselves, have said that the credit rating for the Province will not improve. That has come out in the past couple of days. In remote communities, the electricity rates would be increased by as much as 30 per cent. I'm not sure about this, but I believe the Premier, himself, has stated that over the past few days or weeks. Is this a repeat of the Churchill Falls deal, the great give-away? I would like to remind the people and the members opposite that the Premier and the Minister of Justice were a part of that deal a number of years ago and it is history repeating itself. These two individuals are leading the attack on Newfoundland Hydro. That is what it is, believe it or not, it is an attack on Newfoundland Hydro.

We have to learn from our mistakes - if we don't, what are we doing here? From what I can see, if this is forced through the House, as it likely will be, we are perpetuating the stupidity of the past.

The Premier is asking the people to have blind faith; he is the all-knowing. What grounds does he have that gives him the right to ask for that blind faith? I don't believe he has any grounds. He was not given the mandate during the last election. He hid the Hydro issue. It was brought up and it was brushed aside. He hid it during the election. Also, he hid the ISP, the change to the education system, etc.

I have to ask, and the Premier is there opposite right now: What is his hidden agenda with respect to Newfoundland Hydro? Again, the Premier and the government are abusing the powers of the House of Assembly, as before with amalgamation, the views of the House of Assembly and the powers of the House of Assembly during the amalgamation issue. He revoked contracts with various unions last year and the year before, contracts that were signed in good faith, and it is happening again.

The government's attitude, from my perspective at this point in time, is that if it is legally right, it is okay. If it is morally right, it doesn't matter, it is not a factor. People's views are not an issue. In the last sitting of the House, the people's opposition - and I don't mean the Opposition sitting here in this House - the opposition out in the public, scrapped the Fortis deal, and the Premier is now refusing to listen. He is going straight ahead with the privatization of Hydro.

Now, we have a different route, of course, we are not going through with Fortis, but we are going to have the same end result - Hydro will be controlled from outside this Province. I can't see anything positive in that move.

What will this do for the future potential for new industries in the Province of Newfoundland? Will they be lured away by cheaper electricity from other provinces such as Quebec? Will Quebec now be able to sell electricity to potential industries in the future -our own energy be used against us to keep people from developing industries here in the Province? What's coming next? How ludicrous are we going to be? Is the Premier, is the government on the other side, next going to put up the Confederation Building and ask the people of Newfoundland to buy shares in the Confederation Building? I hope not, but you never know. Why are the people asked to buy something they already own? Is it a quick fix, a one-shot deal? Once it is gone, it is gone.

Actually, I was listening today, quite attentively, to different members speaking opposite, and the Member for Eagle River admitted the truth. He finally said, regarding Newfoundland Hydro, this is some quick cash for a quick fix basically is what it boiled down. All he said boiled down to that one line, some quick cash - disgusting.

In the future, the people of this Province will be losing hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, from the sale and power and potential of Hydro. If it is such a good deal, why hasn't the Premier had public meetings and explained the benefits? Why the big rush? Why the quick fix? It is shameful. We have had six months now, basically, since this was brought in back last fall - January, February...lots of time for the Government of this Province to go around the Province and say: Here are the facts and figures, people. Here public, you make your decision; but no, rush it through. Don't give the facts. Why, I wonder? Is it possible that he might be afraid that the people will say no to it?

The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir says there has been a continuing lobby against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. He actually got up over there and made that statement. Now, why - why is the government refusing to listen to that lobby? They are just refusing, turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the growing opposition to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation got up this afternoon and said that information should be given to the public. The government - his own government - is refusing to supply that information, after limiting debate in the House of Assembly where the information could be brought forward; but no, they are not going to have the time to do that.

He asked - now here is a good question - Why should Hydro not be privatized? It's a very simple answer. You don't have to get into all the facts and figures, as the Member for Ferryland did, and he did quite a good job explaining the facts and figures, but from my perspective the simple answer to: Why should Hydro not be privatized? is because the people don't want that. We are here to represent the people. If the people don't want it, end of story. We should give the people a chance to speak. What is it going to take for the government opposite to listen to the people of this Province? Are there going to be riots in the streets again? Is it going back to the days of Sir Richard Squires? I sincerely hope not. If the people don't want it, end of discussion; that's it.

MR. EFFORD: What's the percentage?

MR. J. BYRNE: Ask the Member for Pleasantville; he can tell you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) thirty-five people.

MR. J. BYRNE: Something you didn't do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 5.

Anyway, what will our legacy be? What will the legacy of this Administration be? Will our legacy be the future generations of Newfoundlanders that we are -

MR. EFFORD: Who knows?

MR. J. BYRNE: I think I have the floor.

Will the legacy for the future be, to the future generations, that we were led like sheep, by blind faith, and refused to listen and learn from the previous mistakes?

I am almost finished now, and I would like for the Premier to listen to this, if he would. To the members opposite, I would like to speak to you as one Newfoundland to another. Over the past ten months I have spoken to many of you personally. Basically, I believe you are decent, honest individuals who want what is best for Newfoundlanders and our Province. This is going too far and I believe that you know deep down in your gut invoking closure is not right, it is not fair, it is showing lack of respect for the people who you represent. As a Newfoundlander, I ask you to meet with the Premier and to have the courage of your convictions to do what you know in your heart and soul to be right. The minimum required here are Province-wide public hearings and a referendum on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a new member to the House of Assembly, the last week or so has been somewhat of a shock and an eye-opener to me. Going through school, university, I attended every day in here for about three years straight - question period, debates - trying to understand what sorts of policy and economic decisions were made, how they were made and how they were effected, and how they affected the lives of everyone in this Province. As a member myself I was shocked when government introduced closure on this debate.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: It is not so much shocking as it is astounding, I say to the finance minister, that what really is going on here is that the government got themselves behind the eight ball on their own legislative agenda. That's what I would think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Am I right? I think the government didn't have their homework done in terms of the legislation that they wish to bring before this Legislature in this sitting, and as a result, they sat down with their own timetable - had to get Hydro in at this certain time, then the Electrical Power Resources Act, which is by far, I say to the Minister of Finance, the most important bill of Bills 1 and 2. His government is about to roll the dice on a serious situation and I hope we will have time to debate that particular piece of legislation, but somehow I doubt it.

I ask: Why did the government invoke closure on such an important issue? There is no question that in the May 3, 1993 election the government received a mandate to govern the Province. That I don't question. The people have spoken.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

MR. BAKER: A mandate to govern.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes. They did have a mandate to govern.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and governments do have to answer every three to five years in our system. I do say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the Premier, that their party was questioned on the privatization of Hydro and the response was: Not at this time. There are no plans to privatize Hydro. There are no plans to move forward with the privatization of such a major resource. That was the response that was received from that government - with the exception, I might add, of the MHA for St. John's South who had the political honesty, I suppose, and integrity if I may say so, to come forward to his constituents during the last election and say that privatization was something he was in favour of.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Member for Eagle River is right. We live in a day and age when privatization - that government should not be involved in raising chickens, I think, as he put it, or they shouldn't be involved in the providing of a service such as Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services. But Hydro is different, Mr. Speaker, Hydro is a major resource. It is a major resource that is owned by all the people in this Province. That government has gone ahead and limited the debate in such a high-handed fashion is beyond belief.

Growing up, we had a saying at our house when we talked about politics, especially when we came to the topic of the Upper Churchill: The past has haunted us, it is in the present. There is no question that I could accept some of the line of argument from the Member for Eagle River and the Minister of Finance saying that borrowing over the years, that past, that part of our government's inability to look forward has haunted us today. I say to the Minister of Finance that when my daughter, thirty years from now, becomes thirty years old, the same thing will be said of this particular piece of legislation. Why is the government hell-bent on the privatization of Hydro? They have offered a number of reasons, Mr. Speaker, not the least of which is that the money from the sale of the privatization would be put against the debt. They have said that over a period of ten years we would save in terms of not having to pay $25 million per year, every year, in perpetuity, that we would save on financing our debt. The argument has been made by certain members and by the Minister of Finance that that $25 million would be able to provide for the social programs, increasing cost of health care, increasing cost of education; this has been government's argument but I refute it because they are not coming clean.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the true costs of Hydro - my hon. colleague and friend the Member for Ferryland; and I will say, after the next election probably the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: If you listened you wouldn't.

MR. E. BYRNE: I listen to everything I say to the hon. Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Some people don't.

MR. E. BYRNE: But I can tell you that I am under no illusion or spell so that I cannot think for myself, and I can't say that is necessarily true of all members across the House. And in my opinion, that is absolutely shameful.

MR. TOBIN: I didn't understand that. What do you mean?

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me see if I can make it clearer for the Minister of Employer and Labour Relations.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, as a Crown corporation, has been able to borrow money more cheaply than the private sector for one simple reason, because the Provincial Government guarantees its debt. It is not responsible for its debt. The debt of Hydro is not even factored into the Province's current economic situation. Standard and Poor's, I say to the minister, said yesterday in terms of the Province's credit rating, that the sale of Hydro or Hydro being a Crown corporation has really no impact in the bond markets on what the credit rating of the Province is, none whatsoever.

I listened to the minister's response in Question Period today when he said that you can pose any question you wish to pose to elicit a certain answer. He went on to say, I believe, if we propose that the sale of Hydro would bring in X number of dollars of cash that would be applied against the debt, then the answer we got was that the privatization of Hydro would be a positive thing for the Province. Would that be correct? Did I hear you correctly?

MR. BAKER: A big loss on it (inaudible), absolutely.

MR. E. BYRNE: We are getting into a debate about apples and oranges, and the Minister of Finance is splitting hairs, as he does very well. He is probably the coolest minister, I would say, in the Cabinet, the one who has the greatest reserve, and the one who gives you the least answers to all the questions asked in this House. I can tell him that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has perfected the art of saying absolutely nothing.

MR. E. BYRNE: Most of the time.

I say to the minister that as a MHA, a member in this House, and as a person, I could support the privatization of Hydro but not this deal. I could support this initiative if there were increased employment but that will not be the case. I could support this initiative if it were demonstrated clearly that there would be lower energy costs or at least a stable rate of energy costs to consumers and taxpayers in the Province but that is not the case. I could support this deal if it were demonstrated or could be demonstrated that new investment would be brought into this Province, new investment that would attract other investment and be used as an economic lever to attract other businesses; however, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. It has not been demonstrated that will happen. I could support this deal strongly if there were a case made that new technology or technology transfer were to take place but that is not the case. A transformer is a transformer no matter where you buy it or where you get it from. The fact is that there will be no new technology transfer as a result of this sale.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister may say: Maybe, yes. Clearly demonstrated, I haven't seen it. You have not offered any evidence to support that there will be a technology transfer. Am I correct? I could support this deal, Mr. Speaker, if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were going to remain owners -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TULK: What (inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Fogo, wait until you get into Cabinet so I can ask you some questions. I say to the Speaker that I could support this deal if Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were going to continue to own Newfoundland Hydro but that is not going to be the case. The government has put out that the sale of shares in Hydro, Mr. Speaker, will be available for all Newfoundlanders to buy.

MR. GRIMES: Right. Is that not true?

MR. E. BYRNE: I'm not saying that's not true, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, but the government certainly is right when they say it is on the open market and for any one of us in this Legislature or in the general public to buy. But the reality is different, the reality will be different. Will the people on NCARP buy shares in Hydro? Will those on unemployment buy shares in Hydro? Will those who are on social assistance buy Hydro? Will single parents in the Province buy Hydro?

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House of Assembly that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders will not be in a position to buy shares in Hydro. In fact, if they were in a position to buy shares in Hydro they would own shares in a thousand other companies right now. That will not happen. What we will see happen is corporations such as Hydro Quebec, which stand to gain the most in twenty years from this sale -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: - corporations like Hydro Quebec, the few in society, Mr. Speaker, who have the money to capitalize on this privatization of Hydro - not the many, but the few.

On the sale of the assets - it is very important for us to talk about the assets of Hydro because there has been fact and fiction tossed back and forth from either side of the House on this issue. I say that I could support the privatization of Hydro if there were going to be really significant profit from the sale of the assets, above and beyond the book value. That, clearly, is not going to happen. I could support the privatization of Hydro if compensation were going to be received for the water rights which are a common property resource of the people, but that is not going to be the case. In fact, the alienation of water rights is a key issue in this debate and one on which the Government House Leader, who is, I'm sure, a competent lawyer, has provided his legal opinion, but as I'm sure he will admit, there are other competent lawyers in this Province who have a different legal opinion.

MR. ROBERTS: What are their opinions? Can the hon. gentleman provide the opinions?

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Government House Leader that I was in no way mimicking his behaviour in the House by trying to put him down. I paid him a compliment, actually. I have no intention of putting anybody in this House down.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that I could support the privatization of Hydro if there had been done an up front cost benefits study that could be viewed, that we could have a look at and see where the real figures are and see where the real costs to society in this privatization would be, but that has not been done. That has been the biggest question in my mind: Why has government moved so fast and furious on this piece of legislation? The hon. Member for St. John's South stood up here on Monday night, Mr. Speaker, and said to me that Mr. Crosbie in haste in trying to put an NCARP package in place, he said; `haste makes waste,' and that is exactly what is happening with this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think for one moment that the cost of electricity is going to remain as the Premier has outlined or the increases in the cost of electricity will remain as the Premier has outlined.

MR. GRIMES: Actually, it probably won't go up that much.

MR. E. BYRNE: The minister really believes that does he? In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that the cost of electricity to consumers in the next three to five years - the Member for Eagle River has said that over the next five years will tell the tale and people will not have to pay as much as what we are saying. Fearmongering, I think he said; but the reality is not what happens in the next five years but what happens in the next fifteen, what happens in the next twenty, the next thirty and forty years due to this sale. That's how far we have to look ahead, and I do not see any foresight in the sale of privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, there has been little debate from the opposite side. We have seen the Premier, we've seen an emotional speech from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - very little fact -we've seen an emotional appeal and the new introduction or new definition of Liberalism from the Member for Eagle River but we have seen very little concrete evidence to support this initiative, very little concrete evidence to support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has, on many occasions, and certainly during the Throne Speech, said that in no way, shape or form would debate be limited on this particular piece of legislation. He stood here on Throne Speech Day, appealed and asked for the Opposition members of this side of the House to come forward and work co-operatively for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

MR. ROBERTS: And what was the answer?

MR. E. BYRNE: The answer, I say to the Government House Leader, lies in the Premier's own misleading of the House. There was no attempt or -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) use every trick we can to stop you.

PREMIER WELLS: And we have a responsibility to do that. It's too bad you don't (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader - propaganda -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Pure propaganda, Mr. Speaker. We did say, no question, our party did say and will continue to say today, tomorrow and next week if we have to, if the opportunity exists for us, that we would stand in the way of this privatization bill because we are against it for all the right reasons, Mr. Speaker, for all the right reasons. The ministers on that side of the House and the Government House Leader know full well that he could have, at any point in time, stood up and introduced Orders of the Day but he did not. He could have, at any point in time, started the debate on the privatization of Hydro but it was not his own idea, it was not his message and it was not his intent to start any debate on Hydro. It was his intent, from the moment this piece of legislation was put in, to invoke closure on second reading in Committee and on third reading. He knows that and he's lying to the people if he thinks he doesn't. That is the problem, and to stand up -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, boy!

MR. E. BYRNE: Sit down! I'm not going to apologize for anything.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. LUSH: A comment on, in the last couple of days, the deterioration in the language used in the Parliament. I think there is an onus and a responsibility on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Order, please!

There is an onus -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Old habits don't die very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I was commenting on the deterioration in the language that I've noticed in this House in the last couple of days. I think hon. members have an onus to ensure that their language is used appropriately.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: If hon. members want me to say that I can say that. I don't like to get involved in that kind of level of debating either. The hon. member, I think, accused the hon. member of lying and that is clearly unparliamentary. If there is one term - others are questionable, but the hon. member accused the hon. the Government House Leader, I believe, of lying, and I would submit that is unparliamentary.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard the hon. member, too, and I won't take up much of his time. I'm sure Hansard will record, if you check the tape, that he said: He is telling lies if, and he went on and made a statement after that. He didn't state he is lying, he didn't say he is a liar. The word was used `if', and it has been used in that context before. I propose that certainly he didn't make that accusation whatsoever. In fact, he prefaced it by making a statement - and an `if', a condition.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman did use the word `if.' Let me say that the premise on which he founded his charge against me has no foundation, therefore, he hasn't accused me of lying. With that said, the point made by my friend, the Member for Bonavista North is correct. It is not parliamentary to accuse another hon. member of lying. People on the other side have been doing it either manfully, as in the case of the gentleman, the Member for Kilbride, who at least has the courage to stand in his place and say it; or, in the case of some in the front row, sneakily just yelling across the House and so forth. It is not parliamentary, it does nothing to add to the decorum of the House. All it does is demean the House and the person who makes the charges.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the hon. the Member for Kilbride speaking to the point of order?

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if I have caused any affront to or shame on the House of Assembly I certainly will apologize and withdraw my comments. I can say, too, that is something the hon. the Government House Leader should also stand for, and I refer to the language he used against one of my colleagues in the House in debate the other night. But to this point of order I say, Mr. Speaker, that if any affront was taken I certainly withdraw and apologize.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. The hon. the Minister of Social Services no doubt raises a valid point of order in the sense that on a number of occasions in the last little while, when we get into the heat of the debate sometimes we use words that are borderline, I guess, when it comes to parliamentary rule.

I understood the statement that the hon. member made in terms of the point raised by the hon. the Member for Ferryland but I will certainly check Hansard and see the context in which the hon. member used the word. To call anybody a liar is certainly clearly unparliamentary and the hon. member should realize that.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Two minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we will grant leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave granted.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you to the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker.

I want to return to a notion that it is my understanding that all we are going to receive for the sale or privatization of Hydro, or all we are likely to receive, is the book value of the equity that has been built up in Hydro, plus perhaps a small bit more. I have never heard of a profitable company being sold without making a significant profit on its shares. I don't think any member in this House has ever heard of a private corporation or company being sold without making a significant profit on its shares, but that's what is going to happen in our case.

The government has said that we are in the vicinity of $350 million to $500 million. Now, if the situation were reversed and we were buying out, supposedly, Newfoundland Light and Power, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House: Do you think Newfoundland Light and Power would sell all their shares at current market value?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I ask you: If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were nationalizing Newfoundland Light and Power, would the shares be sold at current market value? Not likely. And we, as a Province and as a people, if that were the case, would have to pay significantly for the privilege of being able to buy them, I say to the members of this House.

Going back, in time, to the purchase of BRINCO and Terra Nova Tel, and a thousand other examples, look at what happened in those cases. Back when the Moores government took power and we revisited BRINCO and bought our shares back from BRINCO, we paid $30 million to get back the water rights which we had given away just a few years before. They certainly knew what the value of water rights was, I say, Mr. Speaker, but this government does not.

The privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is an initiative that, in my opinion, deserves more attention, it deserves more study, and above all, it deserves more consultation, and if the government and their legislative agenda is full, and is on a fixed timetable, well, then, this government does not belong in this House of Assembly, I say, Mr. Speaker. And as a member of this House, I feel no shame in saying that whatever parliamentary rules, regulations or procedures that I can invoke, or our Opposition party here can invoke, we will, because the people have not had a full hearing on this issue. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. AYLWARD: I wanted to rise in this debate and make a few comments about what I think is an important piece of legislation for this Province, and I think it is setting the tone for future direction in this Province.

We have to start considering the future, and we also have to start considering what governments should be into, what services they should provide, and be realistic about where we are heading and try to set our priorities straight. What the government is trying to do is do just that; we have set the priorities straight.

The government is not giving away all the rights to water in the Province. We are doing no such thing at all - zero. We are not doing any of that. We are privatizing something that we presently partly - partly - have some ownership to in a company, a Crown corporation. I have heard stuff like we are giving away the water rights to everybody from here to eternity, and it is total fabrication. All I would ask, whoever is involved in the debate, if they wouldn't mind at least stating the facts realistically, that's all. People say, well, this thing is running on its own. It is running on its own, yes, but the debt is totally guaranteed by the Province, and every taxpayer in Newfoundland and Labrador - it is guaranteed by us, all of us. The interest cost in 1992, out of the annual report of Hydro, interest costs, total interest expense, which includes a debt guarantee fee, was $147 million in 1992.

MR. BAKER: That's 14 per cent on $1 billion.

MR. AYLWARD: Fourteen per cent on $1 billion. Now, who is paying for that? You and I and everybody else. The ratepayer is paying for it because that is the interest on all of the debt that has to be financed continuously.

MR. WINDSOR: That's not going to change. What is going to change after it's sold?

MR. AYLWARD: What is going to change after it's sold?

MR. WINDSOR: You are not going to pay debt interest?

MR. AYLWARD: We are going to pay debt interest.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh.

MR. AYLWARD: But we have a deadline. The debt is going to be paid down and a private company is going to be responsible for it at the end of the day.

MR. WINDSOR: Who is responsible for it now?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: So, you know - listen here, now, you listen to me. I was listening to you. I've been listening to you long enough.

MR. WINDSOR: You haven't heard me yet.

MR. AYLWARD: I'm looking forward to hearing you. We have people going around talking about water rights that are gone forever. We have people going around saying we are going to lose all the interest, we are going to lose all kinds of money, we are going to lose something that we own, when 18 per cent of it is what we have in equity in the Province.

What I'm asking is, and what I'm saying to people is, just look at the whole situation. Over $1 billion-worth of debt is out there and it is a situation where we are getting little or nothing for it for guaranteeing it. If we were going to have massive layoffs and we were going to give away total control of all of our power in the Province, I mean, I could understand it, but we are not going to do that. It is a regulated utility. It will continue to be regulated. The Public Utilities Board is still going to have the final say in whatever price is agreed upon for the sale to the consumer. We are not going to give it up. We are giving it to the private sector but we are also regulating the private sector.

Newfoundland Tel, if you were to listen to some people, we might as well, instead of doing this - if we listened to some people we might as well go buy Newfoundland Telephone, go buy Cable Atlantic, we might as well go buy Newfoundland Power, if we want to have ownership in it. I don't hear anybody saying that. Those are all utilities doing a service in this Province. We could go buy 18 per cent of Newfoundland Tel. I don't think the taxpayers would like that very much. Why would we need it? when it is serving its function, when people are able to invest in it, when it is creating employment in the Province. That is all this utility is doing, it is providing a service to us.

It is doing it, and it has done a good job of it, and now we are deciding to change the direction of it, that's all. It will go in its own direction and the Public Utilities Board is going to regulate, as it has in the past. You would think that we are just throwing the whole thing right - throwing out the baby with the bath water, which is not the case at all. All I'm saying is, I just wish that people would say - at least if you are saying, well, this is a negative, then say that this is a positive.

You hear about - we are going to lower the debt ratio. Right now it is 82 per cent or 83 per cent to 17 per cent or 18 per cent. So we have 17 per cent or 18 per cent of debt in this company. The new company, we will pay down some of that debt - it will be paid down when the company goes private. Some of the debt will be paid down, which will be a saving for the taxpayer. I don't hear that coming from anybody; I don't hear that coming from anywhere. That is going to save millions of dollars worth of interest. It has been said by government but the message hasn't gotten out. There is going to be less debt in the new company. That means good things for the ratepayers because they are not going to have to finance all of the interest. So that is not bad.

When I hear the Leader of the Opposition or somebody else say: You are going to be allowing the private utility to make more money - which you are, and I haven't got a problem with that, allowing them to make more money. While that is a negative in one sense, on the other side of it, you have to also admit that the amount of debt will be retired, it will be retired more quickly, and that will mean less money for the ratepayer to have to pay on interest expense. So there is a pro and there is a con. Balance it off, folks, that's all I'm saying, you have to balance it off.

Even as a financial transaction, why should the government anymore these days be into this utility? It is a big question. I think a lot of people are just concerned. They are concerned that we've had it for some time and they consider - when they think that we are - some people will get the impression or have some impression that water rights are gone and this and that and everything else. Let's just be real, that is not what's happening at all. This is a financial transaction that is taking a company from the public sector to the private sector. It is not something that hasn't been done before in other places, and it is something, I think, that could have long-term, a decent, positive, benefit to people in this Province.

One day soon we had better start wondering about the debt of the Province and how we are going to retire it, and what we are responsible for as taxpayers of this Province. I think that is getting lost in this whole debate. We are not making anything on this utility now. We are getting $10 million for a guarantee fee. We are not getting anything for it. We have it operating, and we are still going to have it operating afterwards. We are going to lower the debt on it. I see all kinds of decent reasons as to why we should do it. We are not selling off the water rights.

Right now, Hope Brook gold is gone. They have a mineral they dig out of the ground. They don't own the land. They are leasing and taking that mineral out. They are making money and they are creating jobs. We are not saying, well, we have sold off our birthright, when you have a mining company in the Province. Well, it is the same thing, folks, it is very similar. We have a utility doing a service. Newfoundland Tel is doing a service, Newfoundland Power, doing a service. That is what we have here, and if we want to, down the road, we can develop the Lower Churchill.

If we want to, and we can't find the private money to do it, we can go and do what we did before, create a new Hydro, if we need that. Do we need this now? That is the question: Do we need it? I don't think we do anymore. I don't think it is such a big thing when all of the information is out on the table. There is a whole range of benefits this can bring, but the biggest one I see is that we are going to stimulate some private sector interests in this Province, which I think is what we have to do if the Province is to survive. I think that is a big factor that comes out of it.

People aren't talking about the fact this company will be on the Toronto Stock Exchange and that it will be invested in from all over the world. That is the positive that people aren't thinking about. This Province has to become an attractive place to do business, and this is what this deal with help do. It will help make it attractive.

When I hear people say we are going to sell it out, and we own it now, I want to remind them that the debt this utility owes, which is also listed in the annual report, is hundreds and hundreds, and hundreds of millions of dollars. It goes on and on. It is all listed here. It is all on Wall Street, investments from all over the world. Right now our own part of, the owned part of our corporation as it is, even thought it is a Crown corporation, that is controlled, if you want to call it that, I don't want to call it that - but the debt is owned by people in New York, it is owned by people in Japan, it is owned by people all over the place. Then we have people say we are selling it off and giving it to foreigners. We are not doing that folks. We are not doing that.

All we are doing is changing over the part-ownership of it, government is just getting out of the ownership of this section of the electrical industry which is our corporation that generates so much electricity. This corporation generates the majority of electricity in the Province. Newfoundland Power presently generates electricity in this Province but they don't own the water rights. They are using the water to generate electricity; so, in the same way, the New Hydro corporation will have access to water rights for the development and use of electricity. That is all that is happening here. You are not giving to them for eternity. You are not saying, you have it and we don't want anything for it, at all. That is not what's happening. Newfoundland Power is already doing what the New Hydro will do, what the present Hydro does now. I would like to hear somebody say what the difference is and why we should not analyze and look at privatizing the present Hydro corporation. There will be no difference at all.

There are a whole range of other things we are doing here to make sure that the ratepayer doesn't have to pay. There are a number of costs associated with going as a private utility, but a whole range of factors have been put in here to make sure that the ratepayer doesn't have to pay up front for the cost of going to a private utility, so that it is not going to cost an arm and a leg.

One thing about it down the road is that the taxpayer at the end of the day, who is the ratepayer - they are equal - the taxpayer, with a better capitalized company in Newfoundland and Labrador, would be putting out a service in which the price and the cost of power to the consumer, would be totally regulated by the Public Utilities Board. I mean, Newfoundland Telephone is totally regulated by the Public Utilities Board, and if they apply for a rate increase, they have to go to the Board, they have to justify all of their costs, they have to justify all their expenses, et cetera, and then they have to try to raise funds and say: Here is why we need 2 per cent, here is why we need 1 per cent.

We are not just saying: Take this company and then go ahead and put the rates to the people, give them the gears - that is not being done, not at all. As a matter of fact, this is a regulated utility and will continue to be so. These are important considerations for the future. When we are looking at the overall transaction, these are important points to take into account. The people who are working in the corporation - the corporation has been streamlined in the last two or three years. It has dealt with tightening up itself and making sure that costs were watched. Of course, they have to do that anyway, because they've had to go in front of the PUB to justify any rate increase.

The same thing will happen in the New Hydro. They will have to justify any expenses. One of the other things that is of benefit here, which hasn't been talked about yet, by the way, is that under the changeover, the PUB is going to be requiring that the lowest cost electricity be developed in this Province, and that was not there before. The lowest cost electricity was not required. If the present Hydro corporation, the Crown corporation that we have, went to the PUB and said: We are going to develop 150 megawatts at Holyrood or wherever, then there was never a question. This was being done by Hydro because Hydro had the right to do it. Under the new regulations, the Public Utilities Board will determine which power project will be decided on, on the basis of lowest cost power.

That is an important consideration here for the future for the ratepayer. The ratepayer won't have to accept the situation of one company having full rights to come in and say: We are going to do this, it doesn't matter how much it costs the taxpayer or ratepayer, we are going to develop this site and it doesn't matter what the cost is. From then on, the lowest cost is going to be required. It has always been somewhat required but it is going to be further strengthened when this goes to privatization.

Another benefit coming out of this is that private utility generation in other power sites in the Province that may be developed, or alternative power, will also have an opportunity here to bid on the development of power projects in the Province, which was not allowed previously, until the government made some changes just recently. So there are some major benefits that are coming out of this that hardly anybody is making known and I am going to try to do that over the next little while.

There are a number of things. The debt of this corporation is going to be lowered immediately. The whole range of benefits for the future in the sense of the company going private will be automatic, in a sense that pension funds for the employees are going to be taken care of. Those pension funds are already the responsibility of the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are just making sure that that liability is taken care of up front. I think that is the proper thing to do and it secures the pension funds of the new corporation for the future, and that is an important consideration. That is something that is our liability as it is, and it is part of what should be in the deal, to make sure that the employees are covered off and that their pension fund that they paid into is taken care of and made sure that it can pay out to people who retire from the Hydro Corporation that they contributed to.

So that is important also and it's in this deal. As I said, the costs up front of doing all of these measures to make sure - and some of these liabilities which we have automatically anyway, some of these costs, are being taken care of up front and will not affect the ratepayer in any big way for the future. But we cannot lose sight of the fact that the ratepayer is also the taxpayer and the taxpayer is still responsible for the debt of Hydro as it is, the present Crown corporation, and to say it is not is not correct because it's not going anywhere. It's not going down, and we still have a ton of debt with that corporation, even though it's able to service it, but anybody - if you check with the financial houses the only way they're able to service it is with the guarantee of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. So those are important considerations.

I think, overall, Mr. Speaker, it's a deal that, for the future, will be beneficial to the Province. I'm looking for - I want to hear though, maybe there are other points of view or there may be a point that the government may be missing, or whatever. I am looking forward to hearing whatever people have to say about it. I think though, it is important for all of us to just look at the facts of the matter. That's all I'm asking, look at the facts of the matter. I think it's important because this is a matter of taking something that we have some ownership in but we have a lot of debt in and providing it as a private opportunity that a lot of people could take advantage of but yet we will have it regulated on the price for the ratepayer. I think the considerations that have been put forward will deal with a lot of these concerns that people have. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue we're dealing with here. It's easy to get excited and to get carried away with one's emotions on an issue like this because it is such a serious issue. It has been said numerous times over the last couple of days that it's probably the most important piece of legislation brought before this House since Confederation. That's why I think it behooves all hon. members to look at the issues carefully, soberly and consider the long-term ramifications. We're talking here about future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and the impact it will have on them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal a little, first of all, with a question my hon. friend, the Member for Stephenville was just talking about, the debt - questions that I put to the Minister of Finance earlier today - and exactly what is taking place? Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear, there's no new investments in the Hydro Corporation as a result of this deal, as my friend, the Member for Kilbride pointed out very, very well, now you have to ask yourself: Why are we, first of all, proposing to privatize it? What are the benefits? Well, clearly, it's not because there are new dollars going in. Any investment that is made in the corporation is simply to replace existing equity by the Province or to replace debt. There is no new money going in there to expand the corporation, there is no new technology, they will not be involved in new areas of business, it's simply changing ownership, changing the Board of Directors, changing the people who hold the debt. There will be, perhaps, a little more equity injection by some shareholders. But I say to my friend, who is leaving - he said there's $147 million a year paid out by way of interest on the present debt, and that's true. And that will be eliminated, he said. Mr. Speaker, the people will be dancing in the streets. One hundred and forty-seven million dollars in interest will not be paid out and we should be dancing in the streets until they find out that that will be replaced with $350 million worth of dividends to shareholders, that's the difference, Mr. Speaker. What we're talking here, is taking debt as guaranteed by the Province - and I'll deal with that - but debt for which we're paying about 6 per cent, and that will be replaced with some debt that will still be 6 per cent, because the Province is still going to guarantee some of the debt for the next five years. It will be defeased over the next five years, by buying some certain other government bonds at similar rates. It will be defeased but still, for the next five years, government will have some exposure. The balance of that debt will be bought out by way of shareholders' investment. Buying shares.

Those shareholders are going to want more than a 6 per cent return for the money they have invested. So that same amount of money - this is not new money going into the company. The company will not all of a sudden have six or eight or ten hundred million dollars to expand on, to diversify, to improve, to become more efficient, to bring in new technology. All they are doing is replacing, from the company's point of view, debt to the government with debt to somebody else. So, what is the benefit, Mr. Speaker? It is not a benefit. It is a direct cost to the corporation because they will pay more to the shareholders than they are now paying for this government guaranteed loan.

Let me deal with this issue of the impact on our credit rating that I dealt with the Minister of Finance on this afternoon. Let me say first of all, it has no impact whatsoever on our ability to borrow or on our credit rating, absolutely none. If it has any, it is a positive one. I tried to explain to my friend, the Member for Lewisporte, who happens to represent me in this hon. House. Two nights ago we sat here in the House and had a chat. I tried to explain to him that if you have an asset that is worth $3 billion -more than that, but let's say $3 billion - $2 billion, I won't quibble over it, even if it's $2 billion; we all know it is much more. If you have an asset that is worth $2 billion and you effectively sell it for $1.3 billion, now, if you look at your balance sheet you have your assets on one side, you have your liabilities on the other, and if you replace $2 billion worth of assets and $1.3 billion of liability, are you better off? If so, Mr. Speaker, I had better go and learn the new math, because it doesn't add up.

If you go to the bond market - and I tried to convince my friend that we could go to the bond market and borrow another $1.3 billion if we could get another asset worth $2 billion, and another one after that. Now, if the Province were paying for that debt, that would be a different story. If we had to pay the interest on that $1.3 billion it would be a different story, but we are not. Not one penny is paid by the Province on that debt. It is totally supported by revenues from Newfoundland Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ratepayers.

MR. WINDSOR: By the ratepayers, yes, the same ratepayers who will pay the dividends to the new shareholders, much higher dividends than the interest they are paying today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker - I lost where I was. You got me all confused. What was I saying?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ratepayers (inaudible) dividends.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The dividends.

MR. PENNEY: Would the hon. member entertain one question?

MR. WINDSOR: I would gladly entertain a question, a quick one, yes.

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

MR. PENNEY: Would you explain to this House how you arrive at that figure of the value of Hydro being $2 billion, or $3 billion? How did you arrive at that figure?

MR. WINDSOR: That is the replacement value. If you had to - if that were to be sold on the market it would at least cost you $3 billion. At least worth that. You've already said yourself it is worth at least $2 billion. I'm saying it is probably worth more than that. Don't forget that you have not included any water rights in your calculations. They are being given away for free with no provision to get royalties, even, on the use of that water.

I don't get excited about royalties because if we charged royalties it would simply increase the cost to the consumer, and it is the same taxpayer, so there is no net benefit to the people of this Province. So, I don't fault that. Whether it goes in by way of royalties which give benefits in lower taxes somewhere else to the taxpayers or whether it is wrapped into the rates, they are still going to have to pay.

The point I was making is that you are simply replacing that debt with other debt, so what is the benefit? Where is the real benefit of selling this corporation? No new money into it, no new technology, nothing of that nature, but you have given away an asset.

I was talking about the bond market. Getting back to where I was, you go to the bond market and say: I have an asset that is worth $2 billion, say. I am going to sell it, and I am going to get $800 million in debt written off, $300 million by way of equity return, whatever the case may be, but I am going to use that $300 million or $400 million or $500 million to buy groceries next year. I am not re-investing it in a capital investment that is going to give a return to this Province. I was saying that the Province is not paying one penny on that interest. That has been paid by the ratepayers, so it is not costing anything. That debt is totally self-sufficient, with adequate revenues raised by the sale of hydroelectric energy to pay the principal and interest on that debt - adequate revenues raised - so the Province doesn't have to put one cent into it. It is totally secured by the assets; there is no risk. If, per chance, Hydro went bankrupt, there would be adequate security there in the assets, more than enough, probably twice as much as is needed to secure it. Anybody who is looking at our credit rating will say it is a positive impact on the credit rating of the Province and on the ability of the Province to borrow. It does not, in any way, impact on our ability to borrow funds for other purposes.

Now, if the Province had to pay that $147 million interest, if we had to find that out of general revenues, I would be screaming, `Sell it. Get rid of it; it is costing us $147 million', but it is not costing us one red penny. In fact, we get a modest $10 million by way of guarantee fee for the loans that we have guaranteed - $10 million. Hydro itself made a profit last year of $16 million. Hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe: yes, well, that doesn't pay a cent to the Province; it wasn't turned over. But if the Minister of Finance, in his budget next week, decides to say to Hydro, `You will return a dividend of $15 million,' they could do so, but we leave it there because under the PUB they allow Hydro a 6 per cent gain so that when they go to the bond market they are self-sufficient; they appear to be a good agency, a viable agency on its own. They are not a drain on the Province - not a drain on the Province whatsoever. In fact, let me read from the act that controls this: Hydro is required to establish rates which are reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory. Further, the rates should provide sufficient revenue for Hydro 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.

That is their mandate. They are bound to do that, and the Public Utilities Board is bound by legislation to allow them a rate that is sufficient to give them that 6 per cent rate of return. Hydro can never go bankrupt. It will always be able to pay the principal and interest of $147 million on its billion dollar debt -always. It can never be a liability to the Treasury of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's why it has absolutely no impact whatsoever on our credit rating, and if the Province were to go to the bond market, if Hydro were to go to the bond market, tomorrow and say: We have decided to double our size; we want to borrow another billion dollars; we are going to pay $147 million a year to you in interest, and we are going to be able to sell enough hydroelectric energy to pay all of those costs, plus that 66 per cent rate of return to re-invest into Hydro - the minister could say, pay it to us, but we don't, we re-invest it into Hydro, which is our corporation. So Hydro, last year, earned $16 billion, and it was kept as retained earnings, so all we did was, improve or increase the value of our own asset. We didn't turn it over to the Provincial Treasury, but the people of the Province, the taxpayers of the Province had the benefit of that extra $16 million.

There is no loss, there is no cost to the taxpayers, but what we are going to do now, Mr. Speaker, is we are going to sell this asset, we are going to lose the $10 million that we do get, we are not going to have the benefit of that $16 million being rolled back into our own Crown corporation, and we have all of these things that my friend, the Member for Ferryland talked about, all the extra costs, $90 million to $100 million in additional costs, in tax incentives, in taxes back from the Federal Government that are not going to be turned over to Hydro and Newfoundland Light and Power, and we are still going to get rate increases, so how will the taxpayers benefit?

There is no money coming in to the Treasury for royalties from this new corporation; we are not even going to get benefits that we had before. We are going to give up the $10 million guarantee fee. The $16 million will now go to the shareholders of the corporation, not back into our own Crown corporation, an additional dividend besides that will go to the shareholders. So how are we better off, and what have we done? we have given away our resource, probably the only major industry in this Province that is still profitable, and, Mr. Speaker, the logic of that escapes me.

If the Minister of Finance can tell me how that is going to improve his ability to go to New York next week and raise money, then I would love to hear it.

MR. BAKER: We are not going to need to.

MR. WINDSOR: We are not going to need to, we are going to sell our house today so we don't have to borrow money to buy groceries next week, but what do we live in next year when that $300 million are gone?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: If the minister was telling me he would have $300 million a year and never have to borrow again, I would say this is a good deal, but we will not, and the taxpayers in this Province will pay billions of dollars over the next forty to fifty years in additional costs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, it is true. And, Mr. Speaker, you have to ask yourself: Why are we doing all this? and I'm not going to get into some of the things that we certainly could, imputing motives as to why this is taking place and who is involved in it, I don't want to get involved in that, Mr. Speaker; I am more concerned about the issue, and I am most sincere about it because we are giving away a natural resource that we can never buy back.

Somebody suggested today, why don't we nationalize Newfoundland Light and Power? not a bad thought. If there are to be efficiencies, which have been suggested, that by doing this there is going to be efficiency, the original proposal to sell out to Fortis is going to give us all kinds of efficiencies, well, if that's true, maybe the whales should be swallowing the caplin instead of the other way around -

MR. BAKER: You are incorrect again.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh. Well, the minister can correct me; I am anxious to be corrected.

MR. BAKER: There was never any (inaudible) thought of selling to Fortis.

MR. WINDSOR: Selling to Fortis?

MR. BAKER: Yes, that was never (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What was the (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: That was only in your mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) so soon? You don't even know what you (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: No. I say to the minister: I have a vivid imagination because we spent days and days here debating it as to whether or not we should privatize it and sell it, merge it -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, the minister is going to play with words; this is his game - it was a merge. We were going to merge 90 per cent into 10 per cent and the 10 per cent was going to control - that's a merge. Mr. Speaker, the minister is more intelligent than that. Don't insult our intelligence and the intelligence of the people in this Province by playing those kinds of silly little word games. It was a sell-out by any other name -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: - an absolute sell-out, Mr. Speaker. Now we've gone from a sell-out to an absolute giveaway. That's what is taking place here. This asset is worth far more. If we had some provision here that the people of this Province could some day get some return from this, perhaps I would be prepared to look at it.

MR. BAKER: Not according to what you are saying now.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes, I say to the minister. The way some of these things are passed back and forth here, Mr. Speaker - you have no return for the water rights, nothing else.

MR. CRANE: What would he do if he were the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: He wouldn't listen to Clyde Wells (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I'm disappointed in some of the members over there, Mr. Speaker, some of the people in the back benches. I feel very strongly that some of them over there are not at all happy with this deal. We have one member who has the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say what he believes, and I compliment him for that. His constituents do as well, let me assure you. There are others over there, I feel just as strongly, are not happy with this deal, and I'm disappointed that they are not on their feet saying: We don't like it. Because they are not listening to their constituents out there.

We didn't engage in an exercise these last two days of simply delaying this for the sake of delaying it. We presented petition after petition. Those were not petitions wanting a road paved somewhere. They were petitions from people of this Province who want this deal squashed. They want this deal squashed. People of this Province are not at all satisfied with this, and if hon. members opposite were listening to their constituents they would know this deal is not in the best interest of the Province. If it is in the best interest of the Province let them not be afraid to go out and expose the details of it to the people. Give the people an opportunity to assess it and give their views on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: If they are so confident that this deal is a good deal and that they are right, let them be not afraid to take that chance. If they are so sure they can sell it to the people of this Province. If they are successful, Mr. Speaker, if they can go out around this Province in public meetings and through a referendum and sell it to the people and convince the people of this Province that it is in the best interest of the Province, I will stand here and support it.

I know that they cannot do it. They can't substantiate it. It has absolutely nothing to offer to the people of this Province. What it offers is a short-term fix to the economic problems that the minister is now faced with in trying to bring in a budget this year. He will look very good next Thursday - well, he won't. Because he hasn't got the money yet, so he is probably not going to be able to reflect it in his numbers yet. It depends. He might pull the trick he did last year: Well, we have a $70 million problem but we are going to find it and we will tell you how we are going to deal with it later. This year he will say: We have a $100 million problem where we are going to sell Hydro and we will show you the impact of that later on. Maybe that's his game, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Neil', that $50 million deficit is $75 million now.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh, $75 million now, that will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) instead of $50 million, it's $75 million.

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes. I suspect it will be $100 million by the time the minister comes in next week. We just had a Special Warrant of $30 million. That is right. The minister is confirming, roughly $100 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the credit rating.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, is this sale going to solve that? The government would have the people of this Province believe - the Premier tells us: It is the greatest thing I can ever do for the Province. We will get $25 million a year. We won't get it, but we will have to pay $25 million a year less interest on our debt. What is $25 million a year?

MR. MURPHY: That is exactly the attitude (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: What is $25 million a year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: But you just lost $10 million in loan guarantee fees, you've lost $15 million in increase in your asset. You've lost all of these subsidies, the federal corporate taxes that are being rebated to the Province that are now going to be passed on. All of the subsidies, the $100 million, in the Minister's and the Premier's statement, that is going to be given. Now, how does the minister tell us that this is a positive thing, even on an annual basis? It doesn't add up, Mr. Speaker, it just doesn't add up.

So, it makes us wonder - and it is not just us, not just the Opposition. The people of this Province are wondering why, what indeed is behind it, what is the motive. I look over across here and I don't see a lot of people who may have motives for it. I don't see the Premier here tonight, though. He is upstairs, no doubt, listening. He was here briefly. One has to question what his motive is. Because we know who controls what takes place over there. We saw them popping up like puppets and doing their bit. The Member for Lewisporte might even get on his feet. I believe this will be the third time that I've been able to smoke him onto his feet. This will be the third time I've been able to get him up to say something. He is biting at the bit over there now to try to cut down my mathematics.

MR. PENNEY: Trying to correct your errors.

MR. WINDSOR: To correct my errors. Well, I will be interested to hear it. The hon. gentleman is a good businessmen in his own right and I'm most surprised that he not able to understand simple basic economics, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, he and all hon. gentlemen opposite will answer to the constituency next time around.

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm glad to have a few minutes to debate this most important issue and to correct some of the errors and the misconceptions of my constituent sitting across the way.

First of all, he says there is no new money going into this venture, no new money going into New Hydro.

MR. WINDSOR: Not that they can use.

MR. PENNEY: No new money going in. Right now the -

MR. WINDSOR: Not that the corporation can use.

MR. PENNEY: Right now the debt\equity ratio is 18\82, which means that we own 18 per cent of this marvellous asset that he is talking about after thirty years. We own 18 per cent of it. Once we privatize, those figures are expected to be more like 52 per cent to 48 per cent. Close to 50\50.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) the shareholders, so you can pay dividends (inaudible)!

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

MR. PENNEY: I ask you, how are we going to go from 18\82 to somewhere in the area of 50\50 without new money?

MR. WINDSOR: How much money will the corporation have to spend after that is done?

MR. PENNEY: (Inaudible).

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

MR. PENNEY: If we were to have waited to get full ownership of it the other way, at the rate we are going, it would take us 166 years -

MR. WINDSOR: We will never own it this way.

MR. PENNEY: - 166 more years.

AN HON. MEMBER: I figured 182.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a brief question?

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

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I gave him the same courtesy and I appreciate it. Would the hon. gentleman like to explain to me the difference between having a debt that is owned - to people who own bonds, to a bank, or a bond or a mortgage holder, the difference in that in shares, voting shares which have control over the corporation? Does the member understand the difference in that?

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

MR. PENNEY: Yes, the member does understand. I was just pointing out to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, the errors of the kinds of information that they are giving to the public. I will give the Opposition full credit - they have a small sector of the public riled up by fearmongering. They've been passing out wrong information for the last few days. Maybe we haven't been getting our message out as well as they have, but the message that we are putting out there is an honest one, it is an accurate one. We are not trying to fool the people, we are not trying to make them afraid. Members opposite keep referring to selling our - Crown jewels, I think, is the expression somebody has used.

The member also says: This is totally secured by its assets - no risk. Well, I ask the hon. member: If that is the case why does the government have to guarantee it to the tune of $1.2 billion?

MR. WINDSOR: So they will get the government rate of 6 per cent, not to pay 12 per cent or 14 per cent like you are going to have to pay! Wake up over there!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: The problem -

MR. WINDSOR: Wake up over there!

MR. PENNEY: The problem, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member knows the difference of what he is saying - a province that is in the financial straitjacket that Newfoundland and Labrador is in, and he has the gall to say: What is $25 million a year?

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, when you are giving away $25 million - $10 million in guarantee and $15 million in equity. Wake up, boy!

MR. PENNEY: I would like to correct some of the other misstatements that I've heard in this House over the last couple of days.

MR. WINDSOR: You did a good job on those!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, they are asking: Why privatize? It is pretty simple and we've been saying it over and over. They are just not listening. They don't want to hear the truth. They have been telling the public lies and they don't want us to correct those lies. The simple matter is that this little Province has a provincial debt of $6.4 billion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker!

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

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte just made an unparliamentary remark. I ask him to withdraw.

MR. PENNEY: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, what was the unparliamentary remark?

MR. SPEAKER: You said he was spreading lies.

MR. PENNEY: Then I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, if that is unparliamentary. The members opposite have been telling the general public a story that is not totally accurate; they have been distorting the truth, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the provincial debt of this little Province is approximately $6.4 billion; of that, $1.2 billion is the portion of the debt that is Hydro's, and the member opposite suggested that if we remove $1.2 billion from our debt, it will not improve our ability to borrow. I can't understand that logic. I would suggest to the member that if he walked into any chartered bank in this Province and attempted to borrow $100,000, his chances would be considerably lessened if they found out that he had co-signed notes for several of his friends, and that if he had co-signed a note for the Speaker for $100,000 and co-signed a loan for somebody else for $100,000, his ability to borrow would be considerably lessened and I think he knows the difference of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: Now, why privatize? I suggest that is the right thing to do. Government should not be involved in what the private sector can do better.

MR. WINDSOR: Tell us more.

MR. PENNEY: Every single time that we have ever seen the private sector take over anything from government, there has always been an improvement. And they say, but this is not really business, you know. This is not really like a business. I ask them: Are you suggesting that the government own the telephone company, too? because that is a utility. Is that what you are suggesting, that we buy Newfoundland -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: Are you suggesting that we buy Newfoundland Telephone? I suggest that whatever the government is involved in now in the way of a business that the private sector can do, then the private sector should be permitted to do it, and I suggest to you as well that you would see a remarkable improvement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't give it away.

MR. PENNEY: We are not giving it away. Right now we own approximately 18 per cent; the book value of it is somewhat less than $300 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) less than $200 million.

MR. PENNEY: My colleague says it is less than $200 million, but let's work with the figure of $300 million, that's what we own, not the $2 billion he is talking about.

He is saying the assets are worth $2 billion because it would take $2 billion to replace it, what nonsense! The value of the assets of the corporation is approximately $300 million. Up to now, Mr. Speaker, the only income that this Province has ever gotten from Hydro is the $10 million guarantee fee that we've been getting for the last few years - $10 million a year, and for that we have to provide a $1.2 billion government guarantee. So we are talking about reducing the Province's debt by $1.2 billion, we are talking about turning over a corporation to the private sector, and in the process of doing that we will eliminate the need to borrow for a year.

I don't know how much the figure will be. Let's work with a figure of $400 million. That means that we will not only eliminate the need to borrow for that year, we will also eliminate the interest on $400 million forever and ever, annually. Now, at a rate - somebody used a percentage here earlier tonight, 10 per cent. Let's say it is only 8 per cent. My mathematics says that 8 per cent of $400 million is approximately $32 million a year.

MS. VERGE: And you're not going to get $400 million.

MR. PENNEY: If we get $300 million, that is still $25 million. But the hon. member asks: What's $25 million for a province like Newfoundland?

I put this in perspective for a few of my constituents earlier and I would like to do it for hon. members across the way. Lt's give them the benefit of the doubt when they talk about this great asset - selling the Crown jewels. I will use the analogy of a family that gets into a financial straitjacket for whatever reason. The husband and wife now find themselves in a position where they can't educate their children because they can't afford to. They can hardly afford to put bread on the table. The missus says: I have a mink coat hanging in the closet that is worth about $10,000, maybe I should sell that. And he says: No, you can't sell our assets. A $10,000 mink coat in the closet of a family that can't put food on the table is basically what you are talking about. Keep our Crown jewels but do what we have to do with education and with health and everything else in the Province. I suggest that is the kind of logic that helped get us into this kind of a mess.

Then they suggest to us that we are going to give away our water rights. That is another - I hesitate to use the word lie because I know that is unparliamentary, so I won't do that - but that is an untruth. Now, certainly, any kind of generating station would need water in order to generate electricity, so you have to grant them the use of the amount of water that is going through the generator. I think that is a given. Obviously, they have to be given the rights to the water they need to generate electricity, but that's it. That is the only rights to water that they are going to be given. And that has been explained to members opposite on numerous occasions. They just fail to listen. They don't want to hear that.

These are the kinds of things that the public want to hear and when they are told them, they feel much better.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Don't you realize that without the water you couldn't generate anything?

MR. PENNEY: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Without the sunshine we couldn't live either.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) so it has to be worth something.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, that is incredible! Who said it wasn't worth anything?

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

MR. PENNEY: No I didn't. What I'm saying to members is, they are telling everybody that we are giving away all of our water rights. We are giving away nothing. We are giving this corporation the right to use the water that it needs to generate electricity, which is what we've being doing anyway.

MR. WINDSOR: That is not giving away water rights?

MR. PENNEY: No, that is not giving away any water rights. They talk about the rate increases. Our figures suggest that the rate increases over five years compared to what the rate increases would have been had we not privatized will be less than 1 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You believe that, too, do you?

MR. PENNEY: Yes, I believe that. I accept those figures, Mr. Speaker, and I think most of the general public accept those figures. I would suggest, what the Opposition is doing is fearmongering.

Yes, the rates will increase by a little less than 1 per cent over five years. Let's say the average individual has to contend with an increase in his electrical bill of $3. I ask hon. members opposite: What do they think would happen if we didn't privatize? What do they think would happen if we couldn't privatize and we couldn't borrow the money? What do we do then? Increase the retail sales tax by 1 per cent? Increase the personal income tax?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're probably going to do that anyway.

MR. PENNEY: Withdraw some more services? What are the alternatives? I think when you honestly present those facts to the people of this Province, they understand. Privatization of Hydro is the right thing to do.

MR. WOODFORD: It is wrong, what you're saying.

MR. PENNEY: It is not wrong, what I'm saying. What is wrong with -

MR. WOODFORD: You are wrong on the rates. You are wrong.

MR. PENNEY: These are the figures that have come from the actuaries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PENNEY: I'm sorry?

MR. SULLIVAN: Could you table a copy of that?

MR. PENNEY: Of the rates?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, a copy of what you've been telling us.

MR. PENNEY: I was of the impression members had copies of the projected rates. Do you want it tabled again?

MS. VERGE: It's not the same as what you have, though.

MR. PENNEY: Yes it is, the same as what I just quoted.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you as well that this will provide a tremendous investment opportunity to the people who live in this Province.

MR. WINDSOR: They're out there waiting by the door, all those people, to get something started.

MR. PENNEY: For members opposite to suggest that there is nobody in this Province who can afford to invest in shares of Hydro -

MR. WINDSOR: Oh yes, the Premier's buddies can.

MR. PENNEY: That is not being fair, Mr. Speaker. Is he suggesting that the people in this Province don't have savings accounts, don't have trust accounts for their children's education, that they don't invest in Canada Savings Bonds, that they don't make any kinds of investments?

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't have RRSPs?

MR. PENNEY: They don't have RRSPs? that is right. Is that what you are suggesting - that everybody in this Province is on social assistance?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PENNEY: That is not a fair representation of the facts either. Nobody said they had to go out and invest $100,000 into Hydro. This is a good opportunity for the investors and the entrepreneurs of this Province. This is an opportunity that they will welcome with open arms, Mr. Speaker. This is a deal that they will thank this government for in a few years' time when they see the tremendous benefits.

MR. WINDSOR: You are going to be (inaudible) history books of this Province, every single one of you over there.

MR. PENNEY: Yes, this will go down in the history books of this Province, Mr. Speaker, as one of the greatest initiatives of this Liberal Government. So, Mr. Speaker, yes, this is a good deal. It is a good deal when you can remove $1.2 billion from the Province's debt, when you can go a year without having to borrow $300 million or $400 million and you can save anywhere from $25 million to $35 million in interest every year thereafter. Yes, that is a good deal. I believe that the electorate in this Province will thank us at the polls the next time for doing it. And I'm quite prepared to go back -

MR. WINDSOR: Would the hon. gentleman like to sell his drugstore? Because whether he likes it or not, it is a challenge.

MR. PENNEY: Does the hon. gentleman want to buy my drugstore? We can negotiate.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) they're good cheap ones.

MR. PENNEY: You've already suggested earlier, my friend, that I've been a very successful businessman, and it is because I understand those figures that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you sell it (inaudible)?

MR. PENNEY: There is no surprise.

My colleague passes me a note saying: Anybody who couldn't understand the federal election act, how can he understand the privatization of Hydro? No, I can't read that, Mr. Speaker, I think that would be sort of unfair. I can't read that.

MR. WINDSOR: We know why it is not unfair to me, but it is unfair to lots of other people who can't defend themselves.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, again, they keep talking about losses of jobs. I would suggest to members opposite that New Hydro and Old Hydro will be involved in exactly the same business, generating exactly the same amount of electricity, delivering it to exactly the same numbers of customers. So, if those individuals who are now employed with Hydro are performing a function that is necessary, why would they not be required afterwards? Why would those employees not be required after the privatization? I would suggest that is another fear, without any foundation, that is being generated out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Go out and meet them, boy, tell them.

MR. PENNEY: I say to hon. members opposite, the only requests I've had to go out to any kind of a meeting are from people who have signed the petition presented here last night, from people who have their minds made up. They are not looking for information from me because they have their minds made up.

AN HON. MEMBER: They understand it.

MR. PENNEY: So why are they looking for public meetings then, if they understand it? That is very flawed logic, Mr. Speaker.

I say to Mr. Speaker and members opposite that this is a good deal and that when we vote on this, I will be voting in favour of privatization and I will be doing so very proudly. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say I had the opportunity to sit down and listen to the very enlightening speech by the Member for Mount Pearl there. I think if members on the other side had any doubts whatsoever that this was a bad deal, or had any fears that it might be a good deal, I should say, then they should put their fears aside and realize that what the member was saying was 100 per cent right and go out and let their constituents know the bad things that will be happening if this deal is allowed to go through.

I noted that the Member for Lewisporte and the Member for LaPoile were listening as the Member for Mount Pearl was making his speech but it doesn't seem as if they learned a lot from it, because the comeback was very weak. If the Member for Lewisporte had all the answers and if he had all this knowledge and information, I don't know why he didn't hit the road and go out and let everybody know what a wonderful deal it was. If he had done that, we probably wouldn't be sitting here till 10:00 p.m. each night; because everybody over here would know it was a good deal - our people would be telling us that - and we could be doing other work for our constituents.

When I was elected last May, I came in here and everybody got up to give their maiden speeches and other people got up to speak, well, for the first time that I had heard them. And they went on to tell about the wonderful people who elected them and the reason why they are here and all the good things they were going to do. I am afraid that this in not happening with this bill that we are seeing before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we are not out there fearmongering; we are not out there putting out innuendoes, telling falsehoods. There is an overwhelming support out there to go against this bill and I think the people over there on the other side may tap their desks in here but when they go out to face their constituents, they will have to face a different type of music. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if anybody had occasion to watch the news tonight but there was a great cross-section of people interviewed there tonight. Some people had a meeting here, other people from the stands, and I didn't hear one person speak in favour of this bill.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for St. John's South was interviewed tonight, too, wasn't he?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am not going to speak about that. Mr. Speaker, the shame of this legislation here in this House is, it is being rammed through the House and everybody is being stifled. And people from the opposite side might get up and say that it is only the people on the Open Line show, it is only people on the Bas Jamieson show or the Bill Rowe show in the morning, but, Mr. Speaker, those are common Newfoundlanders with a great concern who are calling in to those Open Line shows to voice their opinions, and many times, in probably thirty-five districts - at least thirty-four, it might be the only voice that they can put forward, because their members on the other side are certainly not voicing their opinions for them.

Mr. Speaker, my district of Bonavista South is no different from any other district here. You have common Newfoundlanders out trying to make a living, many of them unable to find a job, out struggling every day to put bread and butter on the table, and I can assure you, when the Premier gets up to speak and says: There may be an increase in your light bill or in your hydro bill, that is not something they want to hear. And they are very concerned about selling something that we own. Surely, we owe money on it but it is paying its way, and I think it is something that we hold very dear to our hearts and we should never ever allow it to be lost, because I personally think it is a lever we could use to create economic activity in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, there has been no consultation in this process. The Opposition have taken the bull by the horns and have gone out and held three or four public meetings already, with another slate of meetings for next week. The sad part about it is, some of those people with an opinion to express may be a little bit too late and that is what causes me concern. But the question that continues to come up, the question I am asked, that is put before me every day, is, What does the government have to hide? The perception is out there that there is something going on underneath the desk, there is something happening, that isn't above board. I can't guess at what's happening, all I can do is present them with the facts and figures that are put before us and say, Here is the reason why I think it is a bad deal and let me hear your opinion. Voice your opinion and I will take it back to the House and bring your concerns forward; but the thing that I continue to hear is: Why sell something that we already own?

The Member for Lewisporte gets up and he tells us in a very feeble way the reason why we should do that. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe, and I don't think anybody here in this House believes, the things that member put forward, saying how bad a liability this Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is. We have an asset that is paying its way. We have something that will provide us with economic activity in the future, and I say, why sell it and allow it to be owned by outsiders?

Mr. Speaker, I see the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro as being another nail in the coffin of rural Newfoundland. I find it hard to believe how anybody from rural Newfoundland can get up and continually support the things this government brings forward that so negatively impact on people in rural Newfoundland. I have to refer again to the Income Support Program, something else that was put forward, very, very, negative for rural Newfoundland. None of the members came forward wanting to go out and ask their constituents for their views. It was brought forward in the House. The Premier sanctioned it and that was okay for everybody over there. They are playing to the tune of two or three individuals. They are not listening to the people who put them in the House, and that is a great shame, Mr. Speaker.

If you look at the bill on Hydro you will notice that one of the things mentioned in there is the tax break to Hydro from paying municipal taxes for a number of years. I think the tax break is until 1998 before they pay full rates to municipalities. Here is another example of the municipalities out there today struggling, unable to take advantage of the infrastructure program because they are more than three months behind, more than ninety days behind in municipal financing, in Newfoundland and Labrador financing, another situation where they will be burdened with having to come up and tax the people in rural Newfoundland, an unfair share of the services that they are able to obtain. No money from government, Mr. Speaker, and now no money and no opportunity to tax some resources on the utilities that are passing through their town. 1998 might be a convenient date because, I suppose, by that time government will have gone back to the people and the municipalities will not see the burden they are going to face the following year.

When you listen to the news and read the papers - and obviously everybody here does that, or they wouldn't be talking about the ground swell of support that is out there - it is obvious it is not only people from our side of the House. It is not only the sixteen districts here, St. John's East, and Pleasantville that are unhappy with this legislation. The people over there are facing the same thing and hearing the same complaints, and the same concerns when they talk to their constituents.

The backbenchers on the government side of the House are certainly not speaking out for their people. They are not representing their people, but I am sure they will face the same music - because this is what happened in Ottawa to the Mulroney Government. This is what happened to the Peckford Government in the past, and it will happen to you people, I am sure. This is just the beginning and I ask everybody over there to take heed.

The Member for Port de Grave, who is not in his seat now, stood up and gave us a lot of information earlier tonight when he talked about the people over on this side of the House wasting time, when we should be debating more important issues. I don't think it was the Opposition or the Member for St. John's East who brought in this legislation. It was the government who brought it in. We were quite happy to leave Hydro as it was, and go on and try to bring in some legislation and something positive that will create jobs in rural Newfoundland and get our people back to work, but the Member for Port de Grave got up and talked about us, wasting time here debating this bill. We are not wasting time, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is, we are bringing the concerns of our constituents here to the House of Assembly where they should be brought forward.

I noticed the Minister of Mines and Energy tonight - when one of my colleagues got up and spoke about the Minister of Finance being given those powers that were going to be bestowed upon him, the Minister of Mines and Energy said, no, it was wrong. And then I saw the Minister of Health take the bill up and I wouldn'd doubt, Mr. Speaker, but that was the first time that that bill was read by those two individuals. I wouldn't doubt it, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir got up earlier today and talked about reasons why Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro should be sold; and the reasons he gave - I think one of the reasons was that somebody put some windows in the building out here on Columbus Drive, and somebody else, who was on his way home, stayed in a hotel overnight. Mr. Speaker, that is no reason to sell a company, let's do something about the management; you don't have to go and sell your birthright or, as the people over there refer to it, the Crown jewels, because you have problems with management. Those are the weak arguments, the very weak arguments that are being put forward from the other side.

Now, the thing I suppose that consoles us all, is that we are allowed to go out and buy 20 per cent shares in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - a maximum of 20 per cent of the shares. No one individual, no one company, if I understand it correctly, Mr. Minister of Finance, is allowed to own any more than 20 per cent of the shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifteen.

MR. FITZGERALD: Fifteen?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty.

MR. FITZGERALD: Twenty per cent, I am told - well, fifteen, twenty, let's not argue it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty in New Hydro.

MR. FITZGERALD: Twenty in new Hydro? Well, Mr. Speaker, I could assure you that there is going to be no rush from common Newfoundlanders out to buy 20 per cent or 15 per cent of the shares in New Hydro.

MR. SULLIVAN: It would take $150 million to do that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I am informed by my colleague, the Member for Ferryland that it would cost about $150 million but I can't even think about those figures, I can't even relate to them, that is beyond me.

MR. SHELLEY: Paul Desmarais will own most of them.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the concern to me is, that 20 per cent of the shares could very easily be controlled - and you can correct me if I am wrong - by possibly five individuals, so the bottom line is that five individuals or companies could control or own the New Hydro.

Is that not correct, Mr. Premier?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's possible.

MR. FITZGERALD: They could all be part of - of Hydro Quebec, God spare me the words - the Hydro-Quebec Power Corporation. They could all be people from anywhere in the world - or do they have to be Canadians?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, anywhere in the world.

MR. FITZGERALD: They can be from anywhere in the world - anywhere in the world, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: The sky is going to fall in.

MR. FITZGERALD: No, no, the sky is not going to fall in, but this is the truth of it.

MR. WOODFORD: One year's revenue from Churchill Falls.

MR. FITZGERALD: I understand from my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley that somebody can buy all the shares in New Hydro for one year's revenue from Churchill Falls. Mr. Speaker, this is the fear that is out there. The fear is out there and I know we can go on and talk about the Sprung greenhouses and the giveaway of Hydro and all those things that I don't even want to talk about, but the fear is there because we have been led astray and we have made so many mistakes in the past. I am not saying that we should not be allowed to ever make a decision because we have made mistakes in the past, but we should be always cognizant of the fact that we do those things and we do not consult our people. People weren't consulted in the past when those mistakes were made and they are not being consulted now, and that is the shame of it.

I have nothing against the privatization of a company if it can make money. There is nothing wrong with that. When the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture gets up to speak and puts forward the bill for the privatization of Newfoundland Farm Products, I can assure you right now that I won't be one of the people speaking out against it, I say that right now. I will speak in favour of the bill, and the same with Newfoundland Computer Services - go for it. Go for it, Mr. Speaker. But when you are selling something like Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, something that can give us economic benefits in the future, and allow it to be controlled from outside the Province, give away something that we already own, then, Mr. Speaker, I think the people should be consulted.

We should listen to our people and come into this House and vote the way our constituents would direct us to vote. We should not go out and forget our constituents and follow the lead of one or two individuals.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know if I need to take twenty minutes to talk about what my colleagues have spoken loudly and clearly on all afternoon long. I just want to make a point very clear to hon. members opposite, and to the people in St. John's South. Last April, the middle of April, the warrant was received and this Legislature, of course, was resolved so we went to the people of the Province. Fifty-two people came, there were 100-plus went out there, and asked to be elected. I think all of those people asked the constituents in the fifty-two ridings to support them, for whatever the reason, the party reason, the individual reason, and all other reasons that people could garner up the votes to come in and represent their district.

Now, just to make it clear - because I have heard hon. members say time and time again about talking to your constituents. I have in my hand a copy of a flyer that I put in every door in the district of St. John's South, and I put it on the table. It is a trifold little type that most of us had, and right on the first page, because it was difficult to get all the things I had done for the district in the previous four years on there, however, I managed to squeeze it together, and I told the constituents of St. John's South that Tom Murphy pushed for the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and two other Crown corporations to raise funds for the Provincial Treasury. Now, that was out there in the last election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: That is not a misspeak, I say to hon. members, and I don't need to participate in any charade loaded down with heavy duty politicians and those who have self interests. I know the Member for Pleasantville did what he felt was right, and let his conscience handle it, but I certainly wasn't going to go and watch 137 people of which 130 had their minds totally made up. Now, if the meeting were to show an affirmative side, twenty minutes, and a negative side, twenty minutes, and two people had an opportunity to throw out the facts and figures to 135 people, and then questions came from the floor, that I would feel would be a meaningful meeting.

MS. VERGE: Why don't you organize the meeting?

MR. MURPHY: I say to the Member for Humber East, I organized more meetings in five years than the hon. member organized in the ten years she was justice minister. I haven't heard a peep out of her about the March 5 meeting she held in Corner Brook. Maybe when she stands in her place she would tell us how many she had there.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no, that's fine. Why does the hon. member always feel that to assassinate somebody or to pick on somebody is the way to be? Why doesn't she sit in her place? I won't interrupt her if she will do the same courtesy for me. I got that out of the way.

Back in 1960, Mr. Speaker, when the government of the day actually put together the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission, it was done for a very obvious reason, because Newfoundland Light and Power did not have the financial ability to run all over rural Newfoundland and develop what needed - now the greatest project that was still undeveloped at that time, of course, was the Bay d'Espoir power project on the Island portion of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. member, yes, he may be right that we owned it, but let me ask the hon. member this question: If the present Hydro got in trouble today with a maintenance problem out there that cost $250 million to fix, what would be the solution then?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, no, very real, because I say to the member, the facility is nearly thirty years old. Don't let the hon. member get carried away with the idea that serious maintenance is not needed at times.

AN HON. MEMBER: State-of-the-art (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh yes, state-of-the-art, but I say that to the hon. member and he never incorporated that problem into the figures that he presented here today or to anybody else.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) private company (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Let me say to my socialist friend down in the corner, I will get to you shortly, Sir, if you don't mind.

Back in those days, Mr. Speaker, when we put together that particular package, we were trying to entice companies here, right or wrong, to offer opportunity to our people. In operation at that time, was the Electrical Reduction Company of Canada, which now is a problem, I would say to the Member for Placentia, out in Long Harbour. At that time - and the member knows full well - it generated and created a lot of good high-paying jobs. We could not have given the electricity to that company for those high-paying jobs unless we developed the Bay d'Espoir project. We just couldn't. The grid wouldn't take it.

When you think about it, instead of just a light bulb and a toaster in people's houses, what was happening was that people were becoming more and more involved in the electrical appliances of the 1970s and the 1980s and so forth. We needed to develop it. Newfoundland Power, had they had the financial capabilities, obviously would have jumped at the idea, but they didn't have the money. So the government of the day, the Smallwood Government, had to go out and float the bond issue to put the Bay d'Espoir project together. We had to borrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That is right, exactly. The people of this Province had to put their name on the capital money that was going into building Bay d'Espoir and all the transmission lines associated with it. And the government of the day went ahead and did that.

Now, I hear all kinds of figures coming from hon. members opposite. That was thirty years ago when we started Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Today we own approximately - our equity is 18 per cent. You can twist it to 18.5 per cent, or whatever, but it is approximately 18 per cent. It costs the taxpayers of this Province $147 million a year to service that bond issue.

MR. SULLIVAN: The ratepayers are paying it now.

MR. MURPHY: Who is paying it? The ratepayers are paying it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) paying taxes.

MR. MURPHY: Okay. The ratepayers are not taxpayers, is that what the member is telling me? I thought that the taxpayers and ratepayers were one and the same. Now, perhaps I am wrong, I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh. One of my colleagues says when it suits your argument the ratepayers are different from taxpayers and I would concur.

Now, if the hon. member doesn't mind, $147 million on one billion -and then for people to go out and tell the people of this Province that we are selling, we are giving away, we are privatizing something that Newfoundlanders own, a birthright - we don't own Hydro. We don't own Hydro. Hydro has a bill of $1,030,000,000 and the bond issues -

The Member for Humber East has roared at me about who can afford - the Member for Bonavista South, what Newfoundlander can afford to buy this new company?

Well, I suggest to the Member for Humber East: Who owns the bonds presently financing Hydro?

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundlanders, I guess.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) control.

MR. MURPHY: Ah, wait now, the mortgage rates. The hon. member knows the $147 million interest comes in the bonds that are out there now.

MS. VERGE: Who controls the corporation?

MR. MURPHY: Therein lies another very serious problem, I say to the member, a very serious problem. Historically, I say to hon. members, we have proven, not only in Newfoundland, but all across this nation and all down through the United States and in Europe, that the private sector does a much better job than a Crown corporation. Now, you can argue forever and ever; I say to hon. members opposite, that the efficiency level that exists in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in on Newfoundland Drive today, it looks like the Taj Mahal, a mausoleum to what, to whom, to the poorest province in the country?

Now the Member for Bonavista South makes a point about the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir today, bringing up that the chairman of that day who walked into the building when it was just about completed and found out that it was an air-conditioned building, said: We can't have this. I can't live in an air-conditioned building; I want this building with the windows to open up so the fresh air can flow in.

Well, I say to the hon. member, it cost the taxpayers of this Province $1 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, it is not going to cost the people of this Province one five cents. As a matter of fact, I say to the hon. member, you are doing two things that are extremely bad. You are telling the people that the government is selling something they own which is totally incorrect and the hon. members know it is incorrect, and the other thing you are out there telling the people is that the rate increases will go through the roof and that is just as incorrect. That's a sham and it is a shame, and it is going to impact on the worth of this particular project, so I say to hon. members, stand in their place as they should, represent their districts as they should, represent the voice of their people but, I honestly tell hon. members I met four constituents last night from my district who said to me: You should come in to the meeting at Holiday Inn. I said: If I felt it was to be a productive meeting I would be in there. It is not - I saw this evening as you gentlemen saw it, people up to the microphone screaming at the Member for St. John's North who never had a chance to say why he was going to support Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Is that the kind of a public meeting that you are holding? Is that what you are holding? Well, I will not go to a public meeting and have somebody like Andy Wells shouting and roaring at me, or somebody like Cyril Abery shouting and roaring at me, or somebody like Bill Vetter shouting and roaring at me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, that is not the reason at all. That is not the reason at all. The hon. member knows the reason. It is a situation where you can't win.

Now, I have twenty-four people in my district who called me, and I am now sending out correspondence to tell the rest of the people of St. John's that we will get together, St. John's South, and have a meeting to discuss the Hydro issue. That is my responsibility, not to have a forum for some other people to get up and scream and rant and rave. That is not what I intend to do, and the people who were at the Member for Pleasantville's meeting last night, that were there for the reason, will not be permitted to my meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. MURPHY: No, absolutely not. I will represent my people as I said. I told the people before the election, and for me that was the referendum, not what the member wants now, some silly referendum. I told the people I supported Hydro. Can any hon. member over there say that their literature said, `We will not support the privatization of Hydro'? Not one of you; not one of you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: And you are over there with your pious face telling the people over here to come clean, I say to the Leader of the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: You can shout and scream until the first shares are sold; it won't change one thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now the water rights, there is another issue. You wouldn't know but this government was going out and picking up barrels of water and transporting them to Ontario.

I say to the Member for Ferryland - he lives in Ferryland - for seventy years, God's good water has been flowing through all the power houses on the Southern Shore - and I can name them; Witless Bay, Tors Cove, Rocky Pond, Cape Broyle, Horse Chops, and even the one out in Central Newfoundland. Now, that water has been flowing. Every single Newfoundlander has had an opportunity to utilize that water.

MR. SULLIVAN: Could I ask you a question?

MR. MURPHY: Sure, go ahead.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Right now, the debt is being paid by the ratepayers of this Province. After Hydro is sold, it will still be paid by the ratepayers of the Province, and I ask where the extra profits and the extra financing will go to investors on Bay Street and in the eastern township of Montreal and elsewhere, will you acknowledge that the same people in the Province are going to pay this debt off, right now the ratepayers, the users of electricity, and it is going to be no different before or after in that regard.

MR. MURPHY: Is that a question or a speech?

MR. SULLIVAN: I am asking you: Will you acknowledge that?

MR. MURPHY: Well, what I will acknowledge to the hon. gentleman is one thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, let me answer. I gave the hon. member an opportunity to ask the question. Now, let me suggest this to you. Per capita, Newfoundlanders are the highest home-owners in Canada. Per capita, Newfoundlanders have the highest rate of savings per capita.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Now, just a minute. Now, `Jack', you're the only one I know who has lots of money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: You own more property in St. John's than all other members put together.

So what the member has to realize - it is a fair question.

I say to the member in all honesty, if the Province owned Hydro, if we actually owned it 100 per cent and we had the mortgage in our pocket, then I couldn't stand here and support the sale of it. But it isn't a fact, and I say to the hon. member, the $1,030,000,000 that is still outstanding after thirty years - and the Member for Lewisporte makes a good point - 180 years from now, all things being equal, we will own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least we will own it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: At least we will own it. That is the kind of subjectivity that the people of this Province have been exposed to for the last seven months. The hon. members say: We never had a chance to debate it. Every single one of you stood in this House for fourteen hours and discussed Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Just a minute now, let me finish. If you look at government business, the most government has is seven-and-a-half hours a week to do business, to do bills - that's two weeks. The Opposition, on Monday and Tuesday, ran this House through fourteen hours of petitions, Hydro petitions, so nobody opposite can say that you didn't have two weeks to debate the issues - you did because you used up that time. There is the fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. Member for Ferryland, look, we've had the water on the Southern Shore which St. John's was electrified for for its lifetime.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, the ratepayer and the taxpayer - now, if the member wants to draw lines down between the ratepayer and the taxpayer, I can't accept that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who owns the bonds now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Who owns the bonds right now? I ask the hon. member does he know who owns the bonds? I can tell you there are a lot of bonds owned in Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, D.C. Bank - I think that is in Switzerland also - the Westchester Land Bank, which is also in Switzerland, Newfoundland and Labrador - Japanese yen loan. There is an interesting one, the Japanese yen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I don't want the answer. The hon. member can talk about it when he gets up. There it is. It is sold to and owned by people all over the globe. The bonds that are out there now are owned by people all - if the people put their savings in these banks it costs -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Alright. When friends opposite made a loan to the Japanese yen at a fixed interest rate, that was fine, there was nothing wrong with that. They had to go and get it, I say to the hon. member. The interest rate didn't change. Let me tell the hon. member, which he hasn't told the public of this Province, what did change was the valuation of the yen. It went up 2.5 over the Canadian dollar. So, instead of owing $40 million, we owed $90 million. Why don't you get that out through Bas and through whoever you are going to go through? Tell that to the people!

Let me say one more thing - the hon. member needs to remember where the $6 billion of harness, of yoke, that is around the necks of the people of this Province, came from. When the Moores Administration and Mr. Crosbie, the finance minister, didn't like, didn't have any time for BRINCO - and that was fine, that was his business - he went up and bought back the water rights in Labrador and paid $350 million that has cost the taxpayers of this Province $800 million since that time, and that our friends opposite never paid a bawbee on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, the decision that members of this House are being called upon by the government to make on the future of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and on the reorganization of the electrical production and distribution industries in the Province are extremely important, and I am afraid that if a majority vote in favour of this bill, The Hydro Privatization Act, and the companion bill, The Electrical Power Control Act, we will be making a terrible mistake, a mistake of the magnitude of the Upper Churchill contract of the 1960s.

Now, two members of this House sat in the House in the 1960s and participated in the colossal mistake of the Upper Churchill contract, namely, the Premier and the Minister of Justice. They are the same two members who are the authors of the legislative measures presently before us.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, said in this House the other day that these measures, Bill 1 and Bill 2, are the most important measures to be put to the House of Assembly since Confederation. The government doesn't have a mandate to proceed with these measures. The Member for St. John's South, notwithstanding, the Liberal Party failed to make Hydro privatization part of its platform in last Spring's campaign. Worse than that, the Premier denied having any intention of privatizing Hydro when he was asked directly.

Mr. Speaker, since the election, government has not commissioned any independent people to study options for Hydro. The government has failed to publish any kind of a discussion paper outlining choices for Hydro, retention with changes, retention and the status quo, or privatization, whether stand-alone or on a merged basis. The government began secret talks with Fortis last August and didn't even tell the people of the Province that talks were going on until the middle of the federal election campaign last October 1.

When those talks ended in December, people were fooled into thinking that Hydro privatization was still going to be pursued by the government because, in the Fall, in October and November, it was obvious that there was massive opposition to privatizing Hydro. In February, the Minister of Mines and Energy was denying that the government had made any decision to sell Hydro, so February 28 in the Throne Speech was the first time there was an official announcement that the government was going to sell Hydro. Now, here we are on March 10 and the government has invoked closure to cut off debate on the Hydro privatization legislation, the most important legislative measure to be put to the House of Assembly since Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, the only legitimate way for government to proceed with the sale of Hydro would be to get a mandate through a referendum, and I call on the Premier who impressed people throughout this Province and the whole nation during the constitutional talks of 1989 and 1990, during the Meech Lake process, with his defence of public participation in crucial decision-making.

Mr. Speaker, this is a critically important decision and it is not one that it will be possible to reverse after the next election. So, the only proper way, the only ethical way, for the government now in office to proceed with the sale of Hydro would be to get a mandate from the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador through a referendum.

Mr. Speaker, this is the Premier's initiative, the government's initiative. The onus is on the government to convince people that this is in their best interest, that this will be a good deal for the Government of the Province and the citizens of the Province, both as taxpayers and as electricity consumers.

Now, I've listened very carefully to what members opposite have had to say, both inside the House of Assembly and outside. Not much has been said. Last Friday, the Premier tabled a pamphlet which he said was being mailed to householders. Ironically, I gave it to people in the Corner Brook area who attended a public meeting I convened last Saturday. Others in the area are still waiting to receive it. Here we are about to vote on the Hydro privatization bill and the citizens of the Province are still waiting to get the Premier's mail-out.

What I've heard ministers and Liberal back bench members say in defence of these initiatives are four arguments: Number one, government shouldn't be involved in business. The private sector can always operate more efficiently and do better than government. Mr. Speaker, Hydro is not a business such as processing chickens, such as making doors, such as building ships, or such as selling computer services. Hydro is a publicly-regulated guaranteed rate of return utility which is a monopoly fuelled by water, water which is eternally flowing and, under this arrangement, will be provided free. That is not just any business. It is a publicly-regulated monopoly based on a renewable resource, a resource that will flow forever more, a resource that now belongs to the people of the Province and which is going to be provided free.

Mr. Speaker, the Nova Scotia situation is frequently pointed to by the Premier and members opposite. It is different for many reasons, not the least of which, Nova Scotia power generates electricity by purchasing coal and oil. The private owners of Nova Scotia power have to buy their fuel.

The second argument raised by members opposite is that the sale of Hydro will reduce the Province's debt. That argument has been thoroughly demolished by my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl and other members on this side. The Hydro debt is a productive debt, it is a self-supporting debt, backed up by assets worth way more than the debt and which will be paid for by the rates set by the Public Utilities Board. The cost of servicing and retiring the Hydro debt is built into the rates which Hydro gets as established by the Public Utilities Board. There is no chance that Hydro will have to default on that debt. The Province has guaranteed the debt but there is really no chance the Province's guarantee will ever be called, and even under the privatization arrangement, the Province's guarantee will still stand, so that's a red herring.

A third argument that has been raised by members of the government is that selling Hydro will improve the Province's credit rating. Well, Mr. Speaker, that argument has been knocked down by the credit rating agencies themselves.

You don't have to believe the Member for Mount Pearl but you should believe the representative of Standard and Poor's who was interviewed by CBC radio yesterday, and another official of Standard and Poor's who spoke to the news media on the Province last Fall. Standard and Poor's has said that the privatization of Hydro will not alter the Province's credit rating. Objective analysts have suggested that the Province's ownership of Hydro is a positive factor in the evaluation of the Province's credit rating, certainly not a negative one.

The fourth argument raised by members opposite is that, privatization of Hydro will reduce annual spending on current account by about $25 million, $28 million. If the government debt net around $350 million from the sale of Hydro, and if the government pays about 8 per cent interest on its debt, then we can forego interest costs of about $28 million a year, so that's a positive for our current account which is so problematic. The current account that is used to pay salaries, to run schools and hospitals, but, Mr. Speaker, when all the factors are included in the calculation, what we see is that to gain $28 million on current account, we have to give up twice that amount, and more than that, Mr. Speaker, when this transaction is viewed and assessed globally and the impact on, not only the provincial government current account position is looked at, but the effect on electricity consumers is included, what we find is that, for a $28 million gain on current account, we give up twice that amount for the government, but four times that amount for the government and the electricity consumers. This is absolutely shocking; it doesn't add up.

Mr. Speaker, nobody is even suggesting that through privatization electricity provision and service will be improved. Hydro has state-of-the-art facilities objectively through the Public Utilities Board; it has been assessed as being an efficient, well-run corporation; it's regarded extremely highly worldwide. Mr. Speaker, nobody is suggesting that the sale of Hydro will generate any new investment in the Province, nobody is talking about the private owners building new, hydroelectric generating facilities.

Bay d'Espoir was just paid off last year. We have Cat Arm, Hinds Lake, Paradise River on the Island, all modern, well-built, well-designed facilities; nobody is suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that through privatization there will be any additional employment, in fact, the likelihood is that the private, profit-driven owners of Hydro will trim costs by lowering their payroll outlay, so, Mr. Speaker, if you just look at the ramifications of selling the Island resources, Hydro's generating facilities on the Island and the water rights on the Island, you would have to conclude that it is an extremely bad deal. There is absolutely nothing in it for the Provincial Government, for the taxpayers or the ratepayers. To gain $28 million on current account by lowering debt servicing costs annually by that amount roughly, we will have to give up twice that amount.

To use Treasury Board lingo, there will be roughly a favourable variance of $28 million a year, but over a $50 million unfavourable variance. We will be giving up twice as much from provincial coffers as we will be gaining, but worse than that, when the impact on the electricity consumers is calculated, what we find is that we will be losing four times as much as we will be gaining. Now, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation asked me to explain. I can explain, but in twenty minutes I can't adequately. It is laid out in these documents which I will be glad to share with the minister. Actually, one of the previous speakers on this side, the Member for Ferryland, already outlined most of it.

Mr. Speaker, the explanation is clearly documented using figures cited by the Premier at his closed-door news briefing last Friday. If I had the time, and if members opposite will give me leave, if I can have an additional fifteen minutes, I will do it, but for anyone within listening range, I will be glad to meet afterwards and go through the calculations.

What I think is important for people to know is that to gain $28 million on government's current account each year by lowering interest costs, lowering debt servicing costs by that amount, we will be giving up twice as much in concessions and tax breaks to New Hydro and Newfoundland Power. So selling the Island assets is a very bad deal under the scheme mapped out in this legislation, but perhaps worse than that is the fact that these measures place in great jeopardy our Labrador resources.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to members opposite that they take out the bill, look at clause 4 - clause 4 of Bill 1 - and what they will see on pages 5 and 6 is that what is being transferred to the New Hydro, the private corporation, is all the assets and water rights owned by the existing Crown corporation, and also assets and water rights owned by the Crown which are used in connection with Hydro's business, and what is excluded from that is only undeveloped water rights determined by the Minister of Finance. So that means, Mr. Speaker, one Cabinet minister, without even referring the matter to the House of Assembly for a vote, will be able to transfer undeveloped water rights at Gull Island, Muskrat Falls, or anywhere else in Labrador or the Island of Newfoundland, to the new private corporation.

Mr. Speaker, also in clause 4 of Bill 1 - and I suggest members opposite read it, because it is obvious most of them haven't yet - clause 4 says that through arrangements with the Minister of Finance, New Hydro will take over responsibility for: Certain obligations of the Crown arising under contract, tort, trust or otherwise.

Mr. Speaker, this could mean that the new private corporation would take over management and effective control of the Province's interest in the Upper and the Lower Churchill.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is wrong.

MS. VERGE: It is there in clause 4 and I suggest that ministers and members opposite read it.

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out before, New Hydro shares may be purchased by people and corporations anywhere. There is a restriction of 20 per cent, although according to the legislation the Public Utilities Board will have the power to lift that limit. There is nothing to stop interests in Quebec from gaining control of New Hydro, nothing at all. The Quebec business community is close-knit and the Quebec economy is largely based on hydroelectricity. Make no mistake, astute Quebec business people are already eyeing the opportunities presented by this privatization measure. Look what happened in Nova Scotia. What Nova Scotia had to sell is nothing compared with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. There is nothing to prevent Quebec interests from gaining control of New Hydro and, through New Hydro, gaining control of our Labrador resources.

Already the Upper Churchill is owned by a corporation in which Hydro Quebec is a minority shareholder with the government of this Province being the majority shareholder. CF(L)Co. is not generating enough revenue to meet the costs that are coming due annually.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Do I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SPEAKER: No leave.

The hon. the Member for Lapoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, you know - the Opposition here this evening have used the issue of very craftily developed accounting and bookkeeping methods to bring forward to the people what we would deem to be the wrong information. Let's be very clear about what the hon. members opposite have been saying.

You are saying that `experts in the field' - that's the term you are using - have told you that these are the financial facts with respect to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Now, what have you said? You've said some things along the lines of that the ratepayers and the taxpayers are different at different times. You've also led people to believe that this will be a bad financial deal for the Province. You've convoluted up some figures, tacked them on to each other, doubled them in places, and really come up with a situation that looks unbearable to a lot of people in the Province.

Let's explain this a little bit. The government is confident in the advice that we received from the professional people in the field. The government is not out to perpetrate a wrong on the people of the Province. We were elected to try to do what we think is right for them. On the financial aspects of the deal, let's look at the following.

You people say that we have identified debt premiums, commissions, foreign exchange losses and unfunded pension liabilities totalling $150 million. Furthermore, you add $30 million to this total: $10 million on debt premiums, $5 million on commission, $10 million on foreign exchange losses, and $5 million on unfunded pension liabilities, without explanation, other than the view of experts in the field, that you refer to in the release of Mr. Simms, in the contentions of hon. members.

If you then incorrectly add to those figures the maximum liability which New Hydro might be forced to pay if Old Hydro's interest and land transferred to New Hydro under the act was defective, which you have said is capped at $5 million, but with respect to which no claims whatsoever are outstanding or are anticipated. The cost of defeasance which you people note as being $10 million to $15 million that you speak of - and this is with reference to your news release - you are counting it double. It is really difficult, Mr. Speaker, to understand the way that you people have gone about accounting for the price increases and the problems going -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: It is really disturbing. I knew as soon as these figures were mentioned that the hon. members opposite would start to get a bit antsy about it and would try to interrupt. Now, let's see. It is double counting, let there be no problem with that.

You also go on to note in your release that New Hydro will seek to earn the same rate of return as Newfoundland Power now receives - that is correct, there is no doubt about that - and that we will need to earn greater profits to be paid by ratepayers. You are saying that because of the greater profits that have to be earned therefore there will be a problem - it will cost more. But you negated to include the difference, that difference being that the bonds are now no longer there, so that expense is now gone. You have not taken that into account. That kills your argument, as the hon. members opposite say, and that has to be taken into account.

The debt-equity ratio is being reduced and therefore the increase in the equity and the increased taxation cost is offset by the decreased interest cost on the debt side. It is very plain and simple, very simple economics.

Now, the debt guarantee fee is eliminated, you note. You said: The extra earnings are on equity - which is fine - but by not deducting a reduction in the interest expenses, you automatically are not taking into account the whole picture. Also, you are failing to mention the fact that there is income tax, then, to be paid to the new utility, which balances it off, as explained here by the Premier earlier, so that there is a very limited difference. I think the difference mentioned was something in the order of $200,000 in total difference to the ratepayers and the taxpayers of the Province.

In summary, your data basically is based on questionable amounts. I don't know who your experts are. We have retained firms on behalf of the government. Your experts would be possibly Mr. Simms or the people who assisted you in developing -

MR. SULLIVAN: What firms?

MR. RAMSAY: I beg your pardon?

MR. SULLIVAN: What firms do you retain and how much do you pay them?

MR. RAMSAY: Not me - I'm just saying that the government retained RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod. That has been stated in the House.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) money are they (inaudible)?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RAMSAY: There you go. These people are Chartered Accountants who act under their commission as professional people. They act under a charter. Like lawyers, like the hon. member opposite who is a member of the legal profession, I would submit that a Chartered Accountant, even one who you submit may have a vested interest, does have to provide information, very clear, very accurate, and to the best of his knowledge and ability, and not to mislead the people he represents. That applies to these Chartered Accountants in accounting firms whose credibility and integrity I think is beyond reproach. So, as to one suspecting that we as a government are out to perpetrate a terrible wrong on the people of the Province, nothing could be further from the truth.

The allegations on water rights - let's look at water rights as an example. You maintain that water rights are a problem, that we are going to give up the water rights of the people of the Province. You suggest that New Hydro is to be given ownership of the waters and surrounding lands that make up more than half of the territory of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: That is not correct, that is totally wrong.

What we do propose is that, as you would think, with any company that is going to do business - and really, privatization, one could say, is a misnomer, because this will be a public company, a company whose shares will trade on the stock exchanges available to the general public, available to the business public throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of the world, the same business public who can avail of our bonds but usually it is only those who have huge amounts of money now, to whom we owe huge amounts of money throughout the world who are availing of the bonds. They cannot participate in the shares of the corporation, in the profits they enjoy a guaranteed return on their bonds and we provide the interest to them to offset the cost of their lending us money.

Now, to go back to the water rights: New Hydro - what are they going to receive? Well, New Hydro is going to receive the right to use the water that is now developed for the purposes of generating electricity; that's plain and simple, that is all of the water that they will be using.

If they come forward with a proposal sometime in the future to the people of the Province, and the Province shows according to our power forecast that we need more electricity, we will accept proposals from a variety of different companies and proponents; these proposals will be judged by the Public Utilities Board under the new Electrical Power Control Act, as to the lowest cost power and based on that, if some of them involve water - some may very well involve being fuelled by oil, some may involve being fuelled by peat, some by other means.

The water rights are there to use, it is no different from the average taxpayer and ratepayer who has the opportunity to go out and buy a piece of land if it is in private hands or they can negotiate the purchase of it from the Crown; the Crown has the right then to go back, and if it has to, as it does sometimes when it does road work and other things, the Crown has the right to take it back through the process of expropriation, and that is no different with water rights.

If a company came in and it were to operate a facility and that facility were to go bust, as an example, as a private utility operator, then it would be in the best interest that a new operator be brought in to operate it and the Crown can act on behalf of the people of the Province under the terms and conditions like in the power control act, plain and simple, there is no vested interest in us over here, going out to the people of the Province and saying that we are going to take away their rights.

Now, it is a great political argument for the Opposition. They will go out and they will say that our -

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back (inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: I will get to the finger later. They will, obviously - and they have done a very good job, riling up people with a lack of information.

Now, again, the legal title that you use the lands and the other things that are out there within the - clause 4.1(c) of the Privatization Act states something along the lines of the privatization act providing that New Hydro will receive water rights related to sites that are developed and used by Old Hydro at the re-organization date, which means at the time of privatization, and they will be available to New Hydro for as long as they are used by New Hydro for the purpose of generating power.

If they are no longer used for the purpose of generating power, who is to say that some new technology will not come along. We talk about super-conductivity as something that will reduce the effect of resistance on the lines for transmitting of electrical power, new methods are coming along all the time. I had a chat earlier with the Minister of Mines and Energy about the efficiencies that are being realized in electric generating plants. These efficiencies now, you can have a small, not very large by electrical plant standards, 250 megawatt power plant, that would fit right here in this room, no more than the size of this room, so to look at that in comparison to the size of an electric power generating plant as it currently stands, will be the kinds of things that will allow us, as a Province, to lower the cost of offering electricity to the consumers and the ratepayers of the Province.

Now, you would swear, based on the assessments and the assumptions of the hon. members opposite, that this government has been one to allow power rates to increase (inaudible) -

[A technical difficulty occurred, causing a break in the debate at this point].

Mr. Ramsay continues:

- of the powers of government, we reconstituted the Public Utilities Board, put the Public Utilities Board together in such a way that they could certainly see to object to the rate increase proposals of both Hydro and Newfoundland Power. And time and time again you saw them turn Hydro and Newfoundland Power back, to go back and study and improve the efficiency rather than be granted the increases they were requesting. The increases often were turned down, they were decreased. The people of the Province have done well with respect to that kind of initiative. That will continue, having the Public Utilities Board there to make sure that the rates for the people in the Province are held in check.

What else can we talk about that the Opposition has seen clear to...? Let me see. We talked about the undeveloped sites. You get into the financing of the project. The financial structure which we are referring to here, the debt-equity ratio on the earnings of Old Hydro are such really that it cannot borrow money without a government guarantee. Now, the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, earlier, was speaking about the fact that the assets of Hydro were the security that would be used for the purpose of borrowing money to build these different assets.

If that were the case, then the government guarantee A) would not be required, and B) the financial institutions that lend the money on the bonds to the Hydro Corporation would have to be able to realize on their security. If those capital assets that you speak of are to be the security for the purposes of raising these monies, therefore, the companies that lend the money through the bonds would have to be able to realize on their assets. They can't, so they require the government guarantee. The reason for that, one reason, is: How can they do it?

The fact of the matter is, these are not there to be realized against, so they have to come to the government in that case. Now, if you recapitalize the corporation and increase the equity to a point where you've improved the credit rating, then and only then will the capital markets allow the company to borrow money without the government guarantee. In the interim the defeasance process is necessary so that they are assured there is money there that can be drawn against for the debt - very plain and simple. The hon. Member for Mount Pearl did say - and I did write it down when he said it, because I considered it amazing to think that bondholders are going to be able to come in and take over a power plant out in Holyrood because they've secured their debt against that as an asset. It is utter foolishness, and it shows the depth of understanding that is lacking on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: No, I'm sorry, I'm just explaining some of the mistakes of the hon. members opposite. Let's see. They also say that - they are talking about the debt. Old Hydro's debt, they are saying that the debt is currently self-supporting. However, the insistence of lenders that it be guaranteed by government is a reflection of the relatively weak capitalization - as I mentioned -the lack of equity relative to other business ventures of the company. No individual or government can expect to guarantee loans for others without impacting on their own financial position.

As the hon. the Member for Lewisporte mentioned, if you, as an individual, a company, or anyone else, go out and guarantee loans for anyone else, even though they might be in a very good position to pay it off, as Hydro currently is, it still affects your credit, the fact that you have it on your books. That is another fact that the hon. members opposite fail to note.

Now, the other point that I want to bring out, Mr. Speaker, is they say the privatization of Hydro will cost taxpayers dearly. Again, that is not entirely accurate. The establishment of a $15 million rate adjustment fund is the way that we will offset the cost increases associated, partially associated, with the raising of the debt. They say it is a loss of general revenue for us to establish this fund, that is an expense; but the fact of the matter is, the monies from that fund are to come from the proceeds of privatization so there is going to be new money that will come from privatization, new money that will be raised on the stock market.

The stock market is basically just a method of raising capital, no different from the bond market. The only thing is that the proponents, the people who hold the shares, do have the opportunity to participate in profits and the opportunity also to take lower profits should that be necessary at some point in the future. If in fact those rates are any lower - and they are currently guaranteed under the PUB - if the rates were lower then they would get less and if they were higher they would get more. One would think eventually they would get less.

Now, you people mention the $10 million guarantee fee that government currently receives. If you maintain that is revenue as such - it has only been revenue for the last four years, because the years previous to the rate guarantee fee that the hon. members mentioned, that we were good enough to bring in, it is in fact a cost to the Province to have that on its books. It is not a direct cost, but an indirect cost having the extra debt there because it is seen as an obligation of the Province.

Now, you may make the point of the Standard and Poor's interview but, as we said earlier, if you ask a question in a certain way you are bound to get a certain answer. If there were no benefit for us to relieve ourselves of that debt obligation then maybe we should go out and borrow more money, pile on more debt, and buy Newfoundland Power, buy a good share of Newfoundland Telephone, go out and start buying up companies all over the place, because having debt on our books that we guarantee and that is operating and making profits makes good sense for the people of the Province.

Really, one has to only look at that and say that hon. member's opposite are really barking up the wrong tree. Now, while ratepayers are no longer responsible for that $10 million guarantee fee, it is also true that independent auditors will confirm that government will not in fact have to exercise its guarantee, hence the rationale for charging the fee is gone because of the defeasance process and eventually because of the improved credit rating through the improvement in equity of the New Hydro corporation.

At the present time, government is effectively subsidizing the operation of Hydro with respect to both provincial corporate tax and federal corporate tax as Hydro pays no income tax whatsoever as it is a Crown corporation. In the future, the Province will rebate all of the PUITTA, I think is the term that is used, PUITTA funds to both Hydro and Newfoundland Power so that consumer rates will be lower. That will go into the rate stabilization fund along with the others, and therefore, that will help offset the increased cost that you are expecting would be transferred to the ratepayers and the taxpayers.

Now, the net effect is that the Province is essentially tax neutral. It will be giving up the federal income tax it now receives with respect to Newfoundland Power but it will be receiving new provincial corporate income tax from New Hydro.

You people maintain that the $30 million to $40 million that is to be raised to offset the pension plan of Hydro is to be an expense. It is going to be a loss of general revenue to the Province. Now, that, in fact, is an obligation to the people of the Province, along with the obligations to the other pension plans we hold, therefore we feel it would be best to do that now, to get that out of government's hair. If you are going to raise it on the market it makes a very good thing to do. It is a wise choice to capitalize it when you are raising the money through the other share issue.

Therefore you put it in, you have a fully funded pension plan. There is full security for the Hydro employees. Their pension plan is there and if you maintain that has to do with general revenue of the Province, or subsidy, it is really the contributions paid by Hydro's employees and by electrical ratepayers over the years which government didn't put aside in a special fund as was supposed to be done.

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

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

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, over the last several days and I suspect particularly over the last several hours, we have heard a lot of talk about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, and many of the members have dealt with the particular financial aspects of it. I just want to deal with a couple of particular points.

First of all, I want to talk about the effect this privatization will have on jobs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that Newfoundland Hydro has a number of well-paying jobs and our fear is that some of those jobs will be lost after privatization. Now, the promise of job security for Hydro employees during the transition from public to private ownership is only temporary. If you look at section 7, you will find that there is a recognition here that every current employee shall cease to be an employee of the Old Hydro and shall become an employee of New Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have very little difficulty with that section excepting that it does not give the employees any long-term job security. In other words, as soon as the New Hydro takes over, the company can then proceed to lay off employees, so there is no guarantee of continual employment. Once the transition is done, then the New Hydro can start to lay off its employees - there is no guarantee. However, we will put that in the context of, let's say, Nova Scotia.

The Government of Nova Scotia said there would be no layoffs, no job losses in that province, and we know that a year after that, they had laid off 400 employees. One year later, after saying no job losses, they had laid off 400 employees. Now, in this particular case, the Premier of this Province has said, that there is an expectation that there could be 150 to 175 jobs lost. The Premier has not denied that there would be job losses, however, if we are to look at the experience of Nova Scotia and look at what privatization did over there, then we have to be very leery; if I were an employee of Newfoundland Hydro, I would be very leery of what the future would hold for me.

Mr. Speaker, in a province where we have such high unemployment, we have to do our best, every day, whether we are a government or in business to protect jobs. This Province cannot afford to institute measures that would result in the loss of jobs. We have mentioned here today the effects of the fisheries moratorium and the effects of companies downsizing and the overall problem with the Newfoundland economy. In fact, this very day, the Premier of Alberta was on national radio and television talking about ways in which he was going to help the Newfoundland Government with some of its interest rates and thus, help the people of Newfoundland to pay their debt bills.

Mr. Speaker, we also have to look at the fact that in section 25 there is a provision relative to municipal taxation. In section 25.3(3) it says: "The utility defined in subparagraph 2(h)(ii) shall be liable to pay one-third of the real property tax imposed by a council for the year 1996, 2/3 of the tax for the year 1997 and the whole of the said tax for the year 1998..."

Here is a very successful public utility company that is going to start off balancing its books on the backs of the municipal taxpayers. Certainly, while we agree that we have to give incentives to local industry to establish and I fully agree with that - I practised that when I was the mayor of Mount Pearl - but at the same time, we have a situation here where we have a very financially secure company, a very solid company, with a very solid balance sheet, and we are saying to them: You don't have to pay any taxes in 1995, in 1996 you pay one-third, and in 1997, two-thirds. You don't pay your full taxes until 1998.

I wish that all of the new homeowners who are going to build houses in Newfoundland could go to their councils and could ask: Do I get a phase-in of my taxes? The answer is they won't. If you are in business and you can go to your council and say to them: I want to establish a business, but I want you to guarantee me that in the first year I will pay nothing, and the next year I will have a phased-in rate, then many councils would say to you: We are sorry, we can't go with that. Here we have this very large corporation that is going to have its taxes phased in. I have some difficulty with that kind of arrangement because it is inconsistent with what is done in other aspects of municipal accounting.

We've also had some talk here about the expectation of the rate increases in rural Newfoundland. It has been said that over some years the subsidies which are now paid to keep the rural rates lower will be phased out. In fact, they would disappear altogether. In Labrador, we are told, they could be as much as 30 per cent higher than they are now. Mr. Speaker, we either have a commitment to rural Newfoundland or we don't. If we are going to put in a fee structure which is going to result in the subsidies being lost in rural Newfoundland for generations to come, in some of the rural areas, and that is going to result in rural Newfoundland having higher rates, then certainly we have to be concerned with that. We have to ask ourselves, What are we trying to do, what messages are we trying to give to the people in various parts of this Province?

We have talked about, as well, the mandate. I want to talk for a considerable - well, probably the rest of my time, about the mandate and the process. One of the things that we have to look at, and it has been admitted to, is the fact that this piece of legislation has been said to be the most significant piece of legislation to be introduced in this Legislature since Confederation.

Mr. Speaker, those are not my words. That was admitted to yesterday by the Minister of Finance, and that ranks it up there pretty high - higher than Come by Chance, higher than Churchill Falls, higher than Bay d'Espoir, higher than the great projects which the Smallwood government undertook, with the projects of the 1970s and 1980s. It ranks it up there, and as said by the Minister of Finance, this is the most important piece of legislation in the past forty-four years.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who said that?

MR. HODDER: The Minister of Finance yesterday. I'm saying that if that is true, then we have to be concerned with the process we are following here.

Now, democracy works well when people participate. I understand when people on the other side stand up and say: Last year we had an election. Mr. Speaker, yes you did. I've gone through seven elections. I've sat in city council meetings when councillors have said: No, we are going to do this, and we were elected to govern, and we are going to do it and that is the way it is.

However, government should be `of the people, by the people and for the people', as Lincoln said. In that case, I find it very inconsistent that the government would, on the one hand, say this is the most important piece of legislation, and then they would say: We have to pass it, it must be passed, in three or four days. We started it just a few days ago. It was only distributed last week, and tonight we are told that by 1:00 a.m. we must finish debate on second reading.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we, a few months ago, had public meetings here on proposed smoking legislation. We had public meetings on ATV legislation. We had three whole days of meetings trying to sort out the problems associated with giving accreditation to CGAs the equivalent of a CA. We had three whole days of committee meetings here in this House when people from the public, from business groups, came in here, sat here for three days and made representation. We have had months of meetings on electoral boundaries. In fact, the Electoral Boundaries Commission went across the Province once and held meetings, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then they came back here and we passed an amendment to the criteria and they have gone out and done more work. Now they are going out to have more meetings. They are having them now, in fact.

Mr. Speaker, let me just put it in context for you. Because municipally - let's say that a person who has a house on Frecker Drive in St. John's wants to add on a side porch; that citizen has to go with municipal legislation and if it means a slight variation, if there is a little tiny requirement needed, a variance it is called, there has to be a public advertisement, there has to be a public meeting. People can come in and say: We are for it or we are against it, and the public has a chance to participate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to understand why we cannot do a proper cost benefit analysis of this privatization of Hydro, why there cannot be a consulting firm, why we can't go and say to a consulting firm: `Here, take the data, do the analysis on it,' instead of all this rhetoric back and forth across this Chamber and all the stuff you hear on the Open Line shows or wherever.

Now, I understand that this is the Parliament of the Province, it is the seat of government, and people can participate. But I do believe that if we had a proper cost benefit analysis and the people of this Province were given an opportunity to have some input through public hearings, through some kind of consultative dialogue, then I think we would probably have a much more enlightened perspective on the whole proposal. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen. Therefore, what I'm saying is that sometimes around election time talk about democracy, we talk about citizen participation. Every citizen is a wise, intelligent person to whom we want to go out and say: `Vote for me.' We kind of, in a way, patronize them. Then, when we come to a difficult thing like this, the government says: No, this is too complicated, this is too difficult, it has too many aspects to it. You don't understand this, therefore we can't let you have any decision-making role at all.

We can't have it two ways. If we believe in democracy, we can't say to a citizen, or say to the St. John's Council or the Mount Pearl Council, that you can't go and vary the side yard requirement without a public hearing, and then end up by saying: We can divest Newfoundland Hydro and create a new company, sell it, and we are not going to have any public input whatsoever. It is absolutely ludicrous.

What happens in these cases is that when we are going for election, we talk about how we should be reflecting the people's will and that kind of thing. I don't know out there today whether or not this decision reflects the public's will or it doesn't. There are people who call in to Open Line shows and they say that the majority of the people of Newfoundland do not approve of this particular measure. I can't tell you whether they do or they don't. I can only tell you that when you listen to the public media you are led to believe that there is not exactly an overwhelming support for this particular initiative of the government. However, if that is true, then the public should be able to communicate all that.

When you are elected, you don't get elected and then act in a dictatorial manner for the next four years. You have to be willing to go back and carry on a public dialogue. And if you are willing to carry it on for ATV legislation, and carry it on for electoral boundaries, then certainly you should be able to carry it on for this kind of important and crucial piece of legislation. Sometimes you have to learn to walk your talk. Sometimes in politics we don't always do the things that we say we are going to do between elections. Maybe we should be walking our talk instead of simply doing all the talking here and waiting for four years to do the walking.

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual to refer things to the public. In Canada we don't often have referendums. In fact, we had one in 1942 on a military matter; we had one - two, in fact, in 1948 in Newfoundland; we had one in 1915 in Newfoundland on a proposal to ban alcoholic beverages; and we had one in 1992 on the Constitution in Canada.

I am not advocating we have plebiscites, referendums and that kind of thing, but I am saying to government, if this issue is of such crucial importance - and the Minister of Finance has said it is, he has put it up there with the most important legislation in the last forty-five years - then certainly we owe it to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador not to ram it through, and say to the people, we are going to vote on this by 1:00 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker, we only have to look up in the galleries and see the people who have come out tonight. Now, I have spent a lot of time here in the galleries over the last twenty-five years. I was here, upstairs, when John Shaheen was brought into the Chamber, and others who were brought in when there was public discussion. We only have to look around and say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned. When you have these many people come out somebody is saying: Hold it, wait a little bit, hang off a little bit. Do a proper cross benefit analysis. Maybe the government is right, that this particular piece of legislation does have a positive cost benefit analysis that would be acceptable to the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, but how can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador participate?

The people who are elected here are doing their best. They are doing their best to put on the brakes a little bit, but instead of putting on the brakes, we are saying, we must ram this through because the opposition to it is mounting so fast, and the government is losing control over its public relations so we must get through this, get it off our desk, put it away, and get it rammed through. If we don't, then this opposition will only get bigger and instead of doing the right thing, we tend to say, okay, let us ram it through, let us do what we have to do, do it fast, let us get the pain over with, and forget about the public of this Province. Don't give them a chance to have a say - let them have a say four years from now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. HODDER: I have one last comment to make, that we, as elected representatives, should do the right thing. We know what is right, let's practice it, let's be consistent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity tonight to stand in this hon. House, along with my colleagues, and debate what many speakers before me have called one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this House of Assembly since Confederation.

As the youngest member of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember back in the mid-1960s when one of the last major pieces of legislation came forward here, and some of the most important water rights included in the Upper Churchill were, as many people would say, given away back then. I can't remember because I was only one year old, but over the less than thirty years that I have been on this earth I have read much and talked to many people about what happened back in the mid-1960s. I have talked to many people who said they wish they could have been involved, who wish they had had the opportunity to speak up at that time. They wish they could have had the opportunity to say no. Not too many people had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and our children and our grandchildren will continue to pay the price for what happened in the mid-1960s.

I have the opportunity tonight, for whatever benefit it may be, to possibly stop this legislation. I doubt it. We have a majority on the other side of the House that seems bent on having this legislation passed. But I have an opportunity to record, if not for the sake of changing this legislation, then for my own peace of mind, so that when I sit in my rocking chair in the years down the road I can safely say that I stood my ground and did not falter when the time came.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I got involved in politics simply for the purpose of trying to help other people. I'm not here for any personal gain on any legislation that comes before this House. I'm here to speak on behalf of the people who elected me to this House of Assembly. As I went around back in April of 1993 knocking on doors and talking to constituents, I heard stories, as I'm sure all members here have heard, about how hard it is and how tough it has become in this Province just to survive.

During that election this government said time and time again that the talk about the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro was only rumour. Everybody can be - let's be fair and honest here. They said the talk was only rumour. We all know now that it was no rumour. We all know now that this government did not seek a mandate on May 3 to carry out this legislation. They were not given a mandate on May 3 to carry out the legislation and they have no mandate to put through the legislation they are trying to put through here tonight, Mr Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: I am still in the learning stages of being a member of this House. I learned something last night, Mr. Speaker, that I guess, astounded me at first, but then, when you understand or try to understand the reason behind it, it sinks in faster, and that was when a gag order was imposed. I thought we could stand up here and discuss and debate and put forward our concerns on this legislation. We have petitions duly signed by people from districts all across this Province. We were asked by those people to stand up here and present their petitions and present their concerns, but for some reason or other we were told we could not continue with that and they brought in closure. Therefore, our time is limited, what we can say is limited, so I will try to move along in the few comments I have.

Many speakers have stood up tonight and talked about the pros and cons of the legislation, and we have to be realistic here, there are many Newfoundlanders who do not understand every word of this legislation. I will be truthful, I'm one of those. It is a very complicated piece of legislation. If I had time I would understand every part of this legislation and all Newfoundlanders would understand it. The problem is, we don't have time, because government doesn't want us to understand every part of this legislation. Because they feel it out there, just as we do on this side of the House - they feel the mood growing, they feel the snowball effect of what is happening right across this Province with regard to this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the people in the back benches on that side of the House are feeling it from their districts, the people sitting in Cabinet on that side of the House are feeling it from their districts, and that is why they want to get this a done deal as fast as possible, because they won't be able to handle the pressure if they let the people decide on their own.

We have talked about the water rights several times during the past couple of hours of debate on this legislation, and we can debate until the cows come home, as you would say on the Cape Shore where I come from. We can debate until the cows come home the water rights; are we giving them away or are we keeping them, whatever the case may be, Mr. Speaker. We are, as far as I am concerned, giving away a renewable resource, something that is ours, something within the boundaries of this Province that belongs to us, Mr. Speaker, and, it may not be on the table today to give away these water rights, but in this legislation, in section 4, I believe it is, somewhere down the road, the Minister of Finance, without coming back to this Legislature, without coming back to the people of this Province, without coming back to debate in this House, can give away the water rights of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and that alone raises questions in my head.

Mr. Speaker, several people have been up and talked about who can buy shares in this new company that is going to be formed. I asked that question, I asked it, as a matter of fact, this morning at a meeting in my district in Mount Carmel; how many people who were at the meeting in Mount Carmel, could buy shares, Mr. Speaker. I tell you, not too many. They are more concerned about supper; they are more concerned about putting something on the table, they are more concerned about clothing their children; they are more concerned about health care and education in this Province than they are concerned about buying shares.

The thousands of people in this Province who are receiving fisheries compensation, Mr. Speaker, won't be buying shares in Newfoundland Hydro. The thousands of people who are living on social assistance in this Province won't be buying shares in Newfoundland Hydro. The thousands of people who are on fixed and low incomes in this Province won't be buying shares in New Hydro, Mr. Speaker, because they don't have any spare change to buy shares. And why should they buy shares? We already own it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, one thing we were brought up to in my family, was to have backbone, to be able to stand up when times are tough and speak out and not be afraid to face opposition. But there are many members in this House of Assembly who don't have backbone, Mr. Speaker, and I say that, not in a derogatory sense, I say they don't have backbone because they haven't gone out and spoken to the people in their districts. They haven't gone out to the people in their districts and asked them about this piece of legislation and how they feel about it. I have heard speakers stand up and talk about the two phone calls they had. Everyone had two phone calls, but, it is strange, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite would get two phone calls when I had 102-plus. Are the people in St. Mary's - The Capes different from anywhere else? Do the people in the other districts pay lower electricity rates? I fear they do not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: I ask for the Speaker's protection. I didn't interrupt anybody here for three hours and I ask not to be interrupted, if you have any questions. Now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I ask for protection. I sat here for the past four hours and did not interrupt any speaker, and I ask for the same indulgence.

The Member for Pleasantville went out last night and held a meeting in his district. He heard the comments and concerns of his people, and he will vote with his conscience tonight as he sees fit. Members opposite have stood up but they haven't shown me in any way, shape or form one good reason why Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized.

We can just summarize a few reasons why it should not be privatized. It will do nothing for the credit rating in this Province. We've heard that today from the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl as he explained it. We will have higher electricity rates, we will have higher taxes, we will have loss of jobs, we will have loss of ownership, we will have loss of water rights, we will have loss of economic opportunities. And, Mr. Speaker, under the new legislation, Cabinet can give away water rights anywhere in this Province without any reference to this Legislature. It is written right into the legislation. People would not find out about that until the deal was done. Therefore, we don't have the rights, the rights are gone. If that's the case, that a Cabinet or a Minister of Finance can give it away, we don't have it - there's no right.

I refer to a news article today. I just want to refer to a comment that was passed by the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I have to say, before I became a member of this House, I watched this hon. member as he spoke up for the fisherpeople of this Province. Many times I watched TV and I said: `Way to go, John!' I felt that we had somebody speaking for us. But he mentioned today - a quote from The Evening Telegram: `I wish I could do something about the complacency and apathy that is within this Province.'

I agree, there is a fair amount of it. But I ask the hon. member: How does he think that people will come forward and speak out when they are trying their best to speak on this issue and nobody is listening? Further down in the newspaper item, he says: `I want to be part of something positive happening in this Province.' Well, if the hon. member thinks that privatizing and selling Newfoundland Hydro is positive, he should go out and listen to the people of this Province, because they are telling us every day it is not positive, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past couple of days, I've asked members opposite to go out and have public hearings and public meetings in their districts on this piece of legislation. The Member for Pleasantville did, but the rest of them refused to do so. We've thrown out the challenge to go across this Province with a referendum and the government party says: No, we had a referendum on May 3. Fine. So we had a referendum on May 3, but the people didn't know the facts on May 3, Mr. Speaker. The people didn't know what was coming down the tubes after this government was elected on May 3; therefore, the people were voting while in a state of not knowing exactly what was happening. They were blind to the facts because they weren't told the facts, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier said `no' to public hearings. Answering the question in the House on March 1, the Premier said: "The government proposes to bring the proposal to the House of Assembly for full disclosure of all of the details and for full debate on all of the aspects of it and when that is done I am confident that Members of the House of Assembly who look at it fairly and objectively will come unreservedly to the conclusion that there are compelling reasons to proceed with privatization." I agree with the hon. the Premier. I agree, if we were to have had full debate, but we were stifled, we were closed down yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. the Government House Leader, therefore we cannot have full debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Several times the government has referred to the option taken by Nova Scotia. I hardly believe that we should look at Nova Scotia and put forward our game plan based on what happened in Nova Scotia. The Government of Nova Scotia said no jobs would be lost, but 400 jobs were eliminated after privatization was completed in Nova Scotia. The Government of Nova Scotia said their credit rating wouldn't be hurt but it deteriorated, dropping by two rating agencies, despite their promising that the opposite wouldn't happen, Mr. Speaker.

Nova Scotia was forced to raise taxes, breaking their election promise from only six months previously, by hiking sales taxes, gas and fuel tax and electricity rates after they promised not to do so and all of this, because they privatized Nova Scotia Power. Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House of Assembly, and representing a rural riding, I am disturbed by the legislation that has come forward under this act that will hurt rural Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. MANNING: Why? If you will give me one moment I will tell you why.

Under the Privatization Act, government will pay New Hydro a subsidy of $15 million to reduce the amount of rural electricity rates subsidy charged to Newfoundland Power. Presumably, Newfoundland Power will pass on the savings to its customers but the $15 million government subsidy, is a one-time payment intended to offset some of the increase in electrical rates caused by privatization. It will be a temporary fix, Mr. Speaker. After a year or two, rural customers will have to pay the full cost of electricity or else the full amount of the subsidy will be tacked on to the rates charged to other domestic customers in the Province, but industrial customers will be exempt. Mr. Speaker, I call this another kick to rural Newfoundland by this government; and the list goes on.

DR. KITCHEN: What list?

MR. MANNING: The list of the kicks to rural Newfoundland, I say to anybody, but you wouldn't know, you live inside the overpass, so I have no problem with the minister opposite.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You're living in Wonderland.

MR. MANNING: You are living in technicolour, my dear man.

Mr. Speaker, an opinion poll was taken which showed that over 90 per cent of this Province was against privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The hon. minister may not know because I am sure he is not aware of a lot of things that go on. But, an opinion poll taken showed that 90 per cent of the people in this Province were against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro in this region.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety-two per cent on the Avalon.

MR. MANNING: Ninety-two per cent, Mr. Speaker. The members opposite, as I said, if I am here as long as they are - I mean, there were hon. members here, Mr. Speaker, when I was one year old. So when I have thirty years under my belt, I will be able to jump up and roar and shout, too, but I ask for a bit of indulgence here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to be able to speak tonight in this debate.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order. I think it should be noted in the record of the House that the hon. gentleman has spoken in this debate. We are prepared - I speak for my colleagues here, and hon. members opposite will speak for themselves - we are prepared to give him leave to speak a second time, just as we allowed the Leader of the Opposition to speak a second time. But I think it should be recorded that - at least in my submission - he has no right to speak a second time in this debate. We are certainly more than glad to hear him again if he wishes to ask for leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not claiming to know everything about this or Hydro, as some hon. gentlemen, but it is my understanding that presently we are debating the closure motion as put forward by the Government House Leader. I thought that all members were entitled to speak for twenty minutes and if 1:00 a.m. comes before that we are finished. Otherwise, the member is quite entitled to speak, as I understood - but, as I said, not knowing everything or pretending to, as some people do.

MR. HARRIS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: He has a right to speak.

MR. ROBERTS: No, he doesn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, that's right, not in your book he doesn't!

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

I'm trying to hear the hon. the Member for St. John's East, who is on the point of order, and I would like to hear what he has to say.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To that point of order. My reading of the rules is that upon a closure motion each member can speak once for twenty minutes. I don't wish to use up more of the time than is available to me, which seems to be the only point of this interjection. Since there is nobody going to object, let's not bother with the point of order and let me get on with my speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Member for St. John's East already spoke on second reading of this bill. They are not permitted to speak a second time. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition was permitted to speak, and I ask that the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) allow him to speak, he is entitled to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East is permitted to speak.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking to the bill, it is fairly obvious from the motion of closure, how restrictive the motion of closure is on debate in this House. Whether Your Honour has made the ruling - and the stifling of debate implied in the closure motion is very clear. But I don't want to waste my time, the few minutes I have to speak on this, to get involved in that issue. I want to deal with the substance of this matter before the House, An Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever before this Legislature, and one of our most significant assets as a people. The first thing I want to address is the notion being bandied about that somehow or other we don't own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. We've had the President of Treasury Board, the Member for St. John's South, and various other members opposite saying: We don't own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro because there are bonds outstanding, because there is debt associated with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if we don't own it, what's the point in selling it to get money? What is the point in selling it to supposedly get money if we don't own it? That is like saying that I don't own my house which I have a title on to the Registry of Deeds here because I have a mortgage on my house. I want to say that I'm proud to be a home-owner, because I own my house, even though I may owe some money to the bank. Every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who has a house and may have a mortgage on it also claims to be a home-owner and quite proudly so. We own Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, every wire, every tower, every insulator, and every drop of water that flows to create the hydroelectric power that goes with it, we own it as a people, and we want to continue to own it.

This debate, Mr. Speaker, has struck a chord in the people of this Province and it is not an ideological debate about private enterprise versus public enterprise, it's a debate that has struck a visceral, gut reaction in the people of Newfoundland, because this government is trying to sell off and get rid of one of our most valuable, successful corporations, that we are proud of, and that we feel we need as part of our commitment to our own people and to the future.

We, Mr. Speaker, are being asked to give this up, to give up a corporation which, whose counterpart in the Province of Quebec has been regarded for many years as the engine of economic growth and development for their people. It has also been a very significant boost to their national identity and national pride and Quebec nationalism. That is important to the people of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, just as those same notions of pride of ownership and pride of Newfoundland and Labrador is to the people of this Province, and Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro represents, it is a symbol of that pride and that ability to have an asset that can be and should be a resource for our people and for our future. So, why are we selling it? to get some debt off our books says the Premier, to recover some equity. And that can be used to not spend money this year and not spend some money next year, perhaps borrow a couple of hundred million dollars less and save - and I have given this a fair hearing, I think, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to all the figures and facts and heard what we have had to say - and come up with $25 million a year less interest payments on this $200 million or $300 million forever, the Premier says. But let's look at it and see whether it bears analysis. Let's see who benefits and who loses by this deal.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there are very few beneficiaries; they are going to be, obviously, the stockbrokers who are involved in the sale and the deal. They are going to be the lawyers who are involved in all of the securities and other aspects of it, and are already involved in advising the Premier and advising Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and I won't get into who they are, or what party they belong to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I won't get into any of that, that's all very well, the public can decide what they want about that - but they will benefit. The people who buy the shares will benefit, those who can afford to, some of them will be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, some of them who have lots of money already, they will benefit even more by buying these shares, and the majority of these buyers will be people outside of the Province. Now, who loses?

The employees will be laid off and lose their jobs as a result; they will lose, obviously, and they will be there, there were 400 in Nova Scotia when they said there would be none. The Premier acknowledges that there might be a couple of hundred here, 150 or more, so we can expect at least that many and maybe many more. Who else will lose, Mr. Speaker? The people of this Province will lose in two forms. The people of this Province who are taxpayers, all of the people of this Province will lose.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) ratepayers.

MR. HARRIS: The taxpayers, I say the taxpayers, to the Member of St. John's South, because that doesn't just include the people who pay hydro bills; little children who pay their sales tax on candy bars, they will lose because their taxes will have to go to pay the increased cost, and the ratepayers as well, because, as part of this deal, to sweeten the deal for the people who are going to buy these shares, we are going to do a number of things.

The taxpayers are expected to put up $15 million as a rate adjustment. We are also expected to give up the $10 million per year that we get right now as part of the debt guarantee fee; we are also going to lose to the Public Utilities Income Tax Act, the money that is now received for Newfoundland Light and Power, and we are going to give up any income tax by this new, private Hydro Corporation as well; together that will cost in excess of $30 million. We are also going to give $30 million-plus to this New Hydro Corporation, from the taxpayers, to make up for pension adjustment and unfunded pensions, some $85 million-plus will be given up by the taxpayers now, and much of that will go on and carry on year after year as part of the ongoing cost of Hydro. And approximately $40 million-plus of that will go on as losses to the taxpayer forever and ever.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the equation, the people who have to pay the rates - and these are rates that are going to be guaranteed by the Public Utilities Board, guaranteed to make sure that there is a return on investment by those new equity holders, and a very high rate of return, in the range of 13 per cent or 14 percent. I know that because I've been to the Public Utilities Board, and I know how the rates are set. They are set on the basis of a guaranteed return on investment for these equity owners. Experts are brought in at great expense, and they tell the Public Utilities Board what the expected rate of return is, and the Public Utilities Board invariably grants it or something very close to it, within a half a point or a quarter of a point.

So there is going to be $20 million a year new money required to pay for the $300 million-odd equity that is being transferred from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to the new corporation. There is going to be an additional $10 million per year required to change some debt into equity, about another $300 million. Another approximately $5 million a year is going to be required to obtain the 50:50 debt to equity ratio that, as a minimum, these private corporations like to have.

In about four or five years, another $10 million to $12 million will be required to maintain the rural deficit. That is either going to have to be paid by the elimination of the rural deficit and therefore by the rural customers, or it is going to have to be shared by everybody. That is another $47 million that the ratepayers will have to pay.

If you put all those together, what the ratepayers will have to pay and what the taxpayers will contribute, you come up with about $90 million to $100 million. All for a savings of $25 million which is claimed by the Premier. That is a bad deal in anybody's books.

What is even worse is that the government claims that we have, first of all, a reduction of our debt and an improvement in our credit rating. We've heard that. We are going to shed a billion worth of debt. There is some fancy finagling about the defeasance and whatnot that goes back and forth, and all of that. If we take all of that at face value we perhaps will have gotten rid of a billion dollars worth of debt. But it is not debt that is a burden on the people of Newfoundland any more than the debt or equity that is going to be there that the ratepayers will have to pay anyway. And it doesn't affect our credit rating, much as the Premier would like to convince people. The people who establish the credit ratings, Standard and Poor's, the Canadian Bond Rating Service, say it doesn't matter. It is not considered part of the debt of Newfoundland because it is self-supporting debt paid for out of the revenues.

The other thing the Premier says is that this corporation didn't give, before they came in, one red cent to the Province of Newfoundland until they started collecting the 1 per cent debt charge. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the fault of the government. The government could choose any day they wanted, to determine how much revenue Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro had to return to the government. They do it every time they want, with the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation. If they want an additional $10 million or so from the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, they say so. They say: We would like another $15 million of revenue, and the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation turns around, puts the price up of the booze, and the government gets another $10 million or $15 million. If they were really concerned about getting revenues from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, all they have to do with a stroke of a legislative pen is to insist that the corporation return money to the government, and it would.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another very grave concern here and it hasn't really been made public. I'm glad the Premier is here because I hope he will speak and answer this question - it is a concern that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians must have; it has been raised publicly but has not really been addressed in this House, and that is the danger that this deal could eventually cost us the loss of Churchill Falls, (Labrador) Corporation and the Labrador power. And that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, by the man, whom the Premier says doesn't know what he is talking about. It has to do with the financing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Avery - the Premier remembers, he knows who it is that he says doesn't know what he is talking about - the Chairman of Hydro for many years.

Late in this decade, Mr. Speaker, the Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation will go into a deficit position. Their revenues are constant; they don't have the Public Utilities Board putting up their rates, their rates are constant, they are set and, in fact, they are going down, the return on that electricity. By the end of the century, Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation will be running into a deficit and will have to be subsidized either by this government or, by the larger corporation, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which will lose its opportunity to do so. And, Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Newfoundland doesn't put in that share of the deficit to keep that company going, then someone else will, and that someone could be Hydro Quebec, who has the right to do that.

The second thing that is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, in not a very long period of time, in about the year 2010, which is about fifteen years from now, there is going to be a need for $200 million or $300 million to repair, renovate and refurbish the facilities of the Churchill Falls Hydro Corporation property, and that money is going to have to come from somewhere, Mr. Speaker. If the Newfoundland Government doesn't put it in, Hydro Quebec will be happy to, and take over the balance of the Churchill Falls Corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having all of this corporation, this big Hydro Corporation together, will allow us, as a people, to hold this project together until the time comes - and that's not very long historically - when we will have full control over the Churchill Falls power rates when that contract runs out, but we have to be there, Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to sustain the requirements of Churchill Falls (Labrador) Corporation when it goes into deficit until that time comes and we have to be able to put in our share of the repair bill when the time comes for that as well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the way the government keeps talking about the revenues of the Province, we don't know what it is going to be like in 2015 or 2010, but we do know that if we have a whole corporation including the downstream end of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the distribution end, if that is tied in with the whole power project as part of one big corporation, then we will be able to do it and maintain it. It is a fear I have, Mr. Speaker, and it is not fearmongering; it is a fear I have that has not yet been answered and addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I am told that I have three minutes left to speak and I want to summarize what I had to say by saying that throughout this Province, right now, people are starting to realize how determined this government is to rush this bill through without proper consultation, without proper consideration by the people of this Province. The people who are here tonight are no doubt here because they saw on television tonight that this government was intending to bring this matter to a vote tonight, after only one day, plus about two hours of debate; one of the most significant pieces of legislation ever brought before the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, is going through in one day and two hours of debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, they will say there were no petitions. They will say there were all kinds of other things going on, but yes, there were petitions; more than 5,000 petitioners wanted their voices heard in this House when this debate started and they haven't all even been presented yet. And the hon. members opposite said nobody cared - were they in the galleries? well, they are here, Mr. Speaker, because they found out what this government intends to do and they are not very pleased. I think, Mr. Speaker, the government should do the honourable thing and recognize that the people of this Province want more debate about this issue, they want to have more say about this issue, and there must be some process to involve them in a decision.

I suggested earlier today that a referendum might be appropriate. It wouldn't be necessary if there was significant and substantial debate going on, on the deal as it has now been presented. It was only presented to the people of this Province last Friday when the Premier gave his private press conference and told members of the press what the figures were and what the numbers were. We still don't know what the bottom line is in terms of what the Province is going to get. There needs to be more public consultation, more public discussion and, if necessary, a referendum to decide this issue.

I'm not satisfied that the people of the Province know all the answers. Some of them don't even know what the real questions are because there hasn't been sufficient public discussion. I'm opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and I would ask all hon. members to vote against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I should acknowledge that ordinarily, as the minister responsible for bringing in the bill, I would speak last and close the debate. The House Leader has asked the Opposition House Leader if they would agree, if they wouldn't object, that I would speak now, but it wouldn't impair the ability of anybody to speak afterwards, the debate would continue. I'm asking the leave of the House to speak now rather than wait to be the last speaker at 1:00 a.m.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for St. John's East needed leave to speak, the Premier needs unanimous leave to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that is what the Premier is asking, I believe.

PREMIER WELLS: That is what I'm asking. I don't need leave to speak as such. As the minister who introduced the bill, I have a right to speak to wind up the debate. It has been a long day that started quite early in Ottawa this morning at meetings, and I'm just asking members to give me the opportunity to speak now without having to wait to speak last. If hon. members don't -

MR. WINDSOR: You could have had this debate over two weeks instead of jamming it into one day!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If hon. members don't want to, I will wait until the last, but I'm just asking a normal courtesy that ought not to be offensive to reasonable-thinking people. If they don't want to, that is okay. If there is leave? Is that agreed? Okay.

MR. TOBIN: I still don't think (inaudible), by the way.

PREMIER WELLS: Well -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The practice of the House is that the minister who introduces the bill, if and when he speaks, then closes debate. What I understand the Premier to be asking is to have the leave of the House to let him now speak and not conclude debate -

PREMIER WELLS: Not conclude the debate, that is what I ask.

MR. SPEAKER: - and give other members an opportunity to speak. But to do that you would need unanimous consent, otherwise, when the Premier speaks he would close debate.

Is the House prepared to give leave to the Premier to speak now and to allow other speakers to follow him?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

PREMIER WELLS: All others except the Member for Mount Pearl?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave is given.

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member for Mount Pearl wants it, then that's alright.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order. Technically he is entitled to speak twice on the bill, to introduce it and speak again. Under closure, everybody is entitled to speak, or until 1:00 a.m. at which closure will take effect. If there is sufficient time for all other members to speak by 1:00 a.m. on our side, technically it couldn't be denied under rules of closure.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the proper interpretation is that not everybody has to speak and if the person who introduces the bill is recognized, then it precludes other members who have not spoken from speaking. If the minister speaks prior to 12:40 a.m. then it would preclude other people who have not yet spoken from having the floor. What I understand the Premier to be requesting is that he have leave of the House to speak now without closing debate.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl is not prepared to go along with it so we won't follow that practice.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, in the House here tonight most members on this side have spoken - there are only a few members, I think, left to speak on this side. There are quite a few members on the other side who would wish to speak and are supposed to participate in the debate before 1:00 a.m.; however, Mr. Speaker, twenty minutes is not much time to say what any given member in this Assembly wants to say with respect to this piece of legislation, twenty minutes to try to sum up a bill that is one of the most important pieces of legislation to pass this House since Confederation.

From the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one question, a very simple question that has been put to me by my constituents and other people around this Province no matter where you go. You can go into any restaurant, you can get in the elevator, you can get on a flight out at the airport to go back to the West Coast, anywhere you go, the question put to me is this - really, there are two:

Why and what is the rush? Now, since I am sitting in the House of Assembly, privy to the legislation and privy to what members are saying, doing and talking about, my answer to my people is this: that as far as I am concerned, they started on Monday and we went with petitions, no problem, we went on Tuesday with petitions, no problem, but, all of a sudden, the closure motion was brought in, in other words, the gag order. Why? Because, Mr. Speaker, the heat is on, the thermostat is turned up on this particular piece of legislation around this Province - it is just about on `bust', as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians say - and they had to move fast. Pressure is coming on members in this House, right from the top, from the Premier's office down. You can say what you like on this particular piece of legislation. And a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are like some members in the House, they don't understand everything that is going on in this piece of legislation, and I can see why.

The Minister of Justice stood in his place the other day - when someone on this side of the House commented on all the public opinion that is starting to go against this legislation, what did the minister say? wait another day or two and see what happens, that when the media turn around they will turn for good. The media didn't turn around, the people of the Province didn't turn around, Mr. Speaker. And the members on this side of the House of Assembly didn't turn around, they are facing this piece of legislation head-on; they are taking it clause-by-clause, they are going to debate it clause-by-clause and they have their homework done on it, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: That didn't happen; in fact, the opposite is happening around this Province today and tonight. I am here nine years next month, April 2, and I have never ever seen the numbers in the gallery that I see here tonight - have never, ever seen it in nine years.

Now, the member might remember and the Premier and his colleague, the Minister of Justice, might - because they have been here for the last thirty years - I don't know.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) put them on the street.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, you put them on the street. The people of Fogo put you on the street a few years ago, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get into some of the meat of the legislation and I would like to remind members opposite that, they always used to slap it up to me when I used to get up about Sprung; I never backed down from Sprung, Mr. Speaker, I met it head-on and I challenge any member opposite to get up and challenge me on Sprung and ask me a question on it, and I challenge members tonight on this particular piece of legislation.

I said a few years ago, just after they won the election in 1989, when they started to get real cocky after a year or two - that's an expression of Newfoundlanders - Don't get cocky my son, because you are going to pay the price sooner or later. I can see, Mr. Speaker, it is starting to come home to roost. After just five years, I can see the albatross that is going to hang around the necks of members opposite. Mr. Speaker, this bill is the albatross. It is called Bill No. 2 - Bill No. 1. There are two in it, really, but that is the one.

I say to members opposite - I heard members speak tonight. I have a great deal of respect for every member in the House of Assembly. And I don't mind any member getting up and speaking constructively on a piece of legislation, that's what we're here for. We are here for debate. But when you get up to debate you have to comment on what the other members said. If it's wrong, it's wrong.

Granted, this piece of legislation is emanating from two gentlemen in this House, namely, the Premier and, secondly, the Minister of Justice, no question. They are two lawyers, two of the best in the Province, supposedly. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask members in the House, and I ask people around the Province, with all due respect for lawyers, what do they do to make a living? They stand in the courtroom and one is trying to make a liar of the other. Right? You have a defence and a prosecution. One is trying to show that the other fellow is wrong. Both are fighting for the same thing, trying to say the other fellow is wrong. Now, whoever the judge or jury listens to, he is right. What does it make the lawyer? Mr. Speaker, this is where it's coming from.

I can understand members opposite in going through a piece of legislation such as this - and it is complicated, no question - getting their homework done on it. One hon. member had the gumption to go out and, I suppose, got away from the part of being a cheerleader. Because that is what I said I was for four years in the back benches of the government from 1985 to 1989. I was just a cheerleader, but I wanted to be on the team. I can see members opposite now wanting to get on the team. There is a Cabinet shuffle coming up. If there is ever a time when they are trying to shove away the fellows who have all bases loaded is now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. WOODFORD: Right on! Yes, you can say that again.

AN HON. MEMBER: None out.

MR. WOODFORD: And none out. Mr. Speaker, the Premier might -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I can't promise you a seat even if you do vote for it.

MR. WOODFORD: Well I know, but, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, he knows who the cheerleaders are because everywhere he goes today you can see the boots stuck out from behind him - everywhere he goes.

Now, I have to get into at least one particular - the Premier, just the other night when he opened debate, I think it was on last Friday that he spoke, one of the things he dwelt on was the subject of rate increases. I don't know exactly where it is. Then the brochure came out afterwards. I didn't see it while he was speaking but it did come out later. Now, when I had time to go through this - and there are a lot of the other things I would like to speak to, the money aspect, the shares, and what is going to happen and so on, but I would like to stick to this for now. Because this is very fundamental, and it is basic to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian because they understand it. And the reason why they understand it is because they get a light bill every month and they can see it. It is not marked `bill,' or `legislation,' it is the light bill from Newfoundland Power and they can see it.

Mr. Speaker, if anybody and everybody in this House - and most hon. members in this House can remember. There are some new members on this side and new members on the opposite side who came in last year, May of 1993. I can recall the Budget of 1990 when this Administration - and if they have done nothing else in the last five years, Mr. Speaker, I saw today the quote somewhere, that `they made arrogance a virtue'.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: They made arrogance a virtue; because, I tell you: in 1990, when the $30 million was adjusted - it was the subsidy job for the PDD system - in 1990 when the 1 per cent fee was charged for the float on Newfoundland Hydro's bonds and came to approximately $9 million - correct me if I am wrong - what happened? This is not fiction, this is not something hypothetical, this is the past that I am talking about that any member can pluck out from their files, any member can go over to Newfoundland Light and any member can go to Newfoundland Hydro now, I suppose, I don't know if they can get it now or not. But anyway, what happened?

Ten million dollars-a-year over three years to the PDD system phased in - what did Newfoundland Hydro do? they went to the PUB for a rate increase of approximately 3.9 per cent. What then was passed on to Newfoundland Light? an increase of 2.2 per cent. What was the charge on a light bill per month for a bill of approximately $200? Approximately $4.40 per month. Now, that was on $10 million, after $30 million subsidy was dropped from the PDD system, not counting the 1 per cent fee, the $9 million to float the bonds, what did they do with the other $9 million? They took the $9 million - they didn't go to the PUB, they took the $9 million out of the rate stabilization plan, that's public knowledge. They didn't go for the rest of the rate increase - that's what I am trying to say.

If they had gone for the other $9 million increase, the fee to float the bonds, it would have amounted to 11 per cent increase to Newfoundland Light. Okay, I mean, the Premier can get the facts, I have mine here, if he wants me to quote them - but the truth hurts, Premier, the truth hurts and it is obvious. But, Mr. Speaker, it was approximately November, 1991 that that was done.

Now, in the figures released in the information sheet that is going around to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, it shows on the first page, current industry structure. Hydro's increase to NP, Newfoundland Power, 3.5 per cent in 1995, and in 1998, 3.8 per cent, and then privatize Hydro which is just down below that, Hydro's increase to NP, 12 per cent in 1995, 4.5 per cent in 1995 -1998, resulting - see how nice it is done - resulting in a 1 per cent average for the five years up to a total of 5 per cent. Now, come on!

If it took a 2.2 per cent increase in 1990-1991 dollars to give us a $4.40 increase a month on the light bill, how are we going to have a 12 per cent increase in 1995 and let it come to what the Premier said the other day, $1.25 in the difference? Now, any Newfoundlander and Labradorian can do his sums.

AN HON. MEMBER: New math.

MR. WOODFORD: If that is the new math, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) aren't in the gallery, (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Maybe they aren't in the gallery, maybe they're gone home to check their light bills.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe the lights will go out yet.

MR. WOODFORD: The lights might be out before the night is over - they are probably afraid.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very, vital point; that is true, it is factual, all members have to do if they know anything about the PUB - and I think the Member for St. John's East mentioned the mechanisms used by the Public Utilities Board in rate increase in the Province.

Now the Member for Carbonear and the Member for Gander, the Minister of Finance, when he was on council in Gander - go back - and I don't have to tell either of those gentlemen what the PUB does and what the utilities used to do when they would go for a rate increase to the PUB. It was just a maze of lawyers and a maze of, supposedly, facts, to try to hoodwink and to blind everybody who was in there looking for a rate increase. I remember that time because I served on the Federation of Municipalities and that was one of the only interveners in the Province, as the minister can recall. It was the only one for years and years that used to intervene on behalf of municipalities. It was intimidating - just total intimidation.

Mr. Speaker, members opposite have said, Well, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can buy shares in Newfoundland Hydro. That is who will be lined up to buy shares in New Hydro. There is not a Newfoundlander or Labradorian in this Province today who has to wait to buy shares in a company. You don't have to create a new company to buy shares. You can buy shares in any company out there today. Fortis is there to buy into. They can buy in Newfoundland capital. They can buy into anything out there today. It is wide open. There is nothing new about that.

Members opposite and the Premier, especially, figure that the fact it is New Hydro is why Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be lined up to buy shares in it. Well, I say to members opposite that I will have no trouble getting a couple of buses, and that is about all it will take, to get the people who are going to buy shares in New Hydro. Now, there are people in my district who are going to take a few shares, no question, but they certainly wouldn't be buying 20 per cent. Who is going to buy the 20 per cent, Mr. Speaker?

We all know what can happen with companies, how companies take over, how they buy so many shares, and they then switch to this one and switch to that one. They get their father to buy a share, then the daughter buys a share, then the uncle buys a share, and then all of a sudden after a year the father owns everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fearmongering now.

MR. WOODFORD: Fearmongering. If the member would take a little time and go through that piece of legislation in detail, talk to his stockbrokers and talk to his lawyers, the people who have access to the information, he is not going to come up with anything different. We don't have time tonight to go down through this in detail and for everybody to ask a question on it. Each and every member should go into their districts and have public meetings, subject themselves to the people in their districts, and sit down and let their constituents ask them the questions. That is the way to do it. Because if the member doesn't understand it, don't expect the people to understand it.

Getting back to what I said from the outset, Mr. Speaker, why the rush? Take your time. Give the people a chance. I remember doing the new Forestry Act back a few years ago. We went around the Province with the Forestry Act. What did we find out after a couple of nights? The former minister responsible for tourism brought up a point at Holiday Inn, I think that is where it was, and all of a sudden there was an uproar. Clause 7 (2), a clause that stated that every Newfoundlander and Labradorian around this Province could go anywhere within ten meters of any lake, river, or pond in the Province. What was done? I still say there was a hidden agenda, and it is now all starting to come out, because now in Clause 7 (2) of the Forestry Act that was passed a year or so ago, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council -

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, but it came under your department. What are you responsible for? Do you know that? You are responsible for the Forestry Act. So, what can happen is, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council can give anybody in the Province now the right to use these ten meters. It is all starting to come back. With the Crown Lands Act done under your department - you are responsible for forestry and agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) Crown lands, boy!

MR. WOODFORD: You were responsible for that time. Never mind. Because we had to remind you what was in the act, and it was an act ever since, Mr. Speaker. And I'm sure the minister, if there were any Grammies given out for that, he would get it.

Mr. Speaker, the funny thing about all this, at the same time that the subsidies were taken off in 1989-1990 on the PDD system, what is the first paragraph in the Budget on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro? `Mr. Speaker, we are the owner of one of the most financially sound public utilities in the country, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. While we have no intention of interfering with the financial position of the corporation we have concluded that it can be called upon to relieve some of our budgetary pressures.'

I can on with all kinds of accolades: `In view of its contribution to the corporation's sound financial positions, a net income will retain earnings and to refrain from passing the cost on to its electrical subscribers,' and so on - all kinds of accolades. All of a sudden, three years later, it is gone. It is a burden on the Province. Why couldn't the Minister of Finance go this year and ask for 2 per cent or 3 per cent if it is needed? The hon. the Member for St. John's South brought up: Who is going to do the maintenance? Who is going to do the maintenance if Newfoundland Hydro -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: I would like to have another hour, but thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak in this debate. The hon. the Minister of Justice, the Government House Leader, speaking in the debate the other night, suggested - and I believe the Premier also made reference to it - that this is the most important piece of legislation that has been debated in the provincial Legislature since Confederation. Stop and think of that for one minutes. It is the most important piece of legislation in the eyes of the Premier and his confidant, his deputy, the Government House Leader. They believe it is the most important piece of legislation that has come to the provincial Legislature since Confederation. And, Mr. Speaker, they present this bill less than a week ago and then yesterday they invoke closure. They limit debate on this most important piece of legislation, to quote the Premier and the Minister of Justice, the most important piece of legislation to be debated in the provincial Legislature since Confederation.

This is a piece of legislation in which there has been absolutely no public input. It was more important to send legislators of this Province around the Province to discuss a name change. That was important. It was so important that they went around with it. We all know what happened to it afterwards - it got thrown on the shelf. But this most important piece of legislation could not allow public input. Why? That's what everybody in this Province is wondering. Why.

Why is it that only a select few people, only five wise men, were consulted? The public was not consulted. Five wise men were consulted in the sale of Newfoundland Hydro. The public suspect that there is something wrong. Get into a taxi in this city and ask the driver: "What's happening, what's going on?" `Boy, what are they doing with Hydro?' "Why?" `I don't know what's happening. I don't know what's going on.' Go into a bar, go into a restaurant, Mr. Speaker, and waitresses will ask you what's happening, `Why are they selling Hydro?' It is on everybody's mind but, Mr. Speaker, if you listen to the government they have said that they are doing it for a couple of reasons - I believe there are about four major reasons.

Now, Mr. Speaker, upon inspection, of course, these reasons haven't stood up. The credit rating argument, that was one of the big reasons. We heard yesterday from Standard and Poor's that it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the credit rating of this Province. Saying that, is the person who rates us, Mr. Speaker; it is not Alec Snow, the Member of the Legislature for Menihek saying it, it is the person who adjusts that credit rating, Mr. Speaker, who decides upon it. He has credibility, so that argument doesn't hold any weight whatsoever. But, Mr. Speaker, the people in my district are very concerned, they have probably a greater concern than other people in this Province.

We consume more electricity; most of us who own homes in Labrador City and Wabush converted to electric heat because, back in the 1980s, when the price of oil went through the roof and we had the opportunity of cheap energy in Western Labrador distributed by the Iron Ore Co. of Canada through the Carol Utility Company, a privately owned company owned by the mining company, Mr. Speaker, and by the nature of our geography and our climate, we consume the most electricity in this Province per capita by far, and because we have changed, we threw away our old furnaces, not many of us use wood-burning, Mr. Speaker, and we now use electric heat so we consume per capita more than anybody else so they are concerned about rate increases, Mr. Speaker, very, very concerned.

They know, they have been told by the Premier, they are guaranteed that we are going to have a rate increase for the privatization of Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Premier has suggested to the Province that there will be a rate increase through privatization. He has said that; maybe he is denying it now, I don't know if he is having second thoughts, but he has said that, so they know it. They also know, Mr. Speaker, from his brochure, if the Premier would like to read it: `There will be some increase in consumer rates' - that is what it says, right here. Now, the Premier can deny it, maybe he didn't proof read it but it is there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: `Alec', 11 per cent over five years.

MR. A. SNOW: Eleven per cent over five years is what it is going to be, that's what he said. There will be some rate increase, but over and above that, Mr. Speaker, in Labrador, we will face a 20 per cent to 30 per cent increase in power rates so, coming out of the gate, we are 30 per cent more, possibly; again, I am quoting the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That's right, because of what this government did when they ordered a Crown corporation to go in and take over this Carol utility company, Mr. Speaker, that's what is driving those rates; that's what is going to drive those rates up; so, the people in my district have more of a personal concern because this government is going to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets, taking their money. That's why they have a concern, Mr. Speaker. And the former Minister of Finance, now Minister of Health nods his head in agreement that it is correct, that I am correct in suggesting that that is what this government was up to, of sticking their greedy little hands deeper and deeper into the pockets of the people of Labrador City and Wabush, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this Crown corporation - I heard somebody on the other side, I'm not sure if he was saying it facetiously or not, but he talked about it being the Crown jewel. And indeed it is, Mr. Speaker. Just last year, I believe, we paid off what some people have suggested was the initial purpose of this Crown corporation, which was the development of the Bay d'Espoir hydro project. We had it paid for, we finally got it paid for. So what does this government want to do? After paying off this debt that we borrowed to build that project we are going to sell it. After finally getting it paid for - when we are starting to derive a benefit to the ratepayers, to the consumers, to the owners, those who are going to get the benefit - we want to give it away. We are going to sell it.

Mr. Speaker, a Crown corporation - people on that side have the new buzzword, that we should privatize. It is going to be the saviour, the be-all and end-all. The private sector is going to solve all the problems. Now, I've earned a living, and a very comfortable living, in the private sector - I have - and I've worked hard for it. But the private sector is not going to solve all the problems, and there is nothing dirty about a Crown corporation. If that Crown corporation has a good policy purpose, a good policy function, that it is performing for the people, we should have it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having it.

Now, if we are going to attempt to use a Crown corporation to just get more money out of consumers or ratepayers, like this government directed Newfoundland Hydro, their Crown corporation, to go into Menihek and take more money out of Menihek, they could have very easily allowed a different type of purchase of that particular utility company in Menihek. But they wanted to just get more money. That is all they wanted, more money. So privatization is not necessarily the answer to everything. If we have a good policy function for a Crown corporation we should allow that Crown corporation to continue to operate.

I believe there is a role in this Province for a Crown corporation to distribute electricity cheaply to consumers. That is a good public policy function for a Crown corporation. There is absolutely nothing secret - just because a company is private that people think it is going to be run more efficiently, that just because you make something private it is going to be more efficient. That is not true. What makes it more efficient? Profit drives that efficiency. Profit. Profit drives it. That is what makes it more efficient.

So, what could you do? You increase their profits. That's what will drive a private Hydro corporation - profits, not the distribution of a commodity to the people of the Province, which is what could be and should be the public policy function of a Crown corporation. What disciplines the private sector? What disciplines those profits? Competition. That is what disciplines, the competition. Competition disciplines the two convenience stores or two drug stores. They compete with each other. There is no competition in this business. We are going to give them their licence to dig in - make whatever profits you want. You can build five Taj Mahals and you can charge it back to the consumer. You can do it, it will be legal. Legal robbery, Mr. Speaker, that's what it will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: That's why I can't support this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and that's why the people who live in my district can't support it.

The Premier or some speakers after will say that it will be controlled by the Public Utilities Act, by the board. To a degree it can be controlled, but when I heard somebody talking earlier about wasteage of a - about employees of a public company spending time in a vehicle and burning gas, I mean, do you think you are going to do away with all those pickup trucks just because it's somebody private? They will be able to charge all that back to the consumer. They can buy bigger and longer cars, build newer buildings, and still charge it back to the ratepayer because it is all built in there. Now, how do we stop it? You can control a Crown corporation because we own it. You can control it if you give it the correct policy. You direct the Crown corporation - the Cabinet does. They dictate to them what policy functions they want them to perform.

The articles that this government talked about - and I touched on, briefly, some of the reason why they say we should sell it. They published a brochure that they are, I presume, going to be sending out to everybody in the Province. They say there is no need for further government involvement in Hydro - well, I have covered that, there is a need. I believe there is a need for government to allow a Crown corporation to perform in this Province and to distribute electricity to consumers, to ratepayers, as cheaply and as efficiently as possible.

It can work, Mr. Speaker. It can also be used as an economic lever to attract industry. We all know that Hydro Quebec has been used as a method of attracting industries to the Province of Quebec, the aluminum industry, in particular. It has created a tremendous amount of employment in the Province of Quebec. We are going to lose that opportunity with the sale of a Crown corporation.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I'm sorry, I can't hear the Minister of Health, but I'm sure he will speak louder when he gets up on this particular bill. I will listen to him.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about how it is going to strengthen the economy. I could agree with that if there were some technology transfer, but there isn't. There is no new technology transfer by selling off our Crown corporation. There is no new capital investment in new equipment here in this Province. There will be no new jobs because of the sale.

This is not, as an example, like the NLCS sale. I think it is a good idea to privatize NLCS. I believe that as an individual, because I think it is beneficial. When that company was formed by the previous administration -

MR. ROBERTS: It was formed by the (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: - whoever it was, it was a necessity at the time to allow the Crown corporation to do it because there wasn't a strong enough private sector in this budding new industry in the computer age, so the government went ahead and did it. But now, Mr. Speaker, that organization doesn't have the wherewithal as a Crown corporation to go and expand and compete in the global business. However, by privatizing NLCS, I think we can expand that industry itself, it can grow. We can have technology transfer into the Province.

That doesn't apply with the sale of Newfoundland Hydro. There is no technology transfer, there are no new plants being built, nothing like that. No new capital, no new employment, no new jobs. As a matter of fact, we all suspect, and I believe there has been some reference to this, we are going to lose jobs. There are going to be some jobs gone - we don't know how many. We know it is not going to grow, there is not going to be more employment with the New Hydro, it will be less. People up speaking earlier when the Premier wasn't here suggested that there will be fewer jobs. They didn't say how many, and I won't say there are going to be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, but there will be fewer jobs. With NLCS there will be an opportunity for more jobs and new investment, but not with Newfoundland Hydro. So the argument doesn't stand up.

I also firmly believe that by owning this Crown corporation, the people of this Province - and it is they who really own it, they have derived a benefit over the years by a cheaper cost of electricity to themselves. They have. And what does that allow? How does that help an economy? It helps this way, in the fact that it allows more disposable income. That's what it allows. When people don't have to pay out as much for electricity, if they don't have to pay out the $50 extra or $40 extra per month, it means that they have that much extra money to spend on something else, and they generally do. Some might even be able to save it for their so-called golden years - I'm not sure that there are many people today in this Province saving a heck of a lot of money, although there are some, of course.

So that argument, I believe, will not strengthen our economy. The only argument I've heard that can hold any water whatsoever - pardon the pun - in the sale of this Crown corporation, is the one that they are going to get some cash. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the dangerous part - the quick fix. It won't work. It has never worked and it won't work this time. The quick fix is what got us into trouble on the Upper Churchill - the quick fix for thousands of unemployed Newfoundlanders, because the major construction project at the time was building a highway across this Province. What were they going to do? We couldn't start a mine, we will start a hydro development. We will send them all up to Labrador to go to work on a hydro development. That's what happened. It was a quick fix for employment. It worked for four or five years.

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: If I may have just one minute to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that worked for four or five years. A lot of Newfoundlanders went up and made a lot of money, came back here and did other things with it. We all know what it is doing now. It generates about $700 million to the Province of Quebec and about $25 million to this Province, and about, I don't know, 200 jobs in Churchill Falls. The quick fix didn't work, and the quick fix in the sale of this Crown corporation won't work this time either, and that's why I can't support it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I believe our friend, the `Menihek Mogul', is returning to his NDP roots, from what he is saying there today. If he wasn't so rich, he would probably be running that way next time around. But those roots we have in common, and I also have an appreciation of the contribution publicly-owned corporations and publicly-owned agencies can make to public policy decisions in a society.

We are dealing with a pretty complicated and far-reaching issue in discussing this privatization bill. A lot of people don't understand all of the implications, they don't understand the details, they don't understand the figures, they don't understand them adequately enough to make a proper decision on them, and I am certainly one of those people. But on the basis of what I have been able to determine about it, it doesn't seem to me to be a proposition we should support.

Now, that is not a very difficult decision for me in one way, because that is the conclusion I reach when I study the figures that have been made available to me. It also represents the view of my constituents to the extent I have been able to determine it, and I have done that in several ways so far. It seems to be the indication that we get from various polls that have been published and taken, and from what we hear from various radio programs and that sort of thing.

So I can't see, Mr. Speaker, how we can support a bill like this after having had so little opportunity to examine it, when there are so many citizens in this Province who say they want to know more, they want to hear more about it. So it is not difficult for me to make the choice to vote against this bill at this stage tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: It is not difficult for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult for some other reasons. I've mostly voted with my friends over the past five years, and we have voted together through some very difficult times; not only difficult times in this Province, but times when we were pressured by forces across this whole country to conform to what they wanted to do. Our Premier led us in resisting those pressures.

I had the good fortune of accompanying the Premier to Ottawa during the constitutional discussions a few years ago, and I saw the pressure that he was under there, the pressure that our Province was under and the pressure that the members of this Legislature were under, to make decisions that they thought people never had a proper opportunity to consider, to make decisions that we felt we were being rushed into making.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in my view, we are being asked to support a bill now that we are being rushed into making a decision about, and I see no reason for it, no reason at all. I don't see why this bill has to be passed in the next few weeks. If people want to know more about it, if it is such a good case, let's tell them, let's make the case. But, on the basis of my own analysis, it is not a very good case, because insofar as I can see - and I am not going to go into all of the figures we have been talking about here tonight. I don't have them properly yet, I intend to get them as soon as I can. I've been working on that.

I do agree with people who have said, we should have had a proper cost benefit analysis made available to the public, an objective assessment of the implications of all of this. Because we are dealing with a major economic force in this Province, we are dealing with a major element of public policy in this Province, and we are dealing with something that will be forever, Mr. Speaker, just like a decision on a constitution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: We are dealing with something about which I feel as strongly as I felt about the constitutional issues. So I don't see why we have to rush into this.

Mr. Speaker, insofar as I have been able to assess what has been proposed - and nobody knows just what is going to happen. We talk of the possibility of getting $300 million for our equity in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but nobody knows what we will get. Maybe we will get $500 million or maybe we will get $200 million. I don't know! If we are talking in terms of $300 million, then I think we would only be getting something like a half or a third of what it is really worth, of what our equity in that corporation is really worth. I think that our equity in that corporation is worth something approaching $1 billion, $800 million, maybe, or something like that.

I think if we sell this on the basis of what is being proposed, this Province will lose something like $1 billion immediately in value for an asset. I think it will result in electricity rate increases in the area of $50 million a year, forever, every year into the future, another $50 million.

Mr. Speaker, I can't support something like that, regardless of the consequences. If I can be persuaded that it makes more business sense - because there are two ways of looking at this. You can look at it as a business decision and you can look at it as a public policy decision. If it doesn't make sense as a business decision, it shouldn't be done. We can't say, `Let's sell Hydro, because we believe in privatization.' If we sell it for $100, if we are doing it just for privatization, no business person would do that, nobody would do that with their own property. They will only sell it if it is a good deal. So we have to know if it is a good deal, and I am not convinced today that what is being talked about is a good deal and I am not convinced that it will result in a good deal.

Now, we all have different opinions about how to evaluate our equity in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but there is only one real way to evaluate it, and that is on the basis of how much profit it can produce, how much revenue it can produce.

So what I suggest people do, who are trying to get an accurate evaluation, is look at what it will produce once it is privatized, and then recapitalize it on the basis of it being owned publicly, and re-work your figures backwards. Look at what it is going to be worth as a privately-owned company to some private interests that would be capitalized on the basis of 47/53 per cent debt/equity, something like that, and then redo the figures on the basis of 83 per cent debt and 17 per cent equity. Then you will see what it is worth to this Province. I submit to this House that it would be worth somewhere in the area of $800 million. Now, we are talking about a lot of money.

We all saw a picture in the newspaper a few days ago of former Prime Minister Mulroney and Mr. Desmarais over in China, making a power deal for $100 million. One of the richest men in Canada, a man who is involved in the electrical business very extensively, and the former Prime Minister, over in China. A big deal, a $100 million! How much are we talking about, perhaps losing $500 million for this little Province? What is the rush to do it?

If that's not the case, if it's not worth that, let's take the time. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the economic world over the next weeks or the next few months. Interest rates may go up; interest rates may go down. There are all kinds of people on Wall Street today on both sides of that question. So don't tell me that this has to be rushed, because now is the time and the market. This isn't the time and the market.

We are told that our equity value on the part of Hydro that is being sold is something like $1.2 billion on a depreciated basis. It cost $1.6 billion to put there, and it has a debt of something like $1 billion. So, that piece of real estate, if you want to call it that, to build, cost $1.6 billion. We are saying that that should be depreciated to $1.2 or $1.3 billion in order to get today's value. That is something like saying that if you bought a house thirty years ago for $30,000, today it should be worth $25,000. We all know the average house bought thirty years ago for $30,000 is worth something like $100,000 today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in rural Newfoundland.

MR. NOEL: In rural Newfoundland they have gone up by similar proportions, I would suggest to you, depending on the location - I know that things are a bit depressed around here now, but they are not depressed in the electrical industry. They are still getting the returns that the PUB has been allocating over the years.

So, to even say that it is worth $1.6 billion today is not allowing for any appreciation over the years. I am told that the replacement value of what we are proposing to sell is something like $3.5 billion. Well, obviously, it is not worth that. So it is worth something in-between, and as I suggested, the way to find out just what it is worth is determine what it would earn as a private corporation and calculate backwards. Somebody do that, somebody show me those figures, and I would be inclined to support it, Mr. Speaker.

Now, it is obviously difficult for me to talk about the various arguments that have been raised in support of passing this bill, without being more critical and uncomfortable at what the government is proposing. You know, one of the main arguments that have been made is that it will help our credit rating. Now, if we sell that today for $300 million in cash and we don't borrow anything for the next year or two, say we go for two years without borrowing anything, which is not likely, in two years time we will have spent that $300 million and we won't have the Hydro asset, whatever that is worth. So how can that other than depress our credit rating? It certainly won't improve it. I would say it would lead to seeing it lowered, because we would be in a poorer financial situation.

I can't see how it will strengthen the economy. It is not reducing our debt in any significant way. I mean, we are reducing our debt, but we are reducing our assets by a greater amount. You are not getting ahead anywhere by doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that I'll speak very much longer on this tonight. I wanted to speak to make my position clear. I will be happy to go into more detail of the reasoning behind the choice I've made as we go through Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge government to consider slowing down the process. If we have something that is a good deal, tell the people the facts and they will come onside. There are lots of people out there who are ready to be persuaded - perhaps more ready than I, even - that this is a good deal, but they want to see some evidence of it. They are hearing some people saying that this is a good deal, we are going to get $300 million, and other people saying that we are selling an asset for half its price and we are going to have tremendous increases in electricity rates and that sort of thing. Let's put a proper study together, let's hold hearings and do what is necessary to make sure that the people are able to make a proper decision, that they have an opportunity to consult with their members.

I go out and talk to people now about this question, and they say, `I can't talk to you about it, I don't know what it means for the future of this Province.' We are sending out an information package over this weekend that people are not going to get, I suppose, until next Monday or Tuesday, but I have to make a decision on this tonight, I have to vote here tonight. What is the point in sending an information package out to my constituents that they will get Monday or Tuesday, that they will be able to talk to me about next Wednesday or Thursday, when I have to vote tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: I don't see any need to rush through this, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, as much as I regret it, I will have to part ways from my colleagues on the vote tonight.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am very pleased, honoured, and privileged to stand here tonight, this historical night in this Province, as far as I am concerned. After waiting all night to speak, and with all due respect to the Premier saying he had a long day, I can tell you Mr. Premier that the last three or four days have been long for me also. There have been a lot of sleepless nights over the last little while on the contact I have had with my constituents, and the thinking I have been doing about this particular issue is something that would drag anybody down. I think at this point it is time for all of us to reflect on what we have heard over the last few days. What has happened over the last couple of days is something that I still cannot fathom. It seems as if everything is happening so fast and so furious and we are going to jump right from this issue into a couple of more crucial issues that this Province is going to have to face. The seriousness of this legislation can't be under estimated. I know we have joked about this in the House sometimes but I have tried to listen to it openly on both sides over the last few days. I have tried to read as much as I can about everything that has come before me, from information that came from the government side recently and also from notes we have made up, from talking to my colleagues in caucus, and from talking to members opposite at times just in private conversation.

I can tell you as information came out more and more I have no problem standing in this House tonight saying I don't understand everything that is in this Hydro bill. I have been sitting here and after doing all of that, and I don't think I'm stupid, but after listening to all the information and reading as much as I can, all I can think about is my constituents who say they haven't had the information I have had available. They haven't had the time to sit down and go through it and listen to the debate that I have had the opportunity to listen to, and we are expecting them to understand it?

A good point was brought up by the hon. the Member for Pleasantville a little while ago that everybody stopped to think about, the Meech Lake debate that went on and on. It was as complicated a piece of legislation as we will ever see in this Province, but the good point, I think, that the hon. member made, was the whole ideas behind that coming from our Premier: this is a big thing, let's get it out and let the public hear it. Wasn't that the whole idea? Let's not rush this through - it's a big thing.

Well, I think this is a big issue for this Province. And I still believe - as somebody mentioned, I think it was my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, earlier today, he was age one and I think I was four when the legislation went through on Churchill.

For years I have been going around talking to friends my age and also to my parents or grandparents, and reading books about the mistake of Churchill. Nobody denies that for whatever reason. Some people say that at the time it was the thing to do. Okay, I can understand that, but nobody will deny it was a mistake, a mistake we have been paying for for years. I really believe, from what I can gather anyway, that maybe in two or three weeks, Premier, from this day on, as I get more information and if I had more time for consulting, maybe we will change our minds on this privatization of Hydro. Maybe we will, but is there anybody in this House, unless they are in it as deep as the Premier and the Minister of Justice are, is there anybody who understands it fully, I wonder, so that we can make a decision and say without any doubt in our minds, any of the hon. members on the opposite side or in my party here, who can say, yes, there is no doubt about it, I don't have one worry about this piece of legislation, everything is going to be fine?

I see the Minister of Labour nodding his head. I wish I could say in all honesty that I can feel as comfortable with it as you are, if you do, in fact, feel that way. I say again to all other members, if you all feel that comfortable with it, you are 100 per cent sure, then everything is great, go right ahead.

I am asking here tonight in these last dying minutes before we close debate, before the Premier speaks, for everybody to drop your political stripe and think about the people who elected you just nine short months ago - I wish somebody could hypnotize us just for ten minutes; and then search your souls and ask yourselves, are you sure this is going to be okay, that this is not going to be another Churchill Falls that we will have to tell more children about five years from now. I have two little girls now, two and four years old. Are they going to be paying the price twenty years from now as I am now paying for Churchill, that we have all been paying for Churchill? Are we all going to have to do that?

If you are 100 per cent sure, then tonight when we stand, stand proud in your seat and say: I have studied this, I have thought about ever possible situation, I have listened to both sides, I have had enough time - stand there and vote and be very proud of it because, remember, we sit here in this Legislature tonight - and I haven't been around for as long as my colleague, the Member for Humber Valley or the Minister of Justice, or the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I mean, I can name a few whom I respect for being here for those many years. But I never thought I would be here at 11:00 in the night, on March 10, 1994 deciding on probably one of the most important issues - in my time, for sure, it has been a short time I have been a politician. But I could honestly say that I would, if I had some time maybe - but let's step back for a second.

I say to the Member for Pleasantville, I have full respect for you for your stand here tonight. I can appreciate the situation you are in - I mean, we are not blind, and we appreciate the fact of where you are standing. I hope the Premier has respect for you, too, for speaking your mind, because you did that. And you went out and did something that I have been repeating for the last two days about fifty times in this House: Go out and ask the people who elected you; yes, listen to your Premier and listen to your colleagues in your caucus, as I have listened to mine, but finally go out - I am going out tomorrow night and I have so many mixed emotions about it. I am to be in Baie Verte - White Bay, my district, at seven o'clock and I know there is going to be a crowd there because I am getting reports back already. I have a scheduled meeting to talk about Hydro, because I was asked to by phone calls I have had, and if you guys were only getting two phone calls - I am sorry, if hon. members are only getting two phone calls, maybe they don't think it is any good to call you, so take it for what it is. Maybe they don't think it's any good to call you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, if you're getting two phone calls, I don't understand it. Either you aren't telling us the truth about the two phone calls or they are saying, give up, like the man who walked - well, I will give you an example -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Just relax now.

- like the man who walked out of here last night after he watched the debate going on about Hydro - I am sorry, today, the news this evening. The man walked out of here saying, `What can you do?' and the guy on camera said: `Well, you know, give up. It is going through, we can see it is going through, let's give up.' So why would you go asking the member - I am not saying you in particular as a member; I am just saying that you as government members are saying: `Boys this is going through.' It's no good to talk to the government side, they have their minds made up - maybe they are saying that; I'm not saying they are but I am trying to find a reason why you say you have only had two phone calls. That just baffles me. I mean, I am getting calls all the time and tomorrow night I have to go out there, after voting in just a short hour or so on probably the biggest piece of legislation in this House, in my history probably as a politician - it might be short it might be long who knows. But I have to go out there tomorrow night and say, I am here to listen to you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, very good; well, we'll see about that.

I have to go out there and stand up in front of the people who elected me in the last election and say: I appreciate your petition, I appreciate the thoughts you are giving me, but to be honest with you, as your elected member, I cannot do a lot about it right now, and I am really sorry about that; this happened too quickly, maybe we should have done it a long time ago, maybe there should have been uprising long ago - but there is a problem with that.

Now, I don't want to get into too much of this, but I am really sincere about this tonight, because it is really starting to strike home to a lot of people, and to see these people in the gallery here at eleven o'clock at night, I think, is phenomenal. They are concerned; they must be deeply concerned, and they want people to speak up for them and really take a second look at this. And I say again, I'm not asking to throw this out the window, even, let's do a little compromise here; let's just sit back for a minute - listen for another couple of weeks, do one sweep across the Province, even if the Premier does it himself, in four locations, I mean, let's talk about some possibilities. But the point is, let's give it a little more time anyway, and get out there and just let people confront the issue and ask questions. And maybe, if hon. members opposite are right - maybe you think we are fearmongering; I didn't know I was fear-mongering. But if we are, then fair enough, we are fear-mongering, so we will give you your opportunity now to go out where the people are and say: These are the facts. This is the chance to redeem yourself, not let's shove it down their throats and say: It was good for you because we said it was good for you. Just remember that.

Hidden agenda - I have to talk about this just for one minute. The Member for St. John's South - with all due respect, I've asked him to show me the pamphlet he had during the election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I appreciate that. I told you last night, it was a good thing. I asked him if he brought up Hydro privatization during the election, and he showed me, sure enough, he had it in his pamphlet. But I have to say to you, there were fifty-two people running for your party and I don't know if there was any other member of the fifty-two, who had it in their brochure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: It was in yours? It was in two, maybe three, four, it might be ten. All I can tell you, with all sincerity, is that when this election was going on and I was going around knocking door-to-door - and all hon. members should concur with this - you might have had it in your pamphlet in small print, but I can tell you, that was not the issue that surfaced during the election - it was negotiations, it was teachers, battles, and everything else. I don't think anybody in the gallery can remember the big issue being made: We are going to privatize Hydro, and what is it all about? They other point is: Did they know what it was about then? Since then, they've gotten some information, and they've started to make up their minds on it.

Maybe it wasn't hidden intentionally, but what I'm saying is that the issues at the time had nothing to do with Hydro privatization. I certainly don't even remember it and I was going around campaigning. I don't remember talking about privatization of Hydro. As far as the Member for St. John's South goes, yes, he brought it out. The Premier says he had it in his pamphlet. I certainly - I think all hon. members would agree, certainly on my side - there was no big issue of Hydro privatization in my election, whatever part you were talking about.

With respect, specifically, to the piece of legislation, there are a couple of aspects that strike me very quickly, ones that affect people the most. The Premier said there would be an increase in the electricity rate and there would be a loss of jobs. They may only seem minor -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, in the electricity rates you had said there would be a slight increase. Now, as we all know, when you say that, we are going to be conservative - that is the one time you have to be conservative, I guess, if you say there is going to be an increase in electricity rates. You are not going to say they are going to increase maybe by 10 per cent, you give the minimum. I assume that's what you did, you gave the minimum that they would increase.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I gave the maximum.

MR. SHELLEY: You gave the maximum that they would increase? Well, we will hold you to that. We will see if it increases by 3.5 per cent, did you say? or whatever the rates were. We will get into those.

When Hydro was first established in 1950 - as I've read some information on it - there were three basic things they said: first of all, they would harness all underdeveloped water resources of the Province, secondly, they would create a provincial power grid across the Province, and thirdly, they would bring electricity to all communities of the Province. It was established as a Crown corporation in order to keep public ownership of our remaining water resource and to keep electrical costs to consumers as low as possible.

Now, if that means by selling off this, that we have as an asset -and I still believe it is the greatest asset that Newfoundland has right now. I could be corrected on that, but I've just read somewhere that it is the fourth largest utility in Canada. Am I correct in that? I think it is. When the Member for Pleasantville spoke up, I mean the way he talked about who was over across the seas, Mulroney and Paul -

AN HON. MEMBER: Paul Desmarais.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay.

- these guys over there talking about $100 million, it almost looks like peanuts compared to Newfoundland Hydro. It is a great asset.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a birthright.

MR. SHELLEY: It is a birthright. I agree with the hon. member.

MR. FLIGHT: A forty-year-old birthright.

MR. SHELLEY: A forty-year-old birthright. It is a birthright that I still - and I agree with the Member for St. John's East who stood up before, and we've said it time after time, and I don't know how anybody can argue it. It belongs to the people of Newfoundland. Right now it belongs to the people of Newfoundland. It belongs to the people of Newfoundland, of course. If it didn't belong to us we wouldn't be selling it. You wouldn't be selling something somebody else owned. Isn't that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: It will always be ours.

MR. SHELLEY: Okay - it will always be ours. With regard to the legislation that we could go into about the finance minister, and we argued this back and forth, I will make one point of this: we stood up here, sixteen of us and thirty-four of you, and while people are still trying to figure out what is going on here with this legislation, we will say 'til the cows come home that the finance minister has the right to pass over the water rights and you keep saying he hasn't, and we will keep going through this but give everybody a chance to look at the legislation and see who is really right. Maybe you are right on that one, but I don't think you are; maybe you are, but give yourself a chance to argue it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Maybe you are right, I say to the minister, that's fine; the point being again, that we can argue every single section of this bill, right down through, one by one, and they get pretty technical at times, I will admit that; I mean, I am not a lawyer, but I do try to understand as much as I can - and some people understand these things much better from the legislation, but from what I can gather and from what I see so far, I think so. Now I could be persuaded the other way if I could sit down in debate and talk about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, well, I can do it probably a lot better that a lot of members over there from what I heard tonight, if they think they know it. I don't think some of them have opened the book, to be quite honest, to read the legislation at all. I think it is just a matter of doing what was said from the front and you are going to just take whatever it is, to be honest with you, and I don't think anybody opened it up at all; and I will challenge any of the members to sit down and let's go through the legislation one by one, somewhere, where there is not twenty minutes to get up and debate. Members used earlier, and I have heard it said in this House all week and I can't believe this -

MR. EFFORD: What is (inaudible)?

MR. SHELLEY: You said - fact by fact, one piece at a time in the four minutes I have left?

MR. EFFORD: You haven't (inaudible) one yet.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, well, now, the minister reminds me of another point. He got up, back there a little while ago tonight, and said: `You know, these past two days, all I hear is rhetoric and rhetoric and rhetoric,' so I thought he was going to go on then and talk about the legislation and section 4 and blah, blah, blah, and I thought he was going to explain everything to us, so we would all be better off for it. Guess what he did for twenty minutes - exactly what I'm doing now, rhetoric, and pumping out one after another. We will do the Hansard and look through it, I mean, I have seen it. But I was really waiting on the minister after saying all of that: you know, after getting up and saying, `You use the debate, you used petitions all week long,' he said, `you wasted time,' and then for twenty minutes he went on about Sprung Greenhouse and I don't know what else he went on about, but he went on about a lot of things. The point is this: all week I have been hearing members from the other side asking, Why are you wasting time on this? Why are you putting forward petitions?

Well, I will go back to the Member for Pleasantville again for the simple reason that a petition, when I hold it here - you talk about the same names being repeated, not so with the petitions I have because I know the people; they are in my district. I read the names, I was so glad to see some of them there, some good strong Liberals and some good strong Tories and a couple of NDPs, who were on my list of paper and I was glad to stand up here and say: This is the only chance for you people to talk, to give it to the member who was elected, which was me, and I was proud to stand up and say: These people don't like this. Here is what they have signed. They don't like the privatization of Hydro, and they didn't have a chance to have a say, so they asked me, their elected member, which is the right thing to do; what was so wrong with that all week? I ask all members over there, what was so wrong? One after another, you got up and said: Why are you using petitions, why don't you go to debate?

Well, to me, that was debating. When I get up for the five minutes on a petition, I debate it; I mean, what is a debate? Filibuster, call it what you like, I can tell the hon. member that if I can filibuster for another ten years, maybe we will keep this quiet and maybe it will pass by us. If I could, I would do it, but I feel so powerless tonight because of the gag order that was put on this House of Assembly. It is a mockery to democracy what happened here in this House this week.

The Premier, is just coming back into town, and with respect to your trip, I hope it was good because, as far as mining goes, and promotion, I hope you did a good job.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I appreciate that and I am glad you did it, Premier - all respect to you on that.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I hope so, that's good, but the point being that you were away, we could have delayed it another bit so you could have the two or three days that we are here, debating it properly. You are the Premier who brought it forward, you are the one in the forefront of all this; I would rather have had the Premier in this House so we could have debated this in front of him without gag orders going on so we could continue as long as we wanted. That's the whole point I am making.

But I have to say that I was really taken aback, and I bet you all members over there were taken aback by the Member for Pleasantville and what he had to say. I think he was speaking very sincerely, from the heart, and he thought about it. From what I saw on the news this evening and the meeting which the hon. the Member for St. John's South had the gall to say was not a meeting - there were people there, the public, so why wasn't it a meeting?

MR. MURPHY: A farce.

MR. SHELLEY: A farce! The Member for St. John's South says a farce. Well, I'm going to have another farce in my district tomorrow night, and I tell you, they will get a chance to have their say. They will not be seeing me only in four year from now, they will be seeing me throughout the district, as I am sure you will get back to your district. If you think a public meeting is a farce and if you think this is so good, well, I say again to the Member for St. John's South as I said to you two nights ago, if you think I am going out there to fearmonger and to give one side of the story, I invite you, the Premier, and anybody in this House to come to Baie Verte tomorrow night and sit in a public meeting with me. I will give you equal time as I have and we will let each person ask a question. I mean, that is only fair.

I am really taken aback that the hon. member would say that a public meeting where people volunteer to come out - they are not paid to come to the meeting; I don't think the member paid them to come up there, I don't think he made them sign a paper to come, I don't think he asked if they were PCs, Liberals, NDPs or whatever. He didn't do that any more than I took up a petition here in the House from people and read it.

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

MR. SHELLEY: I would just like to conclude, Mr. Speaker.

This is a very, very important night, I say to the Premier, and in sincerity, all I am asking you to do - not to halt it even - is just to reconsider and give it a little bit more time, give people a chance to go out to these public meetings or do whatever they can to express their views, and not just by Open Line, or by petitions where we have to filibuster. I don't want to do that. Give people a chance to have a say in probably the biggest decision that has come to this Province since Churchill Falls.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Before I continue I would like to address the Member for Pleasantville. I have worked with a lot of men over a lot of years and there are always some who stand out from the others when times get tough - there is one of them. The Premier at one time himself, as a much younger man, stood up against another Premier, and I hope he uses his memory when he is dealing with the Member for Pleasantville. Because the Premier of that day, from where I came from, sold us out, `the old Premier'. And I tell you that some friends of mine, some RCs, are so bitter that they haven't darkened the doors of the Basilica since the funeral service for the former Premier was held there, because they find it disturbing. That is Newfoundland for you. It is all bits and pieces because we come from nooks, coves, bits and pieces of this Island.

I am against this, as are people in Placentia, and the latest mandate given to you people was given on February 21 when you were forced to eat crow in the Placentia district. Hydro was indeed mentioned. The Member for St. John's South might have mentioned being for it last spring, and I mentioned I was against it up to and including February 21. I was accused during that by-election of misrepresentation of certain subjects, but I never had to say it because other people had to use it - certain things I said - to rationalize the loss they had met out in Placentia.

Anyway, I'm against that because I don't trust some of the things that have been happening here since I've been here, the first time and this time. Going back in history, people have said about Churchill Falls: I wish I had been here to vote against it. I wish I had been here when the best Liberal of all was here - and his portrait is hanging on a wall over there. It is Sir Robert Bond. Now, there was a man. I have nothing against Liberals or NDP or of whatever stripe they are, but I've been on the Newfoundland side and I figure I still am on the Newfoundland side. Quebec has got enough out of this Province and it is about time for us to keep our share.

I wasn't here, I wasn't old enough, and none of us were here when we were sold out by another prime minister, when we had to raise the contingents to go fight for England. We were the only country in the world up to 1932 - us and Finland, who had paid off our war debt, and we went head over heels in the hole. A Commission of Government came in and they allowed bases, where the Spaniards got billions of dollars in their treasury. Billions! What did we get? work - and Britain got fifty-odd First World War vintage battleships. That is what we got. Nobody ever negotiated for us. Nobody bothered to consult, only bothered to insult.

No, I'm against it. I'm against it for all those reasons in the past, and I'm against it for the reasons I've heard since I came in here. I'm against it for the reasons that the election was called last spring. It was offensive, pitting one Newfoundlander working against another Newfoundlander who was unemployed. I don't forget. Neither did the people in Placentia, because it was not a sympathy vote like one person in this Legislature had to say. It was not a sympathy vote.

An ant met an elephant at a singles bar - just listen - took it home after wining and dining it and they made mad passionate love. They went to sleep. The ant woke up the next morning to find the elephant dead and cursed his luck for what he had done the night before. He was going to spend the rest of his life digging a hole. I tell you, if this goes through we are digging a bigger hole for ourselves and the people we are supposed to be responsible for.

They throw figures around here, and they are confusing figures. A billion dollars - a person wants to think what a billion dollars is? If you spend $100,000 a day - now, that is in an account gathering interest - if you spend $100,000 a day, at the end of twenty years you still have money left. That is a lot of money, and by throwing it around we may be losing $1 billion.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have heard some people here today going on and on about why, why it was only shallow, it was only shallow why it should be sold. We look around us lots of times to see if we have the things that money can buy, but sometimes, my friends, we should look around to see if we are retaining the things that money can't buy. Some people say that the members opposite don't have a conscience or don't listen to their conscience, and a lot of people say that the members opposite never listen to strangers - that is all rhetoric. But they say in here, privatization doesn't mean a loss of jobs. What about the private company? In our way, lots of them operate; there are work-term students, engineering, computerized, who have gone and do presently go into Hydro. I can see a brand new company, the way the others operate in this company, having to go to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations or having to talk to some federal minister to try to get something on a cost-shared basis, while this company now is absorbing them, our own students. I see (inaudible) companies.

I am against it for the same reasons - this government is running rough-shod over people in this Province. I can't trust you. I cannot trust you and I will not stay here and vote for something that I don't trust or leave it in someone's hands whom I don't trust with it. I'm not saying you are bad or you are evil or whatever, but the Premier and the Minister of Justice were here when the Churchill Falls deal was signed, and probably now they would like to rectify something in their lifetimes that when they were young men they had let fall through their hands - probably; a good reason but, ladies and gentlemen, we are poor. We are not down-and-out, we are not poverty-stricken - and the other thing, who is going to be able to invest in it?

The marketing - somewhere it says you have two weeks with an 800 number wherever you are; there are people who might call in, but in the meanwhile, if they say they are interested in investing a few bucks, their NCARP might be suspended because DFOs check them out, they don't know when they are going to get it. Another one might be, `Oh, yes, I am willing to invest,' Revenue Canada gets them on because they are not at arms length, I never investigated for an indefinite period, where are these people going to be able to get money? It is not there for them to get and it wasn't there when I was covering the district in Placentia, it wasn't there for a lot of these people who have been disenfranchised. It wasn't there for the old, because the old in this Province, and I don't care in what district you are, the people with their old age pensions are still keeping some of their offspring going and some of their offspring's children going on a limited amount of money because there is not enough going into a house.

I am against it because this government, too, has introduced ISP, -to qualify, twenty weeks - that opened up a Pandora's Box. Paul Martin, up in Ottawa, brought it in for twelve; and people forget that the Minister of Finance - one of the big reasons why he lost out to the now present Prime Minister, is that he was in partnership with Canadian Shipping and he rolled them over under flags of convenience, and the Canadian sailors lost their jobs to foreigners with his companies. That's why I'm against it, it's because I don't trust it.

It is not a good deal. Because where are the benefits going to be? What you state in your order here, strengthening the economy as a private company, does not wash. It does not wash because the benefits are not there, it does not boost our credit rating, there are going to be higher electricity rates, the taxes, I said about the jobs, and the ownership. What the Member for St. John's East has said I totally agree with, because I'm in the same position about owning a house. I dare anybody to come into my house and say it is theirs. I never miss a payment on it. I'm not a violent man but there would be someone going out over the doorstep and it wouldn't be me.

Nova Scotia. They have proved that the Nova Scotia Government is ultimately responsible if something goes wrong with that private company. That is what I have been told. The government is ultimately responsible. Premier, I hope that - because you have the numbers to put it through - I hope this poor Province is not ultimately responsible, Sir. We can't make any more burdens on what our people have. The only thing I will ask - and I will ask, because the education bill will go to a referendum. I'm making a prediction here - it has been said it would. I'm saying it is going to hit. I'm asking you to stop and put this bill on a referendum across this Province with the education bill so people can be informed and make their own decisions.

Because the Premier - you said about the Meech Lake debate: Why should some elected people make decisions for the whole country? Well, Sir, why should thirty-three members make a decision for the population of this Province? That is wrong - just as wrong as you are saying on the flip side.

Municipalities will benefit. They will have to wait. Local investors, I said about them. There is no need for further government involvement in Hydro. I say there is always, because the government is the people, it is all of us, and we should be always vigilant of what is happening to what we own. We should be ever vigilant of whatever is happening around this Province. To echo people, using the gag order, I'm saying, was a suspension of democracy. I would not, nor will I ever be, a part - because some time or other, if the future holds well, I will be on a government side. I make one promise here, and it will be in Hansard to remember: I will never be a part of a gag order to any people opposite from where I am. Because I have never been in my life part of a gag order for anybody.

MR. GRIMES: You had better check with your buddies over there.

MR. CAREEN: I don't mind my buddies, I'm telling you about me, because I know me.

MR. GRIMES: You'll (inaudible) the show by yourself then, old fellow, I tell you that, Sir.

MR. TOBIN: You had to apologize to this House once before. You had to stand up and apologize to the Minister of Education.

MR. SULLIVAN: A minister who wept on the steps of Confederation Building.

MR. CAREEN: Yes, I heard about him, but he is here. He spent $6 million last Fall to try to become Premier of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: No, he didn't. He shunned the man from Pleasantville and the constituents. Anyway ladies and gentlemen, there are no benefits, there is no boost, the loss of economic opportunities and they invade water rights. Under this new legislation, the Cabinet can give away the water rights anywhere in the Province without any reference to the Legislature. They deny it, they say they are going to change it; one says no and another person says they are going to change it in short order. People will not find out until the decision has already been made. How nice!

AN HON. MEMBER: They never read the bill.

MR. CAREEN: They never read the bill. They said they had a mandate; they have no mandate. They have a responsibility like us here, and everybody else, responsible to the people of this Province. That is what we have, a responsibility. When we were growing up as young lads, we thought there was someone responsible and someone who cared, and it's sad to say, when you get older there is hardly anybody responsible, and there are fewer and fewer who care.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to repeat the arguments in favour of privatization that I made when I introduced the bill. During the course of this afternoon and this evening I have been trying to make notes on issues that have been raised by hon. members and I intend to try to respond to those particular issues, and I hope I have all of the ones that most members would consider to be important; but before I deal with the specifics in relation to the bill, I want to deal with this foolish comment about a gag order and the suspension of democracy.

If you really look at it objectively, you will see that democracy was suspended by the members opposite on Monday and was only restored when we started to debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: This request to have time to consider it, to have time, we need more time to consider it, is the most insincere comment of all. The position of the Opposition was stated with absolute determination four months ago, and the position stated by the Leader was simply this: We are going to vote against it and use every trick in the book to stop it from going ahead. Now, what do they want to hear, what really, do they want to hear if that's their mind-set? So I think it is quite unfair to suggest there is a gag order where there hasn't been adequate time to consider. Just remember this: in the ordinary course during a week sitting of this House, we sit every afternoon starting at 2:00 and we continue until 5:00. The first hour or so is given to Question Period and Petitions and other things, and normally there are about two hours of work time a day for government orders, routine orders; Wednesday is Private Members Day, so that is four work-days a week with about two hours a day. In any week you get about eight hours, so a full week of debate in the ordinary course would produce about eight hours.

So far this week - we are now into our twenty-sixth hour of debate on this. That is the equivalent of more than three full weeks of ordinary sittings of the House on this issue. Now, mind you, members opposite ragged the puck for two days trying to prevent it from being debated. So to say that there is a gag order to prevent people from being heard is an absolute offence to this House and to the people of the Province - and I just want people to understand that - this idea of a gag order and the suspension of democracy. Democracy was suspended when the members opposite determined that no matter what, they would try to stop the House from bringing this to a vote. That is the suspension of democracy. When the closure motion was put, that's when democracy was restored.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: As well, Mr. Speaker, the issue has been debated publicly quite extensively over the last little while. There has been constant debate and position. The Opposition has been doing it, radio people have been doing it, we've been in the news. We've been reporting it, there have been discussions in the House, there have been questions in the House. There has been a fair amount of public discussion, a pretty substantial amount of public discussion, perhaps more than any other issue that I can think of in recent memory on this issue. I think there has been a very substantial amount of discussion.

Mr. Speaker, just before I go on to deal with the specifics there is one other thing that I want to tell members. I spent the last three days in Toronto and Ottawa. It was an accident that I was out at the time when most of this debate was coming but I had committed myself in November to speak to the convention of the Prospectors and Developers Association. It is a major convention of people involved in mines and minerals all across Canada. Members of this House would be - their chests would swell if they heard the comments that some of those people made about Newfoundland, and about the policies that were being implemented by the government in terms of promoting economic development and making Newfoundland friendly to business. I was as proud as I could possibly be to hear some of the mining companies say: If only other governments in this country acted like Newfoundland and Labrador did, we could expand the economy at a better rate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It came, Mr. Speaker, not only from the mining community, but from the financial community, from the Canadian Manufacturers Association. And because of the policies that we've implemented, including our private sector policy - the promotion of private sector development and privatization - because of those policies we will be having business take place here over the next number of months that would not otherwise have occurred. Hon. members will see them when they do occur.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a tough time in this Province over recent years. We have to try to restore the economy, restore it to real performance, and that is the purpose of these policies. Let me remind all hon. members that there is nobody on this side of the House who wants to privatize Hydro for the sake of privatizing it. What in heaven's name would we have to gain? Unless we think it is in the best interests of the public of this Province, why would we want to do it? We are doing it because, in our judgement, it is in the best interests of the Province.

Now, I can understand the comments of the hon. members opposite during this last week because their leader fixed their position last Fall and said, no matter what, we will do everything under the sun to stop it from being passed.

Now, let me try to deal with some of the other comments, and I will try to answer as many questions as I possibly can. This suggestion that we are getting rid of Hydro, we are selling our birthright, we are getting rid of our water powers, we are losing control - the waters are going to continue to run in the same rivers they ran in from time immemorial and we are going to continue to have control of them. Control is going to be exercised by the Public Utilities Board. Hydro is going to continue to be a Newfoundland company. It will be financed by a different means. It won't be financed by the people of this Province directly; it will be financed by private sector investors investing, but it will still be as much a Newfoundland company as ever it was. It will still be an asset of this Province. All of the facilities will remain. We simply won't have to invest our scarce public capital it in. Private enterprise will be prepared to do it for us.

The benefits to the Province, Mr. Speaker, are immense. I don't need to restate them. I think history will record, this will be the best move that any government in this Province has made in recent years.

Let me deal with some of the suggestions about the loss of income tax. The income tax situation really won't change any at all. The total amount of tax that government will have will be roughly the same as it had before. It probably will change a few thousand dollars and there is a very simple explanation -

AN HON. MEMBER: All the companies (inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, there is a very simple explanation for it, if you would just listen for a minute. The federal tax that is paid presently by Newfoundland Power, or Fortis, goes to the Government of Canada and they rebate 85 per cent of it to Newfoundland. We get $9 million or $10 million a year, or something of that nature out of it. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to give that back. Hydro doesn't pay any tax at all so there is nothing to rebate; so the tax that the privatized Hydro will pay, we are going to give that back, too, so we don't have any loss.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Just wait a minute. If the hon. member would wait a minute she would get the answer. So, both that and the $9.2 million - now, the $9.2 million will be offset by the fact that we would now get provincial tax from the New Hydro and it will roughly offset, the end tax position to the Government of this Province will be just about the same as it is now, so there is no net loss. We are not giving away any federal tax because there is no tax there now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: There's $9.2 million there now!

PREMIER WELLS: But we are getting it now in the form of private tax, the provincial tax. The net tax position will be just a wash, we will be in exactly the same position as we were before.

MR. WINDSOR: That is not true and you know it.

PREMIER WELLS: My law partner in Corner Brook used to say: `A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.' You just demonstrated it ably.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) is going to be a lot better than we (inaudible)!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The Member for St. John's East Extern raised the issue of the credit rating of the Province. Just let me remind hon. members what Mr. Defoe of Standard and Poor's said in an interview with Mr. Gilhooley on CBC Radio on March 9. Here is what he said when he was asked the very question that was being raised here about the - and I think the Member for Pleasantville suggested this.

Here is what Mr. Gilhooley said to him: `Let me ask you this, and I hope I'm not getting too far along here in analogy, but I guess what I'm trying to think of is, if we look down the road, four or five years down the road, and whatever cash the Province got for selling Hydro' - which was the proposition the Member for Pleasantville put forward - `was used in other ways, stopped us from borrowing for a year or two, whatever the bottom line is, four or five years from now that cash that they got is gone and Hydro's debt, contingent as it is, is off the books, what effect would that then have on how you see our credit rating?'

Here is his response: `Well, again, it depends on how much cash is received. And, of course, the benefits of that are immediate in the sense that it would reduce the Province's borrowing requirements. But because that would, the Province's direct debt level, it would reduce to some degree the debt service cost of the Province going forward. That would have marginally a beneficial effect, yes, but it is really a question of degree and it is hard to assess before hard numbers are brought into play. Now, how big that effect would be - I don't think people should expect an immediate upgrade in the Province's credit rating as a result of this.'

But, Mr. Speaker, what he has clearly indicated is it will put the Province in a beneficial position in terms of its credit rating, and it would get an improved credit rating far more quickly than it otherwise would by reason of this. Anybody who suggests otherwise is deliberately blinding herself or himself. They are avoiding a reality.

MR. SULLIVAN: Would you answer a question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me try and -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: When I get these finished I will be happy to answer the hon. member's question, and I believe the Member for Menihek has a couple of questions he wants to ask, too, and I would be happy to answer those as well.

Then, somebody said, well, if - in answer to the question of: Why, what is wrong with privatizing it? Because they are using a natural resource. The water power is our resource and it shouldn't be a privatized company, it should be a nationalized company. That is their response. Somebody said: What about Telephone? Oh, the telephone company is different. You don't have to nationalize that, that can be in the private sector. Why? Because it doesn't use natural resources.

Take that to its logical extreme. Are we going to go and acquire Kruger, Abitibi in Grand Falls, Abitibi in Stephenville, all the farmland in the Province, all of the other things, all of the mines? Are we going to acquire IOC because they are using natural resources? Hope Brook? Should they be public companies? Of course not. They are using a resource that will remain forever a resource of this Province. That water will flow in roughly the same volumes year after year as it has been flowing for millennia, Mr. Speaker, and we will still have the same benefit from it. They won't cause us any harm whatsoever. That is most specious argument of all, in fact, it is our natural resources and we are somehow losing our birthright in this water power. What utter nonsense!

The Member for Humber East talked about the finance minister's powers. I'm already afraid of him, he has become so powerful. I guess I won't be able to answer all the questions, but let me just deal with that, if I'm limited to five minutes. I won't mind staying to answer it if members agree. The suggestion that somehow the minister can give away the Churchill Falls and all water powers in Labrador, it is not there. What it says is this.

MS. VERGE: Clause 4.

PREMIER WELLS: I'm reading clause 4, and what it says, clause 4(4), is: "The minister shall, under an agreement entered into under subsection (1)," - specific directions - "grant to New Hydro for the purpose of generating power such rights to use all waters, water rights, water powers and water privileges as are developed and as are used by Old Hydro..." at this time. He can only grant that which they're developing and using now - no more than that. Not an iota of water power more than that can the Minister of Finance grant, not one.

Look at the earlier clause. The earlier clause, 4(1)(a), says: "the transfer to New Hydro of all of the undertaking, business, land, property, assets, interests, benefits and rights of, or the title to which is vested in, Old Hydro or which are used in connection with the business of Old Hydro, except as provided under excluded assets."

What is provided under excluded assets? You go down below and you see a list of things including undeveloped water rights.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, now that is excluded?

PREMIER WELLS: It is excluded!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, hear the rest of it. Read it all. Hear the rest of it. What we were concerned about is that there be no doubt that Hydro would not be able to claim that: Oh, this water power is developed because we've got a dam down the river here so we should have control of the upper water, too. We said: No, you get only the water that you are using now. If there is any doubt, if you are going to claim that, the minister can say no. So we left the exclusive right in the minister to say no.

In any event, it can only be undeveloped water rights. The minister cannot give undeveloped water rights. Undeveloped water rights is an excluded -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Listen for a minute, just listen. Let me - just listen for one more minute. Undeveloped water rights are excluded.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) determined by the minister!

PREMIER WELLS: Just listen. Just listen for a minute. Undeveloped water -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, listen for a minute! Undeveloped water rights are excluded. The minister - if Hydro seeks to claim they are developed the minister has the right to say no. He doesn't have the right to say: Undeveloped water rights are developed. They are undeveloped. He can't convert them into developed. He has no right to do that. Undeveloped water rights are excluded and we are preventing Hydro -

MS. VERGE: It's unclear.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if that is in any way unclear, then in Committee we can make it abundantly clear. Undeveloped water rights are absolutely excluded and if there is any doubt or argument about it the minister says, no, Hydro, they are not included.

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to bring the Premier to task on his quote of a statement made by Stephen Defoe. I think he misled the House because he only told - in one part of the statement, he also stated that depending on the tax concessions there could be negative effects on this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

That is not a point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is very clear that Hydro will get only those water powers that - as a matter of fact there was an argument -

MS. VERGE: That is not what it says.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if it does not say it explicitly then you can make it explicit. There is no problem with that. That is what Committee stage is for, and the hon. member ought to know. Let me remind hon. members of something else. Hydro said to us, `We should have access to Granite Canal,' and we said, `No, only if it is determined in the future that you are the best entity to develop Granite Canal.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

PREMIER WELLS: There are a few other questions I am prepared to answer for hon. members.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Those aren't the questions, at all, I would like to ask. You put a twenty-minute gag on us, so sit in your seat like the rest of us. No leave!

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I willingly gave other members a bit of time to clue up. Let me just conclude by saying I am confident this is in the best interest of the Province and I have no doubt the people will accept it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we would have gladly provided leave if we had been given the same courtesy. Our leader was denied leave today by the Government House Leader and by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. We think it only fair as a courtesy to our leader that he should have been given time, and we don't think we should have to give time when they didn't give us the courtesy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: They didn't give the people any time, either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, not to delay the House, because I know we are all anxious to get on with the vote, but let me just place on the record that at no point this day, have I denied leave to the hon. - Mr. Speaker, I was in my seat every moment of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. At no point, Mr. Speaker, at no point did I deny leave to the Leader of the Opposition to speak. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition had no right to speak and we deliberately did not raise it. What they did to the Premier speaks for itself.

PREMIER WELLS: Speaks for itself, very loudly.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Is the House ready for the question?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against,`nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion, the `ayes' have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

Division

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

The House is now ready for the vote, Sergeant-at-Arms.

All those in favour of adopting the motion that the bill be now read a second time.

CLERK (Mr. J. Noel): The hon. the Premier; the hon. the Minister of Justice; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture; the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation; the hon. the Minister of Social Services; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Finance; the hon. the Minister of Fisheries; the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations; Mr. L. Snow; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Crane; Mr. Walsh; Mr. Murphy; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Health; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Tulk; Mrs. Young; Mr. Ramsay; Mr. Penney; Mr. K. Aylward; Mr. Langdon; Mr. Oldford; Mr. Dumaresque; Mr. Whalen; Mr. Smith; Mr. Matthews; Dr. Hulan.

MR. SPEAKER: All those who do not wish to have the motion adopted.

CLERK: Mr. W. Matthews; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Tobin; Mr. A. Snow; Mr. Woodford; Ms. Verge; Mr. Windsor; Mr. Hodder; Mr. E. Byrne; Mr. Fitzgerald; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Manning; Mr. Careen; Mr. Harris; Mr. Noel.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, `Ayes' thirty-one; `nays' fifteen.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried. The bill will be now read a second time.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment -

MR. SPEAKER: The bill is not yet read.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry.

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting The Privatization Of The Newfoundland And Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation", read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 1).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment, the House will meet at 9:00 in the morning, we will be calling the Committee stage on the bill when the Orders of the Day are read tomorrow.

With that said, Sir, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 a.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.