May 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 39

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the

galleries, forty-two Levels I, II and III students from the democracy class at

Ascension Collegiate, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Lorne Moores and Mr. Ed

Wyling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I advised the House that while

three of the four credit-rating agencies have recently reaffirmed the credit

rating assigned by them to the Province over the last several years, a fourth

had announced that it intended to downgrade the rating it gives the Province.

Unfortunately, this was Standard and Poor's of New York, the one rating agency

with which the Province had an A level credit rating. At the time I advised this

hon. House that the matter would be considered quickly and the government would

indicate its specific policy response at an early date.

While the downgrading by Standard and Poor's was

understandably disappointing, particularly at a time when we were seeing early

signs of economic improvement, nevertheless government was encouraged by the

general assessment of the government's fiscal performance by all of the credit

rating agencies.

In particular, I note that Moody's said, and I quote: "In

spite of unfavourable economic conditions, the Province has succeeded in

gradually narrowing its fiscal imbalance. Although the Province has not used a

formal multi-year planning approach, as in the case of several other provinces,

it has demonstrated a willingness to introduce year after year additional

revenue and expenditure measures to offset unexpected pressures and maintain the

deficit on a downward trajectory."

They also said: "Newfoundland currently has the highest debt

burden of any province. Despite the gradual progress made in reducing deficit

financing requirements, new borrowing activity and the lack of economic growth

pushed the level of tax supported debt in relation to the provincial GDP above

the 55 per cent mark, up from 48 per cent in the late 1980's."

They said also: "The sale of Newfoundland Hydro which is

being contemplated for later this year may also provide an opportunity for the

Province to improve its debt profile... The balance of sale proceeds, however,

has been earmarked by the Province as funds that would be used to reduce

Newfoundland's debt burden by significantly lowering, and possibly eliminating,

debt issuance activities this fiscal year. Avoidance of debt issuance would also

benefit the finances of the Province by generating savings in debt servicing

costs."

Standard and Poor's said: "The Province has displayed

impressive fiscal performance in recent years, generating operating surpluses,

after adjusting for sinking fund earnings, and posting moderate deficits."

They said also: "The outlook..." - and they noted that the

outlook was stable, said it - "... reflects the demonstrated strong commitment

of the provincial government to continue to reduce its deficit and its borrowing

requirements despite the sustained fiscal pressure anticipated from an

environment of slow economic growth."

"The provincial government is proposing to sell the

provincial electric utility, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Proceeds of such a

sale are expected to eliminate provincial borrowing for about 1 fiscal year and

thus result in reduced budgetary pressures in the near term and lower interest

charges in future years."

Canadian Bond Rating Services said this:

"The Province is aiming for an operating surplus in 1995-96.

At that time, and assuming Newfoundland Hydro is privatized, the Province should

be in a position to begin lowering its large debt load. Further increases in

debt only exacerbate Newfoundland's already curtailed fiscal flexibility."

"The Province is attempting to sell Newfoundland Hydro. The

proceeds and resulting debt defeasance, would accrue to the Province. As such,

the Province's long term debt issuance is expected to moderate in fiscal 1995.

If Hydro's privatization does not occur, the rating could be reassessed."

Dominion Bond Rating Service said this:

"The short term ratings of R-2 (middle) with a Stable trend

are confirmed for the Province of Newfoundland and its guaranteed entities as

the Province continues to exercise good fiscal restraint."

"The most significant rating considerations at the present

time include (1) overcoming the problems resulting from loss of the Northern Cod

Fishery.

(2) Privatizing the electric utility which will free the Province from

having to continue to finance this capital intensive company.

(3) Having to

contend with a large debt and unfunded pension liability, which gives the

Province at 70% GDP the highest debt/GDP rating in Canada and results in

interest costs being high as a proportion of total expenditures relative to

other provinces."

"The government is privatizing the electric utility in a

manner that should not result in significant increases in electrical rates. The

key positive factor in the privatization is the fact that it will ultimately

remove $1.3 billion of debt (which is, nevertheless, self sustaining). This

enables the Province to use its credit strengths to raise capital to finance its

own deficit and not that of the capital intensive utility, and to accomplish

this privatization without electric rate increases."

Mr. Speaker, the government believes the ability of this

Province to achieve improved credit ratings in the future is entirely dependent

upon continued strong fiscal performance, reduction of outstanding debt, and

general improvement in the economy. It is essential, therefore, that the

Province follow policies that will achieve all three of these objectives.

Accordingly, the government has determined:

1) To have no further borrowings that will increase the

existing outstanding debt. Some borrowing may be necessary in the immediate

future in order to repay debt that will become due during that period, but this

will not add to the existing debt;

2) To pursue an objective of achieving in the fiscal year

1995-1996, not only balance, but a surplus on current account that can

contribute significantly to capital expenditures in that fiscal year;

3) To achieve by the fiscal year 1996-1997 a balanced total

budget so that there will be no borrowing for budgetary purposes whatsoever

during that fiscal year, and:

4) In each fiscal year thereafter to ensure some surplus over

total current and capital account expenditures that will be available for

reduction of the outstanding public debt, including that portion of the pension

fund deficiencies for which the government is responsible.

This can be achieved by:

A) Continuing the policy of restraining growth in operating

expenditures;

B) Limiting capital expenditures to amounts that are

essential to protect existing infrastructure of the Province and meet the

health, education, municipal, transportation or other public service needs that

are pressing or time sensitive, and;

C) Continuing with the privatization of commercial activities

carried on by the government, including Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, in

order to generate the revenue necessary to meet what would otherwise be

budgetary shortfalls during the fiscal years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997.

Mr. Speaker, to improve economic activity, the government

will continue to implement the economic development policies outlined in the

Strategic Economic Plan. Efforts will be made to speed up to the maximum extent

possible policies aimed at providing in Newfoundland and Labrador the most

attractive business investment climate possible, and further efforts at

promotion, within Canada and other parts of the world, will be pursued

vigorously.

There are already indications of economic improvement and

reason to expect further improvement in the overall economic performance. It is

noteworthy that in most recent months there have been improvements in housing

starts, new automobile sales, department store sales and some other indicators.

Of particular significance is the fact that the number of the workforce employed

has increased in each of the last four months for a total of 7,000 additional

jobs during the months of January, February, March, and April of this year.

The government's policies of sound fiscal management,

expenditure restraint and private sector emphasis in economic development are

starting to produce results. Now is not the time to change policies that at long

last are starting to show results.

I am confident that we can undo the massive financial harm

that has been done to this Province in the last twenty years or so by excessive

borrowing and management policies that increased obligations but deferred them

to the future. I am also confident that we will see significantly improved

economic performance in the months ahead and that we can enhance that economic

performance by intensifying our efforts at implementing the specific action

items of the Strategic Economic Plan.

The end result will see the restoration of both the financial

integrity and the economic viability of the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would say if we wanted to see the credit rating of this

Province increase immediately the best thing that could happen would be if the

Premier and his government were to resign.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is an extremely weak, weak,

attempt to try to defend policies they have put in place for the last five years

that have seen this Province run into the ground. That's what has been happening

with his policies. All you ever hear about is the Strategic Economic Plan. It is

something like the Sears catalogue, it is a plan but there's not much more in

it.

Mr. Speaker, I said on Thursday when the Minister of Finance

gave his statement on the downgrading of the Province's credit rating by

Standard and Poor's, or whoever it was, that the loss of the A credit rating is

an extremely important and significant factor. There is no question about that.

But for the Premier to stand here today and try to put some kind of a positive

light on it, really, those words ring very, very, hollow, when you look back at

what the government has been doing for the last five years.

We know it will have an effect on the Province in the future.

We do not know how serious that effect will be, but we know it will have an

effect, and the effect really remains to be seen. What really struck me as I

read the statement, and we only got it ten or fifteen minutes before the House

opened, was his

interpretation of what all the rating agencies had to say with

respect to Hydro, or at least what he is trying to lead people to believe, Mr.

Speaker.

His

interpretation is only one thing, many others disagree

with him. He must know that by now but for him today to try to somehow make a

case for the privatization of Hydro on the backs of these statements by these

credit rating agencies as if it were somehow a sound, long term beneficial

fiscal policy and that it was somehow in the best long term interest of the

people of this Province is nothing short of charade and a scam. That's all he's

up to here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: To suggest somehow that they may be doing

something of a positive nature and that the rating agencies have supported him

now, that's misleading the people, Mr. Speaker, exactly what the Premier tries

to suggest from time to time that I'm doing.

Now what the rating agencies, including Standard and Poor's

and all the others, have really said is that this Province will get a one- time

windfall that it will then use in order to avoid having to borrow for the next

year, maybe a part of the following year. These agencies have not even suggested

that there would be any long term benefit from the sale or privatization of

Hydro, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact some of them, the Canadian Bond Rating

Agency, if you read its statement you would see that their overall outlook was

negative anyway for the Province. So what they are saying, Mr. Speaker, is

merely what we have been saying all along, that the Province will get a limited

benefit for a year or two, from a one time infusion of cash that will allow it

to avoid borrowing, we've said that. There's no dispute about that. Nobody has

ever disputed that but the problem is that the long term benefit is not there

and the benefit from the short one-time infusion of cash will be short lived.

Mr. Speaker, the main reason for down-grading the Province's

credit rating, I say to the Premier, has absolutely nothing to do with the

privatization of Hydro but it has all to do with the lack of growth and decline

in this economy. That's what the agencies have said, Mr. Speaker, and the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro won't do one thing to change that, not one

little bit and he knows it. He can smile all he wants but he knows darn well,

that problem will only change when this government gets the intestinal

fortitude, shows the political will to change direction, to take a different

approach, Mr. Speaker, and to try to find the right policies that will stimulate

the economy and until they do that, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: - we will continue to have problems with our

credit rating and all the rest of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

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

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker,

During the 1993 federal election campaign, the Liberal Party,

it would deal effectively with the foreign overfishing problem. This commitment

was reaffirmed in the first Throne Speech under the new government. I am pleased

to advise that earlier today the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the

hon. Brian Tobin, tabled a bill in the Parliament of Canada which will address

the serious problem of foreign overfishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: This is the first step, Mr. Speaker. The

deal effectively with this problem.

This hon. House is aware fully that foreign overfishing

constitutes one of the most serious challenges to the future of the major fish

stocks of the Grand Banks, and our efforts to rebuild a sustainable and

responsible fishery. The livelihood and future of thousands of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians is linked to our ability to address this problem. I met

recently with the Prime Minister to impress on him the extent of the problem. It

is obvious from the legislation tabled today in Ottawa that the federal

government has fully understood and responded to our concerns.

Mr. Speaker, the previous federal government followed an

ineffective diplomatic approach to dealing with the foreign overfishing issues.

The lack of success in these efforts is demonstrated by the extent of foreign

fishing efforts on the Grand Banks today. The most recent vessel reports for the

NAFO area, for the week ending April 25 1994, indicated there were seventy-six -

note the number - seventy-six foreign vessels fishing on the Grand Banks. That

doesn't include another fourteen fishing shrimp out on the Flemish Cap.

Overfishing by foreign vessels, most notably vessels from the European Union -

Spain and Portugal - is thought to have exceeded 100,000 tonnes in 1993, and all

indications are that foreign efforts and catches have remained high thus far in

1994. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the level of fishing by the European Union is higher

this year so far than it was last year at this time, and it was higher last year

than it was the year before. Despite the fact that Canada has a moratorium on

its own fishery.

This sustained foreign fishing effort has been occurring at a

time when the Newfoundland fishery is effectively closed; at a time when many

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have had to accept that they may not be able to

fish until the next century. Many may never fish again. The fisherpersons of

Newfoundland and Labrador have made a major sacrifice to ensure that the

groundfish stocks of the Grand Banks can recover.

I am proud and pleased that Canada is now telling the

international community that it will not stand idly by and watch this sacrifice

frustrated by a few foreign fishing fleets.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the new federal legislation

will allow Canada to enforce responsible fishing practices against all fishing

vessels and for all straddling stocks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: For all of those stocks on the Nose and

Tail of the Grand Banks. It represents the most significant initiative to

bill, once passed, will allow Canada to undertake surveillance and enforcement

measures for the conservation and management of straddling stocks throughout the

NAFO Regulatory Area, which includes the "nose" and "tail" of the Grand Banks.

It enables Canada to ensure responsible conservation and management practices

are enforced against all vessels fishing in the area.

message to the international community. Canada will no longer tolerate the

wanton destruction of a world food resource in the waters contiguous to its

shores. This is

an act of international leadership on the part of Canada. I

congratulate Mr. Tobin and the Prime Minister for the courage and the foresight

that they have demonstrated in the tabling of this bill. This initiative clearly

affirms the federal government's commitment to deal effectively with the foreign

overfishing issue, a commitment reaffirmed by the Prime Minister and Mr. Tobin

in this very building, Mr. Speaker, in St. John's on February 25.

I express my undying personal admiration and gratitude to

both those men who showed such leadership.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

I say to members opposite, I can understand their being a

little bit gleeful today. There hasn't been too much for government members to

cheer about in the last year or two, so I can understand it. But, Mr. Speaker, I

am going to reserve judgement on this federal legislation the same as I reserved

judgement on the new TAGS program, I say to members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They all jumped up and down, and Mr.

Tobin and Mr Axworthy left the plane running at the airport, came in, and then

flew off to Ottawa, and afterwards, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians came to see

through the new TAGS program.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Premier - and I haven't

seen the legislation and I don't know if the Premier has, by the way, I say to

members opposite. Read the legislation first. All that has happened since Mr.

Tobin became federal Minister of Fisheries, is that foreign overfishing on the

Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks has increased, I say to the Premier. It has not

decreased. Foreign overfishing on the Nose and Tail of the Banks has increased,

not decreased, by the Premier's own statistics.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that this

legislation will accomplish what all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. I

hope that the foreigners are removed from the Grand Banks. I hope in six months

time we do not have reports in this House by the Minister of Fisheries and the

Premier saying there are eighty or ninety foreign vessels out fishing. The proof

of the pudding will be in the eating, I say to members opposite.

I only hope, Mr. Speaker, that it is not just legislation to

deal with the boats that are flying the flags of convenience, that it is just

not to deal with Canadian vessels, such as we saw a few weeks ago when the

minister went out and arrested a Canadian vessel and brought it into port here

in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, if the legislation has the teeth that it should

have, I will stand in my place in this House, and anywhere in this Province, and

commend Brian Tobin - I will do that. But I am going to wait until I see the

results of the legislation. I hope it works, Mr. Speaker. I hope the foreigners

are off the Banks in a few months time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am going to wait and see, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to jump up like puppets, like members opposite.

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

have leave to address the House?

No leave.

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the

gallery Mayor Harry Cooper of Twillingate. And secondly, a group of Improving

Your Odds students from Joe Batt's Arm.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last week, I asked the Premier about the implications of

Part

2 of the Electrical Power Resources Act, the bill which is about to face closure

on second reading today. I asked him about the implications of

Part 2 of that

act on Abitibi-Price and Kruger. I suggested at the time that he contact the

paper companies to find out whether they had any concerns that the legislation

might somehow adversely affect their operations.

I would like to ask the Premier: Has there has been any

contact since then with either, or both, of the paper companies, initiated

either by him or the government, or by the paper companies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I contacted

them, but I think a Mr. Kerr contacted me, expressed some concern, and told me

that his concern arose because he had a call from the Leader of the Opposition

to tell him that he should be concerned about it.

I explained the position to him and I was satisfied after

that explanation that he had no concern. I have had no personal contact from

anybody at Abitibi since that time. Whether they've contacted anybody else or

not, I don't know. Now, I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition has

engendered doubts or suggestions with Kruger as well, probably. I received a

telephone call from Mr. Kruger yesterday afternoon. I spoke with Mr. Kruger and

he told me he had some legal opinions that raised some possible concerns so he

was going to send me in a copy of the legal opinions. So far, he hasn't done

that. I called this morning to say that this matter was coming on for a vote

tonight in the House of Assembly on second reading - `but the committee stage is

yet to go, so there's some time. So if you have any real concern, don't delay

getting it in. Make sure you let me know so that if there are any genuine bases

for the concerns, they can be addressed.'

The principle, Mr. Speaker, is that neither Abitibi nor

Kruger would suffer any impact of this, except in one case, an emergency. I drew

that to Mr. Kruger's attention, he said, `I have no quarrel at all with that.

That's the way it ought to be.' I explained to him the situation with respect to

part III, and that it didn't in any manner adversely impact on either Kruger or

Abitibi and if -

MS. VERGE: That's

Part II.

PREMIER WELLS: -

Part II, Mr. Speaker - and if it would

be helpful to have any additional words added that would make very clear that a

company like Abitibi or Kruger had wanted to be assured that they could consume

the power that they generated, I had no problem making a statement that would

have that effect. I again read from page 8, `the official policy is that it

would result in a producer having priority to consume the power it produces.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we can make that clearer - I have no objection to making it

clearer but there's no question about what the intent is. I doubt very much that

it can be made clearer, but if it can, I have no question with that, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Finally, we have gotten the truth from the

Premier on this particular point that the companies have concerns about this

legislation. He has now been told there are concerns and they are suggesting

amendments or changes to the legislation. He just confirmed that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, he didn't confirm it. Let me ask him:

Can he tell us what specific concerns the paper companies have expressed about

Bill 2? Will he tell us the specific concerns they have expressed to him and

have they, in fact, proposed any amendments or changes in either a written

communication to the Premier or his telephone conversations or somebody else in

the government, of course?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, with Abitibi, the only

concern that Mr. Kerr expressed was the concern that he told me the Leader of

the Opposition told him he should have with respect to it. That was the only

concern that he expressed to me.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) anyway.

PREMIER WELLS: No, it isn't.

MR. SIMMS: That is a lie.

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

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

(inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition knows the rules on unparliamentary language. I will take the matter

under advisement and deal with it after Question Period.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Mr. Kerr and the only thing that he

raised with me was the matter that had been raised by the Leader of the

Opposition, and he told me that it was raised with him by the Leader of the

Opposition. The only thing that he raised with me was that which had been raised

with him by the Leader of the Opposition, attempting to foment difficulty for

the government and for the people of the Province - Mr. Speaker, gross

irresponsibility on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. It's difficult to

even recognize him as being the Leader of the Loyal Opposition, when you bear in

mind what's being done, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Mr. Kruger and Mr. Bunze of

Kruger yesterday afternoon. They told me they were going to send in a legal

opinion they had and I said, `Well, please let me see it and if there's any

merit to it or any basis for it, I would be happy to address it or see that it

is addressed.' Just before I came down here, Mr. Speaker, I noted that a letter

had been received from Mr. Kruger. I haven't read the letter yet, so I can't

tell you what is in it, but it is not a legal opinion. It is a view of the

company. I will be reading it shortly, and I will know later today exactly what

the letter said, but so far they still haven't offered a legal opinion.

If I see a legal opinion that gives me any cause for concern,

I will see that the matter is addressed, because the policy of the Province is

to see that a producer of electricity is to have the priority to consume the

electricity it produces, and that is exactly what it says.

Now let me read it again. The power policy of the Province:

"...that would result in a producer having priority to consume the power it

produces..." - plain, simple language.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) clause 8.

PREMIER WELLS: Clause 8 requires that this clause be

enforced, what I just read. It requires that is the policy that the board is to

enforce.

Now I know the Opposition have tried to foment difficulty,

but the matter is adequately dealt with.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to take lectures

from the Premier on this or anything else, and I don't appreciate him accusing

me of doing what he just accused me of doing, because it is an absolute

falsehood - an absolute falsehood.

I telephoned the company in question, Abitibi, and I brought

this issue to their attention in a responsible manner, and I asked them if they

had any concerns. I didn't tell them they should have concerns, so don't mislead

the people.

Now he is misleading them once again when he quotes

Part I of

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hon.

Leader of the Opposition is attempting to do, and I am not going to speculate,

but he knows the rules of the House as well as any of us, I suggest, and he has

twice in the last thirty seconds used language which, in my submission, is

unparliamentary. I would ask, please, that Your Honour address the point and

make whatever ruling is appropriate.

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

referring to?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, he accused the Premier of:

a) misleading the House; and

b) uttering -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: - of misleading the House, and he used the

word `falsehood' to describe a statement by the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: I would prefer to take the matter under

advisement and deal with it after, and make a ruling on it.

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

continue.

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

The Premier has argued that the application of

Part II, by

the general policy statement in

Part I, which he stated and articulated a moment

ago that would result in the producer having the priority to consume the power,

but wouldn't he agree that

Part II of the bill, which explicitly gives the

Public Utilities Board the power to: "...allocate and re-allocate any or all

power produced in the Province...", "...notwithstanding that the producer or

retailer may, as a result, have to reduce the amount, or cease the delivery

altogether, of power then being supplied to another customer or the amount of

power then being consumed for its own use."

Wouldn't he agree that in fact

section 8 in

Part II of that

bill actually negates the effect of this so-called general policy statement in

Part I that he articulated a moment ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: He should read the balance of the clause.

I will read it very clearly so that he will understand it:

"Where, after the conduct of an inquiry, the Public Utilities

Board is satisfied that a producer or a retailer is not, or will not be able,

under the existing supply and allocation contracts or arrangements, to satisfy

the current or anticipated demands of its customers for power in the manner

required by this Act..." - part of which is the producer having the priority to

consume the power it generates. That is part of the manner required by this Act.

"... the Public Utilities Board may, subject to subsection

11(3), allocate and re-allocate any or all power produced in the Province and

may order another producer or retailer to supply, upon those terms and

conditions respecting rates, timing, duration and amounts that the Public

Utilities Board determines, to the producer or retailer which would otherwise be

unable to satisfy such power demands that the Public Utilities Board considers

to be necessary to implement the power policy set out in paragraph 3(b)."

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

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

PREMIER WELLS: I have read it all. I have read the whole

of subsection (2).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

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

it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The difficulty arising in Question Period, if the Opposition

asks questions, then I think there should be afforded an opportunity for an

answer - and conversations back and forth I think don't aid the answer. I would

be just as happy if the member asked a question and gave an opportunity for an

answer and then asked another. Thank you.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it has to be done, and the

only thing the Public Utilities Board can do, and they are specifically and

expressly directed to do. Now, if this legislation is not sufficiently clear to

make that beyond doubt then I've got no objection putting in any words that will

put it beyond doubt. But I don't think it does that. All it does is direct the

Public Utilities Board to apply the power policy provided in 3(

b) which

specifically requires that a producer have the priority to consume the power it

produces. It couldn't be much more clear.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

President of Treasury Board. Yesterday evening on CBC evening news the minister

admitted to the use of student evaluation as a political strategy in the

collective bargaining process between the NLTA and the government. He further

admitted to the absolute failure of his tactic. Will the minister today

apologize to the parents, the educators and the students of the Province for his

willingness to use the students of this Province as pawns in his strategy to

reach a collective agreement with the NLTA?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount in his question is using information that I don't know in which form it

exists. In other words, it is an imaginary situation. There is no such

admission, there is no such statement that even tends towards that direction,

and I would like him to produce such a statement if such a statement exists.

The only thing that has happened in the last couple of days

is that we have tried to insist that the teachers' union withdraw their position

that requested their teachers to break the law. That request was not complied

with and we have since continued discussions with the Teachers Association. Our

attempt was to simply, in the event of a strike, have in our possession, or at

least in the possession of the schools and the school boards, the latest

possible up-to-date information on the progress of the students, which is a very

responsible request, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon the Minister

of Education distributed or caused to be distributed a confidential letter

written and signed by his colleague the President of Treasury Board to the

president of the NLTA. Will the President of Treasury Board confirm that this

letter was distributed to all school board offices without his explicit

knowledge and prior authorization?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was a meeting held

with the NLTA and I subsequently sent a letter to the teachers' union outlining

some of the discussions in that meeting. A copy of the letter was inadvertently,

by accident, not by the Minister of Education, sent to the superintendents in

the system. That has been explained to the teachers' union and they accept that

explanation. Yes, the letter was sent.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Will the

minister therefore confirm to the House that disciplinary action has been taken

against the people who distributed this letter ill-advisedly, because it is an

obvious attempt to sabotage the collective bargaining process, and

responsibility for this serious turn of events must rest with the Ministry? I

ask the President of Treasury Board, has he taken the necessary action to ensure

that this kind of process, which intimidated the teaching profession, does not

occur in this round of collective bargaining again?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there was no attempt to sabotage

a collective bargaining process. There was no action taken to deliberately

sabotage a collective bargaining process that has not even yet started. I remind

the hon. gentleman that the teachers' union has rejected by an overwhelming

majority, 91 per cent, a recommendation of a conciliation board which simply

said, start collective bargaining. That has been rejected so there has been no

collective bargaining. So there is no deliberate attempt to interfere with

collective bargaining. There was a mistake made, and the only people who don't

make mistakes, Mr. Speaker, are the people who never do anything.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are several clauses in Bill 2, the

Electrical Power Resources Act, now before the Legislature, that have been

inserted in the bill to carry out government's plan to privatize Newfoundland

and Labrador Hydro. These clauses are part of the government's privatization

plan.

On May 3, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Premier a

question, and I want to ask him today: Mr. Premier, do you intend to proceed

with Bill 1, the Privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, despite the

strong public opposition to it? Will you be proceeding within the next number of

days, or next week, with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Bill 2, the Electrical Power

Control Act, stands on its own, whether Hydro is privatized or not. It is

capable of standing entirely on its own. It doesn't require the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It simply provides for a sensible, at long

last, a sensible way of managing the hydroelectric resources of the Province.

The answer to the second question, Mr. Speaker, is the same

as it has been each time it has been asked, yesterday and in the past, it

remains the same.

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

House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier didn't answer the question,

Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier, in a supplementary, would rise in his

place today and tell us whether or not he intends to privatize Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's policy

to properly run this Province for the first time in twenty years. When the

Opposition were in power they devastated the economy, borrowed us silly, tripled

our debt between 1975 and 1987, created all kinds of obligations and deferred

them to the future, made a mess of the pension system, created all of the

problems that caused the downgrading, all attributable, and did nothing to

rebuild the economy. They did absolutely nothing to rebuild the economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government is going to proceed with

its full economic development policies and its full fiscal management policies,

and that includes privatization of all aspects of commercial-type business as

carried on by the government, no matter what it is. That has been the policy all

along and we intend to proceed with that.

So the answer is the same as it was yesterday, and the same

as it was last week. It remains precisely the same, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

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

The Premier, on May 3, categorically said to the Leader of

the Opposition that government had no intention of withdrawing the Hydro bill.

Now, that is what was said a few short days ago, so the Premier, in essence, is

confirming that today.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is the same.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask the Premier this on a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why did you, Mr. Premier, on March 24, 1994, in

front of all the people of this Province on public television in the leader's

debate, say the following, and I quote: `No government has the right to proceed

and ask the majority that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through

laws that it can't maintain adequate support for, and by adequate I mean

essentially majority support in the Province, and if the majority of the people

in this Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro, I would not ask the

members of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro.

Because I don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the

issue, should use its majority in a Legislature to cause something to be done

that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask

the members of the Legislature to do that.'

Further on in the debate, the Premier said, `The government

will make sure that before we proceed - '

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am asking the Premier why he said

this, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

`The government will make sure that before we proceed with a

vote in the House of Assembly, we have the support of the people of the Province

to proceed, otherwise we will not.' In the last thirty seconds of the debate,

the Premier said the following: `I have said here tonight very clearly and I

have said not here - I said it on CBC radio yesterday, and I have said it in

other places, that no government has the right to proceed with the

implementation of major policy that it can't sustain public support for, and if

we cannot sustain public support for this proposition, we have no right to ask

the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.' That is what the Premier

said. Here is the transcript of the debate. I want to ask the Premier, in light

of the answer he just gave me in my supplementary: Why did you lie to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador on March 24?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The language of the hon. the Opposition House Leader is

clearly unparliamentary, and in accordance with our rules, he will have to

withdraw the remark. I hereby ask him to do so.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I respect the request of

Your Honour. I respect that you are caught in a -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the evidence is

overwhelming. On May 3, the Premier said he had no intention of withdrawing the

Hydro bill. Hansard, page 1255 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On March 24, I have the transcript, the

evidence is compelling, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It's not a matter of whether or not the Opposition House

Leader or any member has evidence. It is a matter that the language, itself, is

unparliamentary. It is not a matter of what one intends to say so much as a

matter of the words one chooses. The language, itself, is unparliamentary and

must, in accordance with parliamentary tradition, be withdrawn.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have a great respect for

Your Honour and the rules of the House, parliamentary procedure and

parliamentary language, but I have a greater respect for the truth, and

consequently, I will not withdraw what I just said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I again ask the hon. member if he is prepared to withdraw the

statement made. Is that categorical and final? Does the hon. member wish to

reconsider at this point and withdraw the remark?

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

I just said.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether you meant

to name the member or not. He appears not to have accepted your ruling, so -

MR. SPEAKER: I should say, for hon. members, I have not

named any member in the Session. I am not obligated to do so, but I know that a

Speaker in another House has chosen not to recognize a member in the House until

the remark is withdrawn.

I believe it is traditional that both members propose, or

certainly the government, or the member can't propose what would be appropriate,

I will consider what, if anything, might be appropriate in the circumstances,

but until then, until I make a decision, I won't recognize the member in this

House unless he withdraws inappropriate remarks.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the Minister of Health.

Yesterday, 911 received a medical emergency call from Torbay.

A woman collapsed in her home from a heart attack; 911 dispatched an ambulance,

driver and an attendant. The ambulance arrived in eleven minutes. After they

arrived, the ambulance attendants called 911 for more assistance; 911 then

called the Torbay Volunteer Fire Department, and qualified volunteers from that

department were dispatched to the home in six minutes. This woman died.

I ask the minister: Why wasn't the volunteer fire department

contacted immediately? They could have been at the scene five minutes before

that ambulance arrived.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the situation,

but it is the policy that volunteer fire departments cannot guarantee that there

will be appropriate people there at all times. That is why we cannot rely - the

volunteer fire departments are not always available for medical emergencies with

the properly trained people there. That is why the 911 service doesn't normally

use voluntary fire departments, but in this particular case, I will take it

under advisement and look into it to see what has happened.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is the responsibility of 911 to get trained people to the

scene of an emergency as quickly as possible. Those people, thirty-one people in

that department, are trained and have the pager system and can respond. Now,

what happened in this case, as in other cases I have documented, is that trained

people available in the community were ignored because the department has a

policy not to use volunteers.

Now, in this case, time is life. How many more people are

going to die before the minister changes this policy?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making some

very grievous charges. If he had a system by which the 911 people were always to

phone volunteer fire departments and there was nobody there, or no trained

person there, to respond, he would be up on his feet more frequently than he is

now. That whole situation of 911 is under review and in an appropriate time we

will see that if anything needs to be done, it will be done.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: The time is, Mr. Speaker - when are you

going to do something about it? Emergency services is a life and death matter. I

ask the minister, would he call an official inquiry into the 911 system and the

provision of emergency medical services in the St. John's region?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the emergency services in the

St. John's region are functioning reasonably well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. KITCHEN: You are making charges which you cannot

substantiate across there. You are saying that that is what caused a death. You

cannot substantiate that of your own information. You don't know. You are not a

medical person. When a complaint is raised here in this House, Mr. Speaker,

about services, we investigate and look into it and see if anyone is at fault,

and if anyone is at fault, that is their problem. We have looked into all these

cases that have been brought to our attention. We are attempting to see if there

is anything we can do. But I can tell you this, that for somebody on the 911

line to have to be phoning around looking to see if a volunteer is around or not

is not the appropriate way to handle medical emergencies.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. I noticed in his statement

today on the Province's fiscal situation and his plans to go ahead with the

privatization of Hydro that there was no mention of his commitment on

Province-wide TV to seek the views of the people of the Province before

proceeding with the privatization of Hydro. Is the Premier, in light of his

decision, his answer to previous questions, prepared to see in this Province a

`Clyde Lied' campaign which would put the other campaign last year to shame, Mr.

Speaker? Is that the Premier's intention?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that kind of question has

little more credibility than the one asked by the Member for Grand Bank. It is

hardly worthy of the hon. member to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Speaker, I thought that member wasn't to

be recognized until he had withdrawn the statement.

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

yet, either.

MR. TOBIN: When he speaks, Sir, he tells the truth, and

that's more than (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this Province is facing a

very difficult financial and economic circumstance, caused largely by the

ill-advised policies of the former administration that borrowed us silly, that

created commitments -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - that irresponsibly abandoned their

responsibility to deal with the public issues of the day and dealt with them in

such a way as to defer the obligation into the future - created a terrible mess.

This government has been trying for two to three years to get us out of that.

Part of it is the fiscal management plan that we've developed. The privatization

of Hydro is a crucial part of it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a strong believer that the government must

maintain an acceptable level of public support for policies that it seeks to

implement through the House of Assembly, but the government of this Province has

a responsibility to make sure that we don't manage the affairs of this Province

so as to keep us on the course of destruction and bankruptcy that the former

government put us on!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Every single one of the credit rating

agencies clearly indicated that this government had taken the kind of sound

fiscal management steps to correct the irresponsible mess that had been created

by the former government. Now, Mr. Speaker, we're making progress on that and we

intend to proceed with those policies.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: We have two minutes to go and we don't want

the Premier up here telling us what's not true, Mr. Speaker, he's been at that

long enough.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The practice I follow is that if a member asks a question, I

give whichever minister is answering, an opportunity to finish.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: It hasn't been four minutes. It was actually

about one minute, thirty seconds past the end of Question Period when the hon.

member raised the point of order, but as members know, if a question is asked

before the end of Question Period, even if there are two or three seconds

remaining, I allow the question and the appropriate time to answer it. Whether

or not the Premier was still on point - I think he was, but I was having

difficulty hearing him. In any event, I don't know if it's appropriate or if

there's anything that needs to be said at this time but I certainly wouldn't

allow any supplementary since we're past the point.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is essentially finished, Mr.

Speaker, it simply remained - if I hadn't been interrupted I would have simply

said, Mr. Speaker, that the circumstances of the last thirty days have made very

clear the necessity for the government to continue the policy that it had

proposed and the government proposes to continue with that policy.

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

There were some points of order raised during Question Period

by the hon. Government House Leader that I deferred to the end of Question

Period dealing with statements by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I don't

know if there's anything to be added to that. I'd prefer to take a few minutes

and deal with them. I think I now have a copy of the Hansard as to what was said

and we'll see how accurate it is. Is there anything, either the government or

the Opposition wish to add on the matter? I'll take a few minutes and then deal

with it. I'll adjourn - I'm sorry,

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) any difficulties I'll just

withdraw, there's no problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay.

MR. ROBERTS: That certainly resolves the matter from my

point of view, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: It still leaves the question of the hon.

Opposition House Leader. I had given him a chance earlier to withdraw it and I

feel if he doesn't do so - I'll probably deal with that now before we resume

because it would be very difficult not to recognize the hon. Opposition House

Leader to conduct the ordinary order of business and perhaps I'll adjourn the

House for about ten or fifteen minutes and deal with the question. The House is

now adjourned.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'd ask the hon. Member for Grand Bank whether or not he'd

now, at this point, withdraw the remark earlier made?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: No. Accordingly I have no option but to name

the hon. member, the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Grand Bank, Mr.

William Matthews, for disregarding the authority of the Speaker's Chair and the

decorum of the House.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I guess the only thing I want to say to

Your Honour is that I apologize to Your Honour if I put you in a difficult

position, I appreciate that. It's no reflection on the Chair or the individual

who occupies the Chair. It's not a very proud day or proud moment in my life,

Mr. Speaker, but there's a couple of things that I've held uppermost in my life;

respect for people, respect for the truth and I put the people of the Province

first, the truth to the people uppermost and that's what this day has been

about. I don't need to say any more. I just apologize to you and your staff if I

put you in a difficult position.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt what I have to

do in this situation. I do it with regret because I think the hon. gentleman

knows full well what he's doing and I have too much respect for him to think

otherwise. I would move that the hon. Member for Grand Bank be suspended from

the House for the balance of today's session.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak, have a few words

to the motion that was made by the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

My understanding is - and I will hear argument on this - that

a motion such as this is non-debatable, and the motion is put to the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: But I will hear it.

MR. TOBIN: Could you give us the reference, Mr. Speaker,

as to where the...? It is that I've been recognized now and I wanted to speak on

it.

MR. SPEAKER: If I may say, the provisions for naming are

not in our Standing Orders. It is a parliamentary tradition. We have no order on

it. My understanding of the rule as such is that if a member doesn't withdraw

and is named then a motion for an appropriate penalty is put to the House

without an opportunity for debate on either side. The House either approves the

motion or rejects it. That is my understanding. Subject -

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

MR. SPEAKER: What I say before you take your place,

unless someone has specific authority contrary to that, that is my understanding

of it. I will hear from members, but solely on that point.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it has been many years since I

occupied the Chair that Your Honour occupies so I can't remember the precise

research or background - I don't know if former Speaker Lush or whoever - but

there ought to be a reference, if not in Beauchesne, or if not in our Standing

Orders, then certainly a practice or tradition or whatever. The only thing I

would say is that we should have an absolute ruling and a correct ruling and a

proper ruling.

My recollection is simply that that has been the practice.

That when the motion is put to suspend the member, to follow up after being

named, my recollection is that it has not been debated. To my recollection. But

I am not certain that it is not debatable. That is the difference. I think it

would be helpful to all of us for the future if Your Honour were able to give us

some citations, or maybe the Clerks might have something at their fingertips or

whatever. Because I think it is an important ruling. We need to have a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in Beauchesne

in my reading of the text, the authority, that supports anything said by my hon.

friend, and there is nothing to the contrary. Beauchesne is silent. The federal

procedure is a little different than here. The Speaker simply suspends the

person for the rest of the day. There is nothing that addresses the point in our

Standing Orders except the Speaker is given the authority to preserve decorum in

the House.

I will say to my hon. friend that during my time in the

House, which is longer than some, I have seen a number of members named. I don't

recollect, to be honest, if I've ever been named myself. I don't think I have

been. I was once suspended but that was on a matter of privilege, which is

debatable. This is not a matter of privilege. This is a matter where a member

has defied the Chair after repeated requests to withdraw an unparliamentary

expression.

Mr. Speaker, practice becomes precedent. That is the way in

which our laws are made. Our Standing Order says, quite explicitly, that where

our Orders are silent we go to our practices and our precedents. Practice

becomes precedent. My submission quite simply would be that the motion I've made

is not debatable, and in the absence of any authority to the contrary I would

say I rest my case on the simple fact that it has never been debated in the

House, nor has any member ever sought to debate it. Accordingly, the Chair

should rule that it is not debatable.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker.

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

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

has been suspended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

that way.

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

Opposition.

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

Just further to what the Government House Leader has just

said. I think he has made my case for me when he says the rules are silent, our

own Standing Orders are silent, and Beauchesne is silent. That is precisely the

reason I raise the matter. We may wish to debate the motion. Whether it is

debatable or not is the big question. I would like to be certain, and I'm sure

Your Honour would like to be certain, because it will be used perhaps in the

future as reference.

I will say this to the Government House Leader. What was once

a precedent several years back does not necessarily mean it will always be the

precedent. You will find a citation in Beauchesne that tells you that. I

remember it very clearly because it was pointed out to me by none other, I

believe, than the present Government House Leader when he was leader of the

Opposition, or whatever position he occupied at the time I was in the Chair. I

would make those arguments and I would trust Your Honour would want to research

it, because thus far I haven't heard any parliamentary references.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, again I can't remember the

authorities on this, but I've been in the House with a lot of namings and it has

never, ever occurred that there has been a debate. I've been here probably for

namings as many as most people. There has never been a debate. I can only tell

the hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is a big issue right across the

British Commonwealth in terms of naming, and what most Houses do is to rest the

authority with the Speaker.

Because to debate it really takes away from what the naming

is supposed to do. It wouldn't achieve anything by debating. Quite obviously, I

don't think we will find anywhere where it is appropriate to debate. It is an

undebatable motion. I know that when I made the ruling myself that I think that

we had found something. It might be in our old Standing Orders it might be in

Sir Erskine May, but I think the Chair would find something somewhere on the

naming. Our House, as everyone has pointed out, is silent on it. I think again

the point I would make is debating the issue certainly takes away from what the

naming process is supposed to achieve and therefore it wouldn't be appropriate.

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

MR. LUSH: The authority of the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: As members have indicated there is no

authority other than the Chair having the authority to decide questions of order

and preserve decorum. I do note though that the motion proposed by the

Government House Leader refers to the remainder of the session. As I understand

it we are now in the second session of the 42nd General Assembly. He did say

today's session, but this is not - technically speaking, each day is a sitting

day. I would not want there to be any confusion, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the federal House of Commons as referred to

in Beauchesne on page 54, paragraph 191, refers to the Speaker having the

power under Standing Order 10 not only to preserve order but also "...the power

to name Members, and to order that they withdraw from the House for the

remainder of the sitting," which would be that sitting day. No such power is

specifically given to the Speaker here. I suspect that if the Speaker were to

assume such power that the House could not object, but I would not want there to

be any confusion based on the Government House Leader's choice of words in his

motion.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It hasn't been addressed whether it is not debatable, and

there have been no sources that could indicate so, because it hasn't been done

before, has never been attempted before, so no precedent has been set. If it has

never been attempted to be debated before, there was no need to have a precedent

established, if no attempt was made before.

It is my belief that the motions that are not debatable are:

motions to table are not debatable; a motion to adjourn is debatable as to time

only. There is no reference made to other motions that are not able to be

debated here, and they are the only two instances I have seen under rules of

order, Robert's Rules of Order or otherwise, and I haven't seen any

reference to Beauchesne at all as to why this motion is not debatable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Unless the member has some specific reference for me to

consider, I think that the point is a valid one to take a few minutes and rule

on, as to whether or not it is debatable, but unless someone has a specific

point I don't think we need to cover the same ground - something we haven't

heard already.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that

since the gentleman from Grand Bank has left the Chamber, at least for the time

being, Your Honour might proceed with the business of the day and just postpone

a ruling on this point. Then, later in the day

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, you have already said you will

not recognize the hon. gentleman from Grand Bank until this matter is resolved.

It is up to Your Honour. I am simply making a suggestion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Excuse me. What I intend to say is that I wish to consider

what might be appropriate in the circumstance in that the federal Speaker,

rather than naming members, chooses not to recognize members, but I did not say

I would do that. I said that is the reason I want to consider what would be

appropriate, but our tradition in this House has been to name members instead of

that.

The hon. Government House Leader had the floor. I don't know

if there is anything else he wishes to add.

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

I have said.

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

MR. SIMMS: On the new point raised by the Government

House Leader now, we would very strongly oppose the suggestion he made to move

on, and he knows why. Obviously, we want this matter dealt with now, because if

it is ruled it is debatable then we intend to debate the motion.

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

MR. SIMMS: And we intend to do that before we move to

Orders of the Day for the closure motion to be introduced, and all the rest of

it, as he would probably be able to pick out by now what we are -

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

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

to delay.

The point that the Government House Leader brought up

emphasized the point I wanted to make, that if there is no opportunity to

debate, the Government House Leader may well have suggested that the hon. Member

for Grand Bank be excluded from this House for a month.

We may agree that perhaps the language was unparliamentary,

and that some penalty is merited, such as the remainder of the day's session,

but if the Leader of the Opposition had suggested a month or a year, or

something totally outlandish, there should at least be an opportunity for us to

debate that, if not to get into debating the merits of what he said.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take a few minutes and I will rule

first on whether or not it is debatable before I consider whether or not it

takes precedence over other motions before the House.

We will recess for a few minutes.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'll give a decision on the question as to whether or not

this motion is debatable. First of all, as members are aware, there's no

provision in our Standing Orders regarding naming, neither in which circumstance

it should be done and how or if it's debatable, in what manner and if so, what

rules might apply. For example could the motion be amended? What would the

appropriate length of time for debate be and so on? So we have to rely on

whatever the parliamentary traditions are that we discern in circumstances such

as this.

In the British House of Commons and the Canadian Parliament

it's a little bit easier because they've broken with tradition by passing

specific rules. In both those Houses that motion is non-debatable because the

Speaker himself/herself decides what the appropriate penalty is for a member who

breaches the rules of decorum of the House. However, in Ottawa, when they

operated essentially under the same standing rules that we did, the motion had

been ruled repeatedly to be not debatable nor amendable. It's also similar in

our House here. There have been many occasions on which members have been named

and on at least five occasions there have been rulings that the motion is

non-debatable. Those rulings were on May 10, 1978, when Speaker Ottenheimer

ruled on a matter of naming William Rowe; May 6, 1975 when Speaker Russell made

a ruling; December 16, 1974 in another ruling of Speaker Russell; June 1, 1972,

Speaker Russell ruling on a question involving Wilson Kelland; and in 1956,

April 9, a ruling of Speaker Sparkes.

In each of those instances the same question came up, it was

ruled to be non-debatable. On other occasions of course the question was put

with no ruling on the matter but clearly based on the rulings in the Canadian

House of Parliament and in our own House of Assembly the motion is

non-debatable.

All those in favour of the motion as put by the hon.

Government House Leader, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: There is another matter that I would like to

have clarified. I was trying to get a copy of Hansard to see what the motion was

specifically. I presume the clerk, or somebody at the table has the wording of

the motion.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps you can tell us clearly what the

motion was. What's in Hansard?

MR. ROBERTS: The motion as I recollect it, now I did not

have a written motion to read, the motion as I have it is that the member be

suspended for the rest of this day's - and I may have used the word session, but

if I did I clearly misspoke, it is sitting. The hon. member will be suspended

for the rest of this day's sitting which will end not later than 1:00 o'clock

tomorrow morning, assuming the House adopts the closure motion. As of tomorrow

at 2:00 o'clock the gentleman for Grand Bank is entitled, as any of us, to take

his seat. Let there be no doubt of that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Okay, it was that, because I believe the

Government House Leader did use the word session. There was some doubt because,

I think, you did use the word session.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: We needed that clarified. Now, the other thing

we need clarified is whether in fact your

interpretation of the day's sitting is

that it ends at 1:00 o'clock, or whether the days sitting ends at 5:00 o'clock.

That is a question that I think the Speaker has to address clearly, and it is a

matter I raise under a point of order because it is important that we know.

Maybe the Speaker has already given this some thought, and maybe he has not.

Maybe he needs to have a quick look at it.

First of all, at the moment, we are not under Orders of the

Day. We have not reached Orders of the Day and there is no motion to closure.

For all we know the government may have had a change of heart and may not even

call closure. We do not know that. So, the question that is under discussion

now, the end of the day, would that be 5:00 o'clock? Let us say there was no

closure called.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it is most certainly not my

decision but I would make two points, number one, the matter is hypothetical

until such time as it arises in a real context, and my friend would agree that

it has not. Secondly, I say to him that if we get to the point that the closure

motion is adopted and the House then sits later than 10:00 o'clock, which is

when the parliamentary day normally ends, absent to closure motion or to some

other proceeding, then this day's session will continue until the House

adjourns.

Mr. Speaker, the point is hypothetical at this stage. We will

see what happens if it happens and Your Honour will have to deal with it if it

happens.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I believe the proper way to proceed in this matter is that as

of this moment in time the House will adjourn at 5:00 o'clock in the absence of

some other motion. I do not think the Chair should rule on what are known as

moot points, m-o-o-t, which means points that might be hypothetical but you do

not have circumstances in which you can make an appropriate ruling.

What I suggest to the House is, if the House chooses not to

adjourn at 5:00 o'clock then whoever is in the Chair at that point should

consider when Mr. Matthews is entitled to return in accordance with the motion

that was just passed. I think it would be wrong for me to do it now because we

do not have the circumstances before us.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I did not hear the hon. member but I heard

the hon. Leader of the Opposition saying, point of order.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: A new point of order.

I rise with reference to Page 141, Paragraph 481 (e). The

Premier in the House today -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Is to Beauchesne, Page 141, Paragraph 481

(e) "impute bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a

Member." The Premier in the House today said the following, he stated that Mr.

Kerr contacted him to express some concern, and told him that his concern arose

because he had a call from the Leader of the Opposition telling him he should be

concerned about it. He went on to say: Now, I'm aware that the Leader of the

Opposition has "engendered doubts or suggestions with Kruger as well probably"

with others. He went on and said in the House today: "That which had been raised

with him by the Leader of the Opposition," - he was referring to Mr. Kerr -

"attempting to foment difficulty for the government and for the people of the

Province. Mr. Speaker, gross irresponsibility on the part of the Leader of the

Opposition. It's difficult to even recognize him as being the Leader of the

Loyal Opposition, when you bear in mind what's being done...."

He imputed the motives of the Leader of the Opposition and

left the impression in this House that he called and arose the fear and concerns

with that, and it wasn't the fact at all. The Leader of the Opposition stated

that he asked if they had a concern with that, and the Premier left the wrong

impression in this House today. I ask that the Premier be asked to withdraw

those remarks today and apologize to this House.

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, if I may to the

point of order. I would make two submissions. The first is procedural, that a

matter must be raised at once, or at the very least notice must be given, and my

hon. friend for Ferryland did neither. Secondly, the Premier didn't impute bad

motives or motives other than those acknowledged. He made a statement of fact.

Statements of fact in my understanding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon.

gentlemen opposite feel that interrupting whoever is recognized by Your Honour

somehow adds to the debate. It doesn't. They won't throw us off if that is their

game, or they won't stop the debate by barracking and behaving like they are in

a second-class bar.

Let me come back to the submission I want to make. I can say

with respect to the submission I want to make that the statements by the Premier

were statements of fact. If the hon. gentleman for Grand Falls chooses to deny

those statements of fact then that is another matter. We will deal with them.

But the Premier didn't impute any motives at all to the Leader of the

Opposition. He simply said what the statements of fact were and then

characterized them as what they were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader

should talk about the statement of fact. We have an hon. colleague here who is

not allowed in the House today because of a statement of fact, I would say to

the Government House Leader.

The fact of the matter is the rules apply to all members in

the House, including the Premier. He is not above the rules of the House, no

more than anybody else. There is a clear statement by the Premier imputing

motives. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind about that. The Premier said,

and I quote it again: "... the Leader of the Opposition, attempting to foment

difficulty for the government and for the people of the Province." That is not

the case and that is clearly imputing motives. The Premier of this Province has

to be subject to the same rules of the House as the Member for Grand Bank or the

member for any other district in this Province.

Let me just make one other point before I take my seat. The

Government House Leader states that we should get up immediately. We didn't want

to waste the time of the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Question period.

MR. TOBIN: During question period, number one, and then

we went to Hansard so we knew exactly what was being said. We didn't want to

waste the time of the House. We went to Hansard and saw what the Premier had

stated and quite clearly he had imputed motives. I ask Your Honour to ensure

that the Premier is not above the rules of this House, that the rules apply to

him the same as everyone else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: The rules apply to him the same as everyone

else, Mr. Speaker, and that he be asked to withdraw that comment that he has

made.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. I have

to support the Member for Ferryland and oppose what was said by the Government

House Leader. Clearly this was not a statement of fact.

There are two issues here. Number one, the quotation that was

just given by the Member for Burin - Placentia West clearly is designed to

impute a motive; the motive is one of disruption and causing trouble. The second

thing that the Premier said right after that was that: He does not deserve to be

called the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. So he is imputing

disloyalty on the one hand as a motive, and a second motive being imputed is one

of fomenting difficulty for the government. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, if that is not

the imputation of motives then I don't know what might be.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of the usual suggestion

by members that the other one is wrong, or exaggerating, or clearly have a

difference of opinion. This was an imputation of disloyalty on the part of the

Leader of the Opposition, and an imputation of causing difficulty, mischievously

causing difficulty, for the government. This is, I think, what Beauchesne is

referring to when it prohibits the imputation of motives by members, so I think

that the point of order is well founded and ought to be ruled in favour of the

Member for Ferryland.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter under - does

the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have something further to add?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

MR. SIMMS: No, he hasn't.

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, since I am the individual involved in this

particular point of order, I think it is appropriate that I make a few brief

remarks.

First of all, I think that the point made by the Member for

Burin - Placentia West about the rules applying to all members of the House,

including the Premier of the Province, was a very appropriate one.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: If you review Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will

see in Question Period that I made an inappropriate comment about something the

Premier had said. Some statement he made, I think I said it was a lie. I didn't

accuse him of being a liar; I said it was a lie. Later on, at the end of

Question Period, I think Your Honour asked me to withdraw it, and I did.

Now I withdrew it but if, in fact, you read Hansard, or at

least the unedited transcript of Hansard - if I can get the attention of my

colleagues - page 1 or 2, the first set of questions in Question Period, of

Hansard, you will find that the comments I made were inaudible. They are not

even in Hansard; yet, I still withdrew because Your Honour asked me to.

Now I think what the Member for Ferryland is trying to point

out to Your Honour is that this is a point that was raised immediately upon our

being able to access the transcripts from Hansard, the first opportunity to do

so, because we wanted to deal with the other issue that had been raised by the

Government House Leader, the motion to suspend the Member for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, again I repeat for Your Honour's consideration,

comments like this, quoted from the Premier in Hansard today: The Leader of the

Opposition attempting to foment difficulty for the government and for the people

of the Province. That is not true, and Your Honour should -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is true.

MR. SIMMS: Whether it's true or not, it is... The point

here is whether it is true or not, and I don't think it is. The point here is

that it is unparliamentary. That is the point, and that is the point he raised.

Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say: ...gross irresponsibility on the part of the

Leader of the Opposition.

I would argue, Mr. Speaker, on the point, by the way, for

what it's worth, calling the paper companies to see if they had any concern with

the bill is a very responsible action, not an irresponsible action, and that is

why I did it. Plus, it is my constituency, in one case, and I have more concerns

than members opposite, I guess.

Having made that point, he goes on to say, as the Member for

St. John's East pointed out: It's difficult to even recognize him as being the

leader of the Loyal Opposition, when you bear in mind what's being done.

Mr. Speaker, you will find - I can tell you now, if you

haven't already researched it - if you research background examples of people

being accused of imputing motives in a Legislature, you will find that one is by

far stronger than many of the others that have been made where Speakers, time

and time again, have asked those imputing the motives to another individual to

withdraw the remarks.

So it is raised here today for the purpose of Your Honour

considering the matter and asking the Premier to withdraw the remarks that he

made, at the appropriate time.

MR. SPEAKER: I will check Hansard and make an appropriate

ruling in due course.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move, pursuant to Standing

Order 21, the Orders of the Day now be read.

Orders of the Day

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

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is getting into

the Government House Leader. We all know that he has the gag order brought in as

it relates to Bill 2.

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

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

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is why is he riding roughshod

over the rules of the House? Your Honour never even got to calling the Orders of

the Day, Mr. Speaker. For example, Petitions have not been called and it should

be my right, Mr. Speaker, and the right of every other member in this House who

have constituents to present petitions. Now the Government House Leader, Mr.

Speaker, was bending over backwards, he was allowing us to present two petitions

a day but today, Mr. Speaker, you haven't got to it and we've got petitions to

present and we should be allowed to present them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I point out, the question came up yesterday, a motion for

reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the

House. There is no other motion before the House but Petitions in particular are

in the nature of motions of the House. So even if it were the case, as the hon.

member says, that Petitions were called then of course it's the prerogative,

under Standing Orders, to have this motion take precedence over the others but

in any event it's within the government's right to propose a motion and for the

House to decide upon it. Accordingly there is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. So that hon. gentlemen have ample

opportunity to debate the matters before the House, I move the House do not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

Motion carried.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: That motion is not debatable is it, Mr.

Speaker, or are you recognizing me to participate in the debate?

MR. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. member was rising on the

point of order. The motion was put -

MR. SIMMS: I was rising to debate the motion to adjourn

or not to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the motion is not debatable. I have

ruled that several times myself.

MR. SIMMS: You have ruled that?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to call Motion No. 9 and when

that is disposed of we shall then go on to Order No. 5.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 9 -

MR. ROBERTS: Motion No. 9, stands in my name under

Standing Order 50, it's the closure motion.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded pursuant to

Standing Order 50, that the debate on Bill No. 2, entitled, "An Act To Regulate

the Electrical Power Resources of Newfoundland and Labrador", standing in the

name of the hon. the Premier and any amendments to that motion for second

reading of Bill No. 2 shall not be further adjourned and that further

consideration of any amendments relating to second reading of Bill No. 2 shall

not be further postponed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough

please, to call Order No. 5, which is the electrical power control act or

electrical power resources act?

Oh, Mr. Speaker, I adjourned debate and in that case I shall

simply commend the bill to my colleagues. We're ready for the vote whenever hon.

members opposite wish but we're now in another round of debate, they'll be

pleased to hear, in case they hadn't known so we'll carry on.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to have the opportunity

to lead off for our side in this closure debate. This government has a

tremendous amount of experience of bringing in closure. I believe it's brought

in closure more times in their short time in office, five years, then anybody

else has since Confederation in Newfoundland and Labrador. If they haven't,

they're darn close to it. So that's not a record to be very proud of, Mr.

Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Government House Leader,

Minister of Justice, just moments before the House closing said that he was

going to bring in closure once again on this bill, he said throughout the last

little while that all the members on this side of the House had spoken in the

debate on second reading and that in fact, we had spoken a second time because

of the amendment I had put down, the first day it was brought in, introduced by

the Premier, to have a six month hoist and that may well be. Mr. Speaker, I also

suggest to Your Honour that that is the perfect right of not only -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'm advised by table officers that the hon. Leader of the

Opposition has already spoken once in second reading of debate? We stand ready

for correction but there seems to be a record of it.

I just draw it to the hon. member's attention. If that is not

the case, then certainly the hon. member has a right to speak, but if he has

then my understanding of the rules of procedure is that one can't speak again. I

will leave it to the hon. member -

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

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

I am advised by our table officers that the hon. Leader of

the Opposition has spoken once in second reading. Thus, I guess -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading. So the question is whether

or not you now have the opportunity to do so again.

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

of order.

MR. SIMMS: That is up to somebody else to rule. All I

know, Your Honour, is that I was introduced to speak to the closure motion, and

that is what I am doing. So if Your Honour is ruling me out of order, then -

MR. SPEAKER: No, carry on.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my

understanding that once the closure motion is adopted -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

MR. ROBERTS: If I am wrong, I am wrong, but let me state

my understanding. I have been known to be wrong before, and I will be again.

Any member who has spoken may speak again for not more than

twenty minutes, but if I am wrong, then I am wrong. I am just giving the House

my understanding; sobeit.

MR. SPEAKER: That is fine. If there is no objection,

certainly the Leader of the Opposition may continue.

MR. SIMMS: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is something we

should clear up, because my understanding was the same as the Government House

Leader's, and the former Government House Leader's. Where this got screwed up

and balled up was when the Minister of Social Services, I believe, was in the

Speaker's Chair and ruled that you could not speak. Now that is where it all got

balled up.

I don't know where it stands, but I am of the understanding

now that you are not calling me out of order, so I will assume that the

Government House Leader's suggestion is correct, and we will have to go by that

unless Your Honour wishes to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Exactly, during the closure motion.

I think, if you research the matter, the confusion came up

when your predecessor made a ruling one time which now turns out to be totally

irresponsible and inaccurate, I suspect.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: I seem to recollect the same as the Leader of

the Opposition and the Government House Leader, that once closure was brought

in, it went back to square one again; but there was a period last year when

something happened - I don't recall whether we got new information - but I don't

think it is something worth delaying the House by.

My advice on it would be for the Chair to check it out, but

to allow the Leader of the Opposition by consent to speak, because that has

happened before, until the rule is checked - because if this person made a

ruling, it was done with substance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order, let me

say that I recall back when closure - closure has been brought in so often in

the past couple of years, it is hard to keep track of all the rulings that were

made on it, but I tell you, there were some dandy rulings made on it. There were

some beautiful rulings made on it, but my recollection, to be honest, is that

there is something to the effect that those who had already spoken could not

speak on the closure motion.

For my previous dozen or so years in the Legislature, we were

always allowed to do it, so there is only one instance, that I can recall, that

such a ruling was made, and I believe the person who made the ruling is

suggesting now that we should ignore it. If that is the case, I finally agree

with the Minister of Social Services as it relates to rulings.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the hon. the Member for St.

John's East has the floor.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The last time this question came up I was told that I was not

allowed to speak, except with leave, the last time closure was introduced. When

I consulted the Table, I was advised that Standing Order 53.(a), which says that

no member may speak twice, does not overrule the closure motion and that

Standing Order 50, which says that "no member shall thereafter speak more than

once..." did not provide a right to a speaker to speak more than once, and the

leave of the House was granted in order to do that. I have no objection to that

new procedure.

The other alternative is to have another question or another

amendment or another - a twelve-month hoist or some other amendment on and then

anyone can speak to that amendment. However, the circumstances that we find

ourselves in, unless the Chair is prepared to make a ruling now, if the ruling

requires leave - and I say this this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in the full

knowledge that I've been denied leave twice this afternoon to speak, by the

members of the Loyal Opposition. I say this, that I am prepared to grant leave

if leave is required, because I'm told, and I'm told by members of the Table,

that leave is required in these circumstances to allow members to speak more

than once.

Given the importance of the issue - and already as a result

of the Premier's comments today, the sun has been eclipsed - given the situation

that we are in today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that this debate

continue. I would like to give leave to the Leader of the Opposition to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps before I recognize the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition, does the House require a ruling at this point on this

motion? Are we prepared to, by leave at least, allow it? Because it may take a

few minutes and we are -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I rule on it I will obviously need a

little time. Since we are into the closure motion, I think we should perhaps

recess for a few minutes and I will rule on it. We will recess for an

appropriate period of time.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will rule on the question that was raised with respect to

Standing Order 50. I first of all point out that what is being debated is not

the closure motion. That motion is neither debatable nor amendable. What we are

now doing is debating the question of second reading. Accordingly, those who

have spoken on previous days are not entitled to again speak because they have

already spoken to second reading, except, as the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition has, with leave. However, if the bill is amended or it is amended at

second reading, then those who have spoken on previous days and not spoken to

that point today may again speak, provided they don't exceed the twenty minutes.

Just to clarify, if you have spoken on second reading already

you can't speak to second reading. If it is amended and you've spoken on a

previous day, you can speak to the amendment, but those who have spoken today on

the question of second reading are not entitled to speak to the amendment.

Having said that - and I regret his absence - in reaching

these conclusions I've been greatly assisted by the well-reasoned, soundly

considered and eloquently phrased ruling of Speaker Lush on April 8 1991.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is certainly nice to have the opportunity

to speak well of someone in his absence.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

guess, since I'm not able to speak in the debate. I'm glad former Speaker Lush

is not here. We are going to move an amendment, I say to the Government House

Leader, but I can't move it. I thank Your Honour for the ruling; it's good to

have it.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, before we adjourned, the hon.

member was speaking with leave. Whether or not that leave continues at this

point is up to the House.

MR. SIMMS: No, that is okay, I don't accept leave because

I don't think that would be a very worthwhile gesture. Because all I have to do

is say something that might get at the nerves of some member opposite and he

would say: No leave, no leave. We don't want to be under that kind of a threat.

We will abide by the ruling of the Chair and that is the ruling we will have to

abide by in the future, I guess.

My friend, the Member for Ferryland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. SULLIVAN: Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. SIMMS: My friend, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount

hasn't spoken, my friend, the Member for Ferryland hasn't spoken, which is what

I was about to say; my friend, the Member for Mount Pearl hasn't spoken, my

friend, the Member for Green Bay hasn't spoken. Four of them will definitely

speak, and one of them, I have no doubt, will move a reasoned amendment or

something of that nature to allow all of us to speak before the evening is over.

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

May 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol.

XLII No. 39A

[Continuation of sitting]

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to offer a few comments on the bill

before the House, the Electrical Power Resources Act. Some aspects of this

particular bill certainly deserve some positive commentary, and some aspects do

not.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province have been expressing

their opinions through various forums, some through petitions, some through

letters to their members in the House of Assembly, others through open line

shows. Other people have expressed their opinions in various other ways, by

attendance here in the House and by attendance at rallies. What these people

have all said, on both this particular bill and on the privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro, is that they want to have a chance to express their

viewpoints and to have them communicated.

Mr. Speaker, there are certain parts of this particular bill

that we have difficulty with, and these parts are those parts which facilitate

the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Particularly in the

sections of this particular act there are five items that we have some

difficulty with, and I will comment briefly on them.

First is the

section that would instruct the Public Utilities

Board to base electricity rates on three criteria: on cost, on the maintenance

of credit worthiness, and a guaranteed profit for shareholders.

Secondly, there is a

section which would direct the Public

Utilities Board to phase out the portion of the rural subsidy that is charged to

industrial customers by the end of 1999 in order to cushion the impact of

privatization on the cost of electricity to major industries in the Province.

Thirdly, there is a

section that would transfer

responsibility for the designation of essential employees from the Labour

Relations Board to the Public Utilities Board.

Fourthly, there is the

section that would empower the Public

Utilities Board to approve ownership of more than 20 per cent of the shares of

an electrical utility which, of course, paves the way for an eventual merger

between the privatized Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Newfoundland Power.

Fifthly, there is a

section which would refund federal taxes

paid by utilities and rebated the Province under the PUITTA agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not

wish to pay higher electricity rates. They have said that to their elected

representatives. They have said that to the people who carried petitions from

door to door, and they view that the intent of this particular piece of

legislation is to facilitate the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro, and they don't see any further intent of the government other than that

particular purpose, and indeed the ministry has admitted to that particular

motive.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not

want to pay higher electricity rates so that the few people in this Province who

are relatively wealthy can become wealthier. The people in this Province who

would pay those electricity rates would, for the most part, be paying increased

rates so that out-of-Province shareholders could indeed make higher profits.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been

party to a propaganda effort by his government. His Premier has carried on a

$150,000 propaganda effort and the Minister of Mines and Energy has said that

the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro thus far has cost us $1.5

million. In spite of all that, and the Premier's commitment that over the last

several months he was going to reeducate the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in fact we heard of the red book that was being distributed during the

federal election, one would think that with the red book and the reeducation

program, that one was elsewhere in the world and not in Newfoundland and

Labrador. When we think of reeducation and the need for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador to be reeducated one would think that one was in some

other jurisdiction other than in a democracy.

Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the people of this Province have

said they do not want Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be privatized and the

reason is because they have not seen any logic to it. In spite of what the

Premier has said, in spite of what has been said by members of the government

who have supported the Premier and have not been able to persuade him to change

his mind. Only one member on the government side has dared to stand up and say:

I disagree with the proposals of government to privatize Newfoundland and

Labrador Hydro. Only the Member for Pleasantville has had the nerve and the

intestinal fortitude, and the honesty to speak up to his Premier and to the

leader of his party.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador have spoken. The

Premier has said that he did not like the 80 per cent rejection that occurred in

the opinion polls carried out earlier in the spring. He said that he would then

embark on a program of spending the taxpayer's money to convince the taxpayers

that something that they then owned should be sold. Well, the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador disagreed with him. They knew that the privatization

of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is wrong for the ordinary citizen. They knew

it was wrong for their children, and it is wrong for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, the best efforts by government thus far have not

changed the minds of anybody whatsoever. The people have heard the Premier's

propaganda. They have heard the messages being sent out by the ministry. They

listened to what has been said by the Chambers of Commerce and the boards of

trade, and even these businessmen have not all agreed. In fact the Baccalieu

Trail -

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

MR. HODDER: The number one chamber recognized in this

Province - the number one Chamber of Commerce, which reflects, of course, their

ability to be able to receive different opinions from different people, analyze

them and to then make a decision.

This particular chamber, the Baccalieu Trails Chamber, when

they heard the information presented by my colleague for Humber East, and by the

Minister of Mines and Energy, they weighed it all out and they took a secret

vote, a ballot method of voting. Mr. Speaker, they decided they were not going

to listen to the opinions that have been expressed by government, many of them

did. In fact 62 per cent of them. Two people voted against privatization for

every person who voted for it, so not all Chambers of Commerce and not all

members of the Board of Trade - in fact, some members of the Board of Trade in

St. John's resigned from membership on the board after the board executive had

made a decision to support privatization without due consultation with the

membership.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in his address on March 24, laid

out the ground rules, and earlier today the Member for Grand Bank quoted from

the Premier's address on Province-wide television on March 24. The Premier made

a solemn commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said that

this will be the parameters under which my government will deal with this

particular motion. These will be the rules by which we will operate when we have

to come to a decision; and he said: I want the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador to know - and he said, in unequivocal terms - if the majority of the

people of the Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro privatization,

I would not ask the members of the Legislature to proceed with the privatization

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that today is the day of reckoning.

Today is the day when we weigh the Premier's comments on Province-wide

television with his action. Today is the day when we say to the Premier, `Walk

your talk'. Today is the day we say to the Premier, `Do what is right'. Today we

say to the Premier, `Today we want you to live up to the words that you have

said'.

When the Premier said he would not ask this House to proceed

if a majority of the people of this Province were against the privatization of

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, we, on this side, believed that the Premier

would deliver when the time came, and we knew that the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador, at this stage of the debate, were not supporting the privatization

concept, either through Bill 2, or Bill 1 before the House as well, that we

expected that the Premier would stand in his place today and say that he was

going to withdraw that particular piece of legislation. However, the Premier

today stood in his place and said that he had no intention of withdrawing Bill

2, he had no intention of withdrawing Bill 1, and that this was going to be an

initiative of his government that he intended to deliver to a vote and that he

would ask his caucus, and therefore expected his caucus, to vote in favour of

it.

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating here today in the final

moments of this debate is whether or not the people of this Province want this

particular piece of legislation to proceed to a vote. What we are saying here is

that we believed the Premier when he made that solemn commitment, when he put up

his credibility before the people and said to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador: If a majority of you do not support me, I will not proceed.

However, today, in the day of judgement on this particular

piece of legislation, when the truth has to be told, when actions have to count,

when you have to walk your talk, the Premier has decided that he is not going to

walk his talk. The Premier has laid out a game plan and said: If the people do

not agree with me, I will not go down that road. Therefore, he had fully

expected, I suppose, 80 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to

change their minds, but they haven't changed their minds, and now he is saying:

I'm sorry; I didn't really mean that if you didn't change your mind that I would

live up to my word. Today we are saying to the Premier the time has come to

deliver the truthfulness and the commitment that you had made to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, we are sorry today to see that the Premier in his

judgement has decided to proceed with this piece of legislation in spite of his

comments when he said, and I quote: I don't think any government, no matter how

strongly it feels about an issue, should use its majority in the Legislature to

cause something to be done that is contrary to the wishes of the people of this

Province, and I won't ask the members of the Legislature to do that.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is before us. What are we doing

here today? We are today being asked by the Premier and his Cabinet to do

something that the people of this Province obviously don't want done. Yet the

Premier, when he gave his word on March 24 in a province-wide address, we

expected today that he would have it analyzed, he would rise in his place, and

he would say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador: I'm sorry, we've had it

examined, we've had a review done of it, it is obviously not supported by a

majority of the people, and so therefore we intend to withdraw this particular

piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Thank you to the Speaker for reminding of the

time that is left.

Mr. Speaker, we want to assure the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador that we expected the integrity of the Premier, his reputation for being

straightforward, we expected the Premier to do what he said he would do. But the

Premier chose today to talk one way and to walk another way. That in our opinion

is what this debate is about this afternoon. This debate was not expected to

occur today. Because after all the petitions, after all of the meetings that

have been held, and after all the meetings that were held by some members on the

government side, with their constituents - and we congratulate those members.

My friend for St. John's South had a meeting, and although it

wasn't the kind of meeting he would have liked to have had we have to say to

him, in all honesty, he should be complimented for having the meeting. My friend

for St. John's North was bulldozed, was pushed, was cajoled, was petitioned by

269 of his constituents to have a meeting. He did. We say to him: That was the

right approach.

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

MR. HODDER: We had meetings all across this Province.

Meetings in Grand Falls - Windsor, meetings in Baie Verte and Bonavista, St.

Mary's, Placentia, Petty Harbour, Maddox Cove, Labrador City, Mount Pearl

District, Waterford - Kenmount District. Mr. Speaker, of all of these meetings

there wasn't one single meeting where a majority of the people said that they

supported the privatization initiatives as outlined in Bill No. 1 or Bill No. 2.

The same way happened in the meetings that were held by my colleagues on the

government side. The public has said that it does not want this particular piece

of legislation.

The Premier in this particular case has himself in a kind of

a catch-22. He had really thought that he would be able to change the minds of

the people, he thought that he would be the Messiah, that he would tell the

people what was good for them, play the role of the Good Shepherd and that the

sheep in the population, the people of the Province, that they would follow his

voice, they would hear his voice saying to them: follow me and of course, he

expected the people to follow him. However, that certainly has not happened and

as Dr. Peter Boswell has said in his articles that the government was advised by

him to reflect on what they were doing. Dr. Peter Boswell started off in support

of privatization, however, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Peter Boswell in the last several

weeks has said that this particular piece of legislation is not good for this

Province, and so has Dr. Wade at the university, after having done an extensive

analysis. In fact, if the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had been given a

proper, cost-benefit analysis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - they would have had a better opportunity to

be able to give a better, considered opinion on the issue before the House and

contained in this bill.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to pass a few comments on Bill 2, the government's

desire to run rough shod over the people's opportunity to speak and their

democratic right to voice their say in what government is doing that is

completely against the wishes of the people.

Now Bill 2 has many things in it that are paving the way for

the privatization of Hydro.

MR. EFFORD: What's wrong with that?

MR. SULLIVAN: In fact, there is a lot wrong with that and

I tell the Member for Port de Grave there is a lot wrong with privatizing Hydro.

MR. EFFORD: That is your opinion.

MR. SULLIVAN: Why - 80 per cent of the people polled in

this Province is of my opinion; that is the opinion expressed.

MR. EFFORD: You are being silly.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not being silly it is being factual.

Now what government is trying to do, is, they are trying to use their majority

here in this Legislature to ram through legislation that the Premier appeared on

Province-wide television as stated that he would not do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) for seventeen years

(inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't care what was done over seventeen

years; it concerns me but I can't do a thing about it but what I am concerned

about, is doing something right for the next 100 years - and the Premier sat in

the Cabinet and approved the Upper Churchill, that's what, he approved the Upper

Churchill deal. I don't care how far we go back.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. The reason we are going back

is because the Premier is the same person who wants to put through this deal,

when many of the backbenchers and Cabinet ministers are not even fully informed

of what is happening; they don't know what is happening from day to day. The

Premier doesn't even inform them, I am not saying the public of the Province, he

doesn't inform the public, he doesn't even inform his own Cabinet ministers. He

is making policy on public airwaves, that is what the Premier is doing and he is

asking you to toe the line. There is only one who stood up to be counted over

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

counted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

(inaudible).

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - guts to stand up in this House and to

say: I am going to stand up not only for my constituents but for what is right.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Not at all.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: There have been many things done probably

in seventeen years with which I didn't agree; there have been a lot of things

done in the last five years with which I don't agree and there are a lot of

things in the last year and they are doing things now, with which I don't agree

and, whenever I am a member in this House, duly elected, I will stand up and

represent the constituents of my district in what they have to say (inaudible),

and I am speaking for at least 74 per cent of the constituents in my district

who elected me and that is more than any member over there can stand up and say

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. - I speak with a higher

percentage of constituents in my district than any other member in this House

and I take pride in that they saw fit to give me a majority to speak on their

behalf, and I will do that, and this particular bill -

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Bill Morey doesn't live in my district;

that's right. He lives in St. John's. That's right, and he ran for the PC's back

several years ago and lost the nomination.

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

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

Now, there are a few things in Bill 2 that are paving the way

to privatize Hydro. Number one, one item is they are going to permit a rebate

under PUITTA, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act, to refund it back to

the companies instead of staying with the Province. We are going to give

Newfoundland Power back its $10 million that they pay the federal government in

taxes, that we used to keep. We are going to pass that back; that's giving that

opportunity in this bill. Not only that, it is saying to the new Hydro that you

do not have to pay to this Province 85.5 per cent of your federal income tax.

You do not have to pay it to this Province now. It will go in one door and back

to this company. That's one thing it is doing.

One other point, it also -

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have to shout?

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't have to, but I really like annoying

you and if it helps the cause I will continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: It empowers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: If the minister doesn't like it, he can get

up and run out of the House.

It also empowers the Public Utilities Board to grant

ownership of that utility of more than 20 per cent. It could (inaudible) not

only opening the doors to over 20 per cent, but opening up an opportunity of a

merger that was turned down flatly before by that, so it is giving this

government, and is passing away, the right to be able to have control over the

future destiny and delivery of that power in this Province; that is what it is

doing. That is the second thing it is doing.

A third thing it is doing is transferring essential employees

from the Labour Relations Board, and is passing that over to the Public

Utilities Board to establish what are going to be essential employees in this

Province. It is also directing the Public Utilities Board to phase out the rural

subsidy program that is there. That has been empowered under this Bill 2. That

is a part of the scheme or the plan to shift from the industrial consumers on to

rural consumers in the Province, and they are going to kick in a fund - here is

what they are going to do - they are going to kick in a little fund of $15

million so the people of this Province might get hoodwinked on rates. They won't

see the effect next year, or the year after, or the year after, but in 1999 they

will see the full brunt of those increases beyond the time of the next election.

That's what they are trying to do, and hoodwink the people, but I can tell you,

it's not going to work with the people. They are not going to be hoodwinked,

because they are smarter than the members of government and the Premier who is

trying to push it through.

The people know too much about it in the public forum. They

know too many facts about Hydro. They know more than many members in this House

of Assembly, because they are informed people. They took time to find this out.

They asked for meetings; they listened. They looked for information. They sat

and listened to Wade Locke. They read Peter Boswell's column. They read other

columns of people out in the field who have a degree of respect. That is what

they did. They made greater efforts than many members to seek out information,

and now this government is going to pass something away that an informed 80 per

cent of the people of this Province oppose. Th