March 24, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLII  No. 19


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as acting Minister of Tourism and Culture, I would like to inform all hon. members of the House of Assembly that 1994 marks 40 years of provincial parks in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The official launch of the 40th anniversary celebrations is being held this evening in Gander.

In 1954, government preserved the land surrounding Big Falls, on the scenic Humber River, by establishing the first provincial park in the Province, Sir Richard Squires Memorial. In creating this provincial park, government preserved and protected 16 square kilometres of the Humber River and the adjacent land to provide quality recreational angling opportunities for Atlantic salmon anglers.

Over a span of 40 years, the provincial park system has evolved from small rest stops along the Trans-Canada Highway, into a diverse system of provincial parks, wilderness reserves and ecological reserves. Many provincial parks offer a diverse range of outdoor recreational and environmental education opportunities for our visitors.

In celebrating the 40th anniversary of our provincial parks, the goal is to inform Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and visitors to this Province, of the variety of unique experiences available through parks and reserves and to demonstrate the vital role these sites play in preserving our natural heritage. In connection with the anniversary, a series of events are being planned that will enable visitors to celebrate our natural heritage. I encourage all resident and non-resident travellers to take part in the activities scheduled and to help celebrate this natural heritage and congratulate the employees, Mr. Speaker, of the department who gave so much time and energy to make these parks such worthwhile areas.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the hon. the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture for sending me a copy of his statement beforehand. I am disappointed that he didn't invite me out to Gander with him this evening, but I suppose I will have to put up with that.

I am sure that the establishment of provincial parks in the Province forty years ago, made sure that an important asset was added to the total tourism product of the Province. I have, in my district, several provincial parks such as Gooseberry Cove, Point La Haye, Cataract and world-renowned Cape St. Mary's, and the possible tourism development of those parks certainly add to private enterprise and also to the total tourism product of the Province.

I hope throughout the year, as we mark the 40th Anniversary and celebrate our natural heritage that the people of the Province would become aware -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

- that the people of the Province would be come aware of the natural beauty that we have on this Rock and that we would hope to keep it for generations to come. I also would like to -

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

The hon. member's time has elapsed unless he has leave to continue?

MR. MANNING: By leave, just for a moment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. MANNING: I would like to say that I am sure that many people who are involved in the tourism industry in the Province are waiting for a full-time Minister of Tourism and Culture to be appointed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave to address the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the minister in helping to celebrate the forty years of the establishment of provincial parks in the Province. They do add a special mark to our natural heritage and have also given an impetus to others to enjoy the wilderness and participate in outdoor activity. I hope that this 40th anniversary of provincial parks doesn't mark the time when the provincial government decides to privatize these parks, Mr. Speaker. I think that would be a negative move.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have now had a chance to review the tape of the Premier's Province-wide address on Tuesday night past. In that speech, of course, the Premier disclosed a conspiracy orchestrated by himself to hide from the people of Newfoundland the real reason why he is selling Hydro. I want to return to the questions and his response to the questions asked yesterday by my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, when the Premier said, quote: He had not apologized to the people of the Province for his deceit, that he hadn't asked for their forgiveness. But clearly, Mr. Speaker, after reviewing that tape, he does owe the people an apology. I want to give him another chance here today. Will he now apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for hiding the truth from them?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't deceive anybody. If anybody wants any justification for the action of the government, all they had to do was listen to the hon. member who spoke last night when he started talking about attacking Hydro Quebec contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: All they had to do was listen to him and they will see the justification for the government's following the position that we took.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: All they had to do was listen to the hon. member talk about the purpose of this legislation. All they have to do is listen to the hon. member talk and suggest that the purpose of this legislation is to attack the Hydro Quebec contract - utterly false, Mr. Speaker. That is not the purpose of this legislation. But now people will understand why I wanted to keep that down. I didn't want to provoke that kind of debate and cause the defeat or the challenge of this legislation. That is the sole reason. I've told that to the people of the Province very clearly, Mr. Speaker, and I've acknowledged my bad judgement in proceeding in that way. I have no quarrel with doing that.

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

MR. SIMMS: In that same speech on Tuesday night the Premier said he had asked his caucus to refrain from any comment about his scheme. He confessed that night to a cover up, and there was a cover up, and I will tell the Premier why. On March 3, the day the Electrical Power Control Act was introduced in this House, while I was speaking in the debate, I asked the Premier if he felt part II of that legislation could be used to recall power from the Upper Churchill? His reply to me then was that he didn't know, maybe it could, maybe not. He would have to look into it. Well, we all know now, Mr. Speaker, that he already had looked into it. We all know now that there was a deliberate cover up and that you misled me, as Leader of the Opposition, and other elected representatives in this House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now I want to ask the Premier here today to apologize to the House, to the elected representatives of the people for leading a conspiracy to deceive us, will he do the honourable thing and apologize?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the bill to the House on March 3 - all I have to do is get Hansard of March 3 and I'll have it in just a moment. I'll get Hansard of March 3 in just a moment and I will read precisely what I said. I have nothing whatsoever to apologize for, no matter how much the hon. member shouts and rants and raves. As soon as I have it - does nobody have the Hansard of March 3? May I have the Hansard of March 3, please? I will get it and read for the House the precise comment and then I'll answer the hon. member's question.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have the Hansard here. It doesn't matter what he wants to read and read into the record of the House. I said when I was speaking, when I asked you the question and what you said. Now in his speech also, Mr. Speaker, on that Tuesday night, that infamous Tuesday, he apologized to his own Caucus for forcing them to participate in his plan to deceive the House and the people. Here's what he said and I quote, `I apologize to them if the position I have taken has caused them difficulty or embarrassment with their constituents.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that is an outright admission that he breached their privileges as elected representatives of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if he owed an apology to his Caucus then he owes one to this House and he certainly owes one to the people of the Province. So I want him to stand in his place here now today and issue an apology to the elected representatives of the people and to the people of the Province, will he be man enough to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'll now address the question that he just asked a few moments ago. Here's Hansard, page 111, March 3, during my introduction of the legislation - I believe it was the Member for Mount Pearl or it might have been the Member for Burin -Placentia West or both of them at different times - some hon. member raised a question and here's what I said, `Well, we didn't exempt any power. Whatever it does, it does. We didn't exempt anything. We didn't exempt Kruger. Kruger has been there since 1924. Abitibi and its predecessor, AND, and Price has been there since 1904. No power is exempt. There is no basis for exempting anything.'

Then some hon. member said something, part of which was inaudible, but the last five words reported are, "taking back control of Churchill?" It might have been the Member for Mount Pearl, I believe, who said that. I said to him, "No, we are not taking back control. Churchill will continue to operate. But whatever is necessary, whatever the PU board has to do, it will do, with any power in the Province, but that is not taking back control. It is not altering -" Then the member interrupted again. I asked his pardon and he said something else all of which appears to be inaudible because the transcriber did not get it, but my answer is here, Mr. Speaker. "It is not doing anything with the power. It is setting in place a management regime for the Province - all power in the Province. If we say we are not prepared to exempt Abitibi, which has had rights for ninety years, and we are not prepared to exempt Kruger, which has had rights for seventy years, why should we exempt Churchill Falls which has had rights for only thirty years?" Now, there is the answer I gave to this House and I stand by it.

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to the public of the Province the night before last, I indicated clearly in retrospect: I realize this was error on my part. In reality the legislation should speak for itself, and I went on to explain why I had done it. I simply wanted to avoid the possibility of the repeat of the fiasco of the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act to which the hon. members opposite contributed a major contribution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Premier to draw his remarks to a close.

PREMIER WELLS: I did not hear, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the Premier to draw his remarks to a close as well.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the night before last when I did make my comments to the Province I asked the people of the Province to accept my explanation and apology. I think that is quite adequate. I have already done so directly on television and I have no intention of being pulled around by the strings of the Leader of the Opposition.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will deal with the Hansard quotes on Page 125, which are the ones I am referring to, outside the House afterwards. I was quite surprised to hear the Premier suggest somehow that we had something to do with the case not being successful in the courts. We did?.. when he represented interests who were opposed to our case, Mr. Speaker, at that same time. You talk about a whopper! You talk about a whopper!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: If ever there was a whopper, there was one!

Mr. Speaker, let me get back to the Premier's Province-wide speech on Tuesday. He repeated the statements of his ministers that we are dealing with the most important piece of legislation dealt with in this Province since Confederation. Now knowing that, proclaiming that, as he and his ministers have done, how can he possibly live with the fact that he chose to mislead the people of the Province, that he chose to use secrecy, propaganda and manipulation to push this deal through the House of Assembly? How can he live with that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, all anybody of even average intelligence has to do is read the legislation. All anybody of even average intelligence, who doesn't want to deceive and mislead people, has to do is read the legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I brought in legislation and introduced it as being the solution to our Churchill Falls problem, that would tend to make me a hero rather than a villain, so why wouldn't I do it? The only reason why I wouldn't do it is that I didn't want to cause the kind of debate that took place with the Upper Churchill Water Rights Reversion Act, and the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating in spades why that was the right decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier there is only one person who is deceiving people around here, and he confessed to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: He confessed to it on public television Tuesday night.

Now I put this to him, Mr. Speaker: The credibility of the government is on the line here. The credibility of the Premier is on the line here. Ministers and backbenchers, except for one individual, one member, conspired with him in a dishonourable scheme to mislead people, to violate their trust. How can anybody now believe the Premier on anything he says on this, or anything else for that matter, but particularly on this deal? Why should they trust the Premier on this one?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, everybody in the Province will understand the Leader of the Opposition's political motivation for characterizing it as misleading.

I have to apologize to the people of the Province for the behaviour of the party opposite when they were here and they passed the legislation that they did and caused this embarrassing situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I could have brought this piece of legislation before the House and said: Look at what the heroic Liberals are going to do; we are going to solve this problem where our predecessors failed. I could have tried to present us as heroes, but I didn't. I chose to do it in the way that would be straightforward and effective, and avoid giving the members opposite the opportunity to defeat or to cause this legislation to be challenged. It didn't work. I am sorry it didn't work. I agree now that it would have been better had I taken the legislation directly and spelled it out for what it was, and would have hoped that the members opposite would have had the good sense to act responsibly. Clearly they don't have that good sense. They are putting solely their political interest ahead of the interest of the people of this Province, and they will never be forgiven for it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Talk about blowing your own cover, I say to the Premier; talk about blowing your own cover.

I want to pursue a line of questioning to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that I pursued on Monday pertaining to the lay-off of electrical inspectors and boiler inspectors in the Province. At that time the minister said that they were putting a new system in place.

I want to ask the minister: Will his department continue to sell permits for people who are doing electrical work on whatever types of buildings in the Province? Will they continue to sell permits to those people? How much will they be charged? And will those people who have to purchase permits still be afforded inspection services such as they do now before the system is changed?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The complete new regulations for the new arrangement in terms of electrical inspection in the Province will be done, expected by the first of June, and the procedure basically will be along the lines of the contractor or individual who picks up a permit to do electrical wiring and installation will have to demonstrate that they have certain certification. There is intended to be three classifications that will be accepted and approved, and they are the only ones who will be entitled to get a permit to do wiring, and then it is the credibility of the individual and/or firm who picks up the permit and does the installation with recognized, certified electricians who can make sure, and guarantee the person they are doing the work for, that they are doing the installation according to the provincial code.

The other part of the regulations and the regulatory regime that will be introduced along with that is that if the individuals or contractors or companies who pick up those permits and do the work, if they are found to be in violation at any point in time by report or by spot checking, then they will lose their entitlement to carry on that kind of business in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a supplementary.

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

The minister didn't answer the question about the permits and whether, when people buy the permits, they will receive inspection services such as they do today. I guess the minister really is verifying that they won't, and there will be spot audits done on the work throughout the Province.

I want to ask the minister this, in the calendar year '93, from January 1 to December 31 there were 7,469 permits sold, 10,475 inspections done, and 4,680 directives issued as a result of deficiencies or code violations, I say to the minister.

Now that 4,680 violations of the code, or work deficiencies, is what alarms me, and I want to ask the minister, as I did on Monday, isn't he concerned with public safety, looking at the same people will now still be doing this electrical work throughout this Province, who will now inspect themselves and audit themselves. Isn't he concerned that those very same people, who in calendar year '93 had to go back and make corrections, correct deficiencies - 4,680 violations of the code were noted then - isn't the minister concerned about public safety when now he is going to have people doing the work inspect their own work?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, and I answered the question a couple of days ago. Our number one concern is for the public safety. It has been and continues to be, and there is no question of that. The reality is that it is not at all a common practice anywhere in the country to have every single installation inspected by a government inspector, whether that inspector be hired by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, or by one of the municipalities such as the City of St. John's.

The concept clearly across the country that is most commonly practised, and which is the idea of the day in terms of meeting the safety requirements first and foremost and then being efficient in delivery is that the contractors and the companies guarantee their work. The records of the company are audited. There are occasional spot checks made on all companies to make sure they are conforming. The real practice is that if they are found in violation the companies and contractors know that they risk the loss of their licence to operate in the Province. That is a tremendous incentive to make sure that the people doing the installation on their behalf or as private contractors do it according to the code or they will be disallowed to do further installations in the Province.

In areas where individuals - because there aren't large companies operating in some of the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador - have traditionally done this wiring, those people will be given certification to do so based on their past record of having met the code requirements. If they are found to be in violation by checking these individual installations - because it is expected, Mr. Speaker, that some 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the actual installations will still be inspected and that the other 60 per cent would be allowed to be done on the credibility of the installer. That in fact we are not in any way, shape or form risking anything from a safety aspect. Otherwise we would not have agreed to go with this new system.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How can the minister stand in his place today and talk about the risk to contractors who are going to do the work and give the minister's department an undertaking that their work will be up to par? How can he stand in his place and say that he doesn't have any concern for the risk to public safety, to human life, in this situation? It is too late after the fact when your department finds out that a contractor didn't do work up to par and someone has died in his or her bed or some people died in their beds. It is too late for you to be concerned about it then. That is what the inspections were all about. Four thousand six hundred and eighty deficiencies found in the last calendar year, I say to the minister. Won't he scrap this crazy plan that a lot of officials in his department, by the way, are saying they didn't recommend? Won't he immediately scrap the plan and instead of laying off ten inspectors won't he hire more, so that there are adequate inspection services throughout this Province?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the decision has been made with this regard and the only thing that we are now planning on doing is bringing forward for Cabinet consideration the regulations that will put into effect the new system which is the norm across the country and which does not jeopardize people to any extent because of the quality of the electrical inspections that will occur in the Province.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Mr. Minister, the salary vote for the urban and rural planning branch of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has been cut by more than half. I understand there are twenty-two planners in the branch. Can the minister tell us exactly how many planners will be laid off as a result of the Budget cut?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, an estimated... planners and staff, sixteen.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The urban and rural planning branch prepares town plans for municipalities around the Province. Even with the present staff municipalities have to wait two to three years to have town plans revised and approved. Mr. Minister, how will the work be done now? Will municipalities be forced to hire planners from outside government, and does it mean that the full cost of developing the municipal plans will be down loaded to municipalities in the future?

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, just in the last twenty-four hours the City of Mount Pearl has indicated to me, and publicly, that they want to do their own assessments. I have tens and tens of communities around the Province that are asking for the same thing. I also have tens and tens of communities around the Province that are asking to do their own plans. Whether or not this government is in a position yet to accommodate any of those communities I'm not in a position to say.

The costs for planning will be, I suppose - the burden will be placed upon municipalities around the Province. I can say to the hon. member that I feel personally that there are a lot of towns around the Province that can afford to do their own planning. I really can't say much more than that.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Assessments and the planning are two different things, I would like to say to the minister, and I agree, maybe there are a few towns out there who can afford to pay for their own municipal plans, but I think the majority, especially the smaller towns, cannot. I would like to ask the minister, is this the beginning of government's plan to privatize not just Crown corporations but a whole range of services now provided through government departments? What else is on the block in Municipal and Provincial Affairs? Is this a part of the great Strategic Economic Plan, getting rid of your planners?

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

MR. REID: The answer to a number of your questions, Mr. Speaker, is no, but let me say that there are plans, yes. There are plans to make some drastic changes to my department and to municipalities around this Province but the changes, as far as I'm concerned I say to my hon. friend, will be good changes. Regionalization for example, changes that we can introduce to the government to help municipalities cope with the financial burden that they have in this Province. I'm hoping with my background and experience, Mr. Speaker, in the past eight to ten years in municipal politics, I might be able to do something to help some of these communities that are hard pressed today because of the economic situation we find ourselves in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Now in the Harbour Breton and the Connaigre Peninsula area we've seen a significant increase in the population there since the hospital was first built and in recent years we have seen a decline by almost one-half of the staff that was at that hospital. Now the Premier in the 1989 campaign stood on the floor of that hospital and indicated funding would be forthcoming in the future for a new hospital and the member for the area has said that for the past five years. The conditions there at that hospital are totally unacceptable. I ask the minister, why should a female patient have to die in a corner of a male ward with five other patients because there is no space in the hospital to allow her to die with dignity in a private room with her family?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not to sure what the question was. He sort of rambled around there and the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) hard for you to understand the question when your doing a crossword puzzle.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the minister's reply.

DR. KITCHEN: Are you finished your cackling over there now or what? Why don't you stop your cackling?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) crossword puzzle (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Why don't you shut up?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that's not very nice.

DR. KITCHEN: As far as Harbour Breton is concerned and the Connaigre Peninsula, there is no doubt that there is a government commitment to do something about that hospital in due course but as members know, there are a lot of things we have to do in the health care system, quite a lot of buildings to be renewed and long-term care particularly. Harbour Breton is in the lineup but we haven't committed to do anything this year and we have committed to do it in no particular year but it is in the works and it will be done in due course.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I guess everything will get done in due course. This government should be more concerned, rather than with public relations and communication, they're increasing their budget in their department by $266,000 and another $120,000 on purchase service and there's people dying in waiting lines in hospitals across this Province. Now I ask the minister: Is he aware that a man who had a heart attack had to spend a night on a stretcher in that hospital with no heart monitor because the only heart monitor in the hospital was being used on another patient in a private room in that hospital?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knows of any thing that happened in a hospital, what he should do is let me know about it, I will investigate it and I will look into that question but what we've been finding out is that every so often the hon. members opposite raise these points and when we look into them we find there's really nothing to them. It's just that they want to be seen and heard, pretend and frighten people in the system. The hospital system in this Province is a good system. We cannot guarantee that everybody who goes to a hospital is going to come out well, no one can guarantee that. Every time something goes wrong the hon. members are up there hovering and upsetting the people in the Province. If you find something is wrong we will investigate it and I have a number of investigations that have been concluded successfully.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm up complaining because on February 23 you got a letter sent to you by an employee of that hospital and the hospital personnel from nursing staff and everybody there will vouch for these conditions and the member knows well, and you slough it off. I've kept this letter for the past weeks hoping everybody there will vouch for these conditions, and the member knows as well, and you slough it off. I kept this letter for the past weeks hoping there would be a response and you did nothing and the same thing with Grenfell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: In the same letter, I am sure you are aware, that people have to wait in a lineup in freezing conditions to get into the hospital clinic because there is no room in the outpatients for them to wait to receive medical service. Now, I ask the minister, when is he going to heed the advice of people in the health care field and do something about the desperate state of health care in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gets all exercised. I am hoping he will not have a heart attack here because we do not have too many physicians. Anything that goes wrong in a hospital is investigated and is investigated very carefully. We take complaints very seriously, I do, and I have staff check them out and check them out thoroughly. I do not get up in the House and make statements about things just to cause public furore. We have to do these things quite carefully, quietly, and with great care, so I do not know what the purpose of the member's question is, except to stir the pot. That seems to be what they have been doing this last few days, stirring up the pot, rather than addressing or asking decent questions.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Health, too. Will the minister admit that nine nursing positions at Western Memorial Regional Hospital, at the hospital and the O'Connell Centre in Corner Brook are about to be cut, and will the minister explain the justification for these nursing cuts?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will look at the details of that. There is no doubt that hospitals have to meet their budget requirements and sometimes when they go over budget they have to take steps to get back in budget. It may very well be that is what it was, but I will look at the particulars of that and see just what happened.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that my information is that in the next day or so termination notices are about to be given indicating the elimination of two nursing positions in obstetrics, two in long-term care at the hospital in Corner Brook, and four in long-term care at the O'Connell Centre in Corner Brook, and the other in staff health education. I ask the minister, how can obstetrics patients and long-term care patients in Corner Brook possibly get adequate care with nine fewer nursing positions?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, on that particular point the member is saying that someone was going to be laid off in a couple of days? I do not know where she is getting her information about people going to be laid off. Is she going to announce their names here in the House? What is she up to?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East on a final supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Heath when he is going to make public the report of the assessment of Western Memorial Regional Hospital that the Premier personally directed last July? The Premier told people in Western Newfoundland through CBC radio that the minister would be releasing it to the public. When will we get that report?

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

DR. KITCHEN: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

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

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

I wanted to rise on a point of order during Question Period but because Question Period is just what it says, I did not want to take the time of.

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

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

I wanted to rise on a point of order during Question Period, but because Question Period is just what it says, I didn't want to take the time of members asking question and time of ministers to answer; but I am sure Your Honour very clearly heard the Minister of Health tell a member on this side to `shut up'. That is the second occasion in two weeks that we have had a government minister, a Minister of the Crown - the first case was the Government House Leader, in a night sitting, telling the Member for Baie Verte -White Bay, to `sit down and shut up', and today we have the Minister of Health telling another member to shut up.

I submit to Your Honour that there are times when we get a little bit heated and excited here, but I think Your Honour should ask the Minister of Health to withdraw his remark; it is certainly unparliamentary and I don't think it should be tolerated here. I didn't want to do it during Question Period so I do it now, and, Your Honour, I make the submission.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public galleries, Mayor Tony Ryan, Councillor Chris Fagan and Town Clerk, Joanne Boudoin from Port Saunders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to consider certain resolutions to the granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Retail Sales Tax Act".

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. GRIMES: I would like to table the following, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked yesterday by the hon. the Member for Kilbride, about the elements or components that are being studied with respect to the Income Supplementation Proposal.

This lists the twelve items into which the work groups have been assigned to do further research, and I am sure if, after the hon. member or members have had a look at it, there are further questions in the days ahead, I would certainly attempt to answer them.

Petitions

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, was on his feet first.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a number of petitions from people around the Province, from the Northern Peninsula, Woody Point, Roddickton, Englee area, the Grand Falls - Windsor, Carbonear, Victoria, Salmon Cove, St. John's, Hearts Delight, various parts of the Province, and all of these petitioners are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They say, Mr. Speaker, that the privatization and sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro has not been proven to be in the best interests of the citizens of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that remains to be true despite the attempts of the Premier to divert the issue from the merits of the privatization of Hydro, by talking about another piece of legislation and talking about another giveaway that took place some time ago. These people are interested in the Hydro privatization and the merits of that arrangement, that proposal to get rid of the people's interest in Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and to give that interest to private investors, most of whom will be from outside of this Province, some of whom will be from inside the Province.

Those investors will be offered a very good price, usually, Mr. Speaker, in privatizations, 10 per cent to 15 per cent below the actual market value of the shares, to encourage people to buy, that's the standard; they will be offered these shares at a very good price and these new shareholders would be guaranteed a return on investment by the Public Utilities Board of some 13 per cent perhaps 14 per cent, depending on what experts they can get to tell the Public Utilities Board what they would require.

They will say what they can require and the Public Utilities Board generally goes along with these experts who are called to say what the rate of return ought to be, and this money, instead of in the case of Newfoundland investors, perhaps instead of going into other ventures that might create jobs will end up in shares in Newfoundland, the New Hydro corporation soaking up investment capital and also getting us into a situation where perhaps there would be a loss of other jobs, as has happened in Nova Scotia. Some 400 jobs were lost there when the Nova Scotia Power Corporation was privatized. And that happened, Mr. Speaker, as a result of privatization.

PREMIER WELLS: What about New Brunswick?

MR. HARRIS: Now, the Premier asks, what about New Brunswick? Well, we know that across the country there has been a loss in demand for hydroelectric resources in those provinces that have access to grids. Ontario, for example, has had a very significant decrease in the demand for power in Ontario; so has Quebec, and this has certainly cost a loss of jobs there.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: And these are Crown corporations - I agree with the Premier - and Crown corporations have to be able to respond to the variations of the marketplace. When you don't have to produce power, I guess you don't need people to produce it.

That is not what happened in Nova Scotia. The same amount of power is being produced in Nova Scotia, and they have lost jobs. They are producing power out of coal. They are producing the same amount of power, but they are producing power out of coal.

So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see, predictably, a dramatic decrease in employment as a result of the privatization, but also a consequent on the investment that might otherwise have gone into creating jobs, small business investment, risk investment, venture capital, which is going to be soaked up by people buying shares.

Instead of setting up a business, instead of going into some enterprise that is going to create jobs, people are being invited by the Premier of this Province to put all of their money in Hydro shares. Don't bother to invest in our future. Don't bother to create new jobs. Put your money in Hydro. We will give you a guaranteed return on investment.

That is what is happening here, and the Premier has failed to answer the objections to Hydro so he is seeking to divert attention away from it by suggesting that somehow or other this private utility might have a better crack at breaking into the availability of Churchill Falls power.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should listen to that, and we should ask for the true facts and merits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to pass a couple of comments on what the hon. the Member for St. John's East presented to the general public about the privatization of Hydro.

This is another reason why the general public of this Province is getting the wrong information about the principle of privatization. First of all, you start from the very premise that government should not be involved in business. That is the principle of privatization. That's where I am coming from, as a person who was involved in private business all my life, so nobody, from either side of the House is going to argue with that principle.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I agree.

MR. SIMMS: That at least is a very bad (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I understand that, but that is not being said in all the arguments put forth by the Opposition or by the Member for St. John's East.

MR. TOBIN: That Mrs. from Spaniard's Bay (inaudible) this morning.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I guess what I am going to have to worry about in the next election, from that Mrs. who called in from Bay Roberts, or wherever, is that my majority will be reduced from 3,617 to 3,616 - so that's a big worry there!

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at, first of all, what isn't being said, that Hydro owes $1.2 billion. Now the Member for St. John's East just said when the shares go on the market people will invest all of their money into the shares, and people from outside the Province will buy shares in Hydro - that will be - and all of the money will go outside of the Province instead of staying in the Province.

Now, I want to make this point, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of people are not being told this: the interest being paid out annually on the $1.2 billion amounts to $147 million per year.

MR. SIMMS: You're not paying it.

MR. EFFORD: Hold on now. The ratepayers - I am a ratepayer, yes, I'm paying it.

MR. SIMMS: The government is not paying it. They haven't paid a cent of interest in thirty years.

MR. EFFORD: I ask the Leader of the Opposition: Who is the government if it is not the people of this Province? Who is the government? The ratepayers of this Province pay into Hydro and Newfoundland Light and Power for the cost of electricity.

MR. SIMMS: They will pay more under your bill.

MR. EFFORD: Now, one hundred and forty-seven million dollars a year - that is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition -

MR. SIMMS: You accuse us of passing on false information - you are doing precisely the same thing.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, could you protect me from the mad Opposition?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) apologize.

MR. EFFORD: One hundred and forty-seven million dollars on a $1.2 billion loan guarantee goes out of this Province into the bankers, whether it be Germany, Switzerland, the United States, Japan - $147 million every year. If Hydro could say: We are going to pay off that loan and it is going to be gone forever, it would take 167 years to pay off that loan at the rate they are paying. Now, where is the money going, into the pockets of Newfoundlanders or into the pockets of the world bankers?

The hon. the Member for St. John's East never mentioned that amount at all.

MR. MURPHY: Never mentioned anything.

MR. EFFORD: Never mentioned anything - never mentioned the fact that government will receive $200, $300, $400 or $500 million, whatever they receive from the shares sold on the market, the government shares, so that they will not have to borrow this year, and they will not pay interest on that amount of money forever. That is another $25 million, $30 million, $35 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. We are just as wrong about this now as we were wrong when we told you that you shouldn't build a cucumber farm. We are just as wrong now about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And that's your only defence.

MR. EFFORD: No, it is not the only defence. It is good, wise management of the money of the people of this Province, Mr. Speaker. The Member for St. John's East is giving out misleading information and the correct information is not going out there.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you are as wrong as you were when you thought they were giving this Province a good deal on the Upper Churchill, that's how wrong you are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: This side of the House - and I've stated here, as you sat in your seat - that we are committed to privatization of industries that are out there not serving a public interest. The only one on record that we have taken a stand as being opposed to is Newfoundland Hydro. That is our record on privatization. I believe strongly in it. If your finances and arguments that you are using on this debt are that weak, it is good you got out of private business and you are now here in this House of Assembly.

You have stated 166 years - you should be listening. That is the mathematics the Member for St. John's South used before.

MR. SIMMS: That's right. It is wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is new to me - maybe the Minister of Finance could correct me. If there are 166 years remaining on the outstanding debts of Hydro - two thousand and sixteen.

MR. MURPHY: That is what it would take to buy it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for St. John's South doesn't realize that when you have a mortgage or a debt, during the initial years when the debt is higher you pay an increasingly greater amount as interest and a smaller amount as principle, and in the last years the debt is almost entirely going to principle. Now, it is going to debt. And that is on a mortgage - he doesn't understand that. Let me tell you the mathematics he used. He said, we have retired 17 per cent in thirty years almost. So six times that, six times thirty, is 180 years to retire the rest. I mean, if that type of mathematics is used here, no wonder -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: - no wonder this government is bringing deficits each year over and above the targets that they set. That is what is wrong. The bonds are being held at two thousand, sixteen - ask the Minister of Finance - at varying per cents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will answer that, too. I answered that for you another night. I will tell you again. Because the bonds are held in Swiss francs and Japanese yen, it is costing the ratepayers of this Province, depending on the valuation of the dollar at the time of transaction, anywhere from a low side of $90 million for the currency difference up to possibly $100 million a year. That is going to be amortized by New Hydro over the next twenty or thirty or even forty years -

AN HON. MEMBER: See you, `John'!

MR. SULLIVAN: - at a cost that ratepayers of this Province - and don't run away and hide! Ask the Minister of Finance these figures if you wish. He will confirm them, or maybe he is ashamed to say. Maybe he is told not to release these.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I've challenged the Member for St. John's South, and the Premier, and the minister, and anybody over there, I will debate the figures and the costs of this, and they are afraid that the public are going to find out the real truth, and the real truth is the $160 million to $200 million a year on rate payers in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am speaking. You will have your time. The member will have his time. You had your time last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: You had your time at Holiday Inn two weeks ago, and you will have your time again. Your time will come, and let's hope the numbers will add up right then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: That's right. That's the type of mathematics you are dealing with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, you're good. I will debate that in a public forum with you any day whatsoever. You set the time and place and I will be there waiting. I won't have my constituents begging for two weeks in the public airwaves to come out to a meeting. I won't do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I had my meeting in Petty Harbour, and we had a packed hall in Ferryland, standing room, with CBC there when we had the meeting. I don't run away from meetings. I talk from fifty to seventy constituents every day, and still we have lots -

AN HON. MEMBER: Tory meetings.

MR. SULLIVAN: They are not Tory meetings. They are public meetings. Maybe they are. They were almost all Tories the last time in my district; maybe they are all Tory meetings.

The actual fact is that the members on that side of the House have been muzzled for so long -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! No leave.

Before recognizing the hon. member -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. member I would like to welcome to the public galleries Mayor Winston Woodford of the Town of Triton in Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak to a petition presented to me by twenty-one people from the district of Menihek.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: This is part of the continuation of the list of petitioners who - I was hoping the hon. Member for St. John's South would stay for one moment -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I am presenting this petition on behalf of residents of Western Labrador who are very concerned about some of the remarks the Premier made while he was responding to a petition that I presented in this House a few days ago.

The Premier isn't here now. He is undoubtedly outside doing some other business within the building, I am sure. I am not sure he is within earshot, but now that the hon. Member for St. John's South is the Premier's Parliamentary Secretary, I was hoping he would stay within the Chamber and listen to some of the queries the people have, and he can bring back these answers, I would hope.

I won't get involved in the mud wrestling whatsoever. I merely want to get involved in answers to some of the questions that the residents of Western Labrador want answered.

Mr. Speaker, in the petition that I presented I talked about the concerns that the people in Western Labrador have over the rates that are going to be charged, specifically in Labrador. The Premier has suggested, in a media conference, or at least through media coverage, that it was going to be approximately a 20 per cent to 30 per cent increase that has nothing to do with privatization in Labrador because of, as he suggests, something that was caused to happen. In other words, I think it has something to do with the PDD, that this government caused to happen, by the way. The $30 million subsidy that used to be paid out of tax dollars is now going to be paid by rate payers rather than taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier suggested that the rates in Labrador are going to go up 20 per cent to 30 per cent - this is in media coverage - but in response to my petition what the Premier said, and I quote: Most residences of Labrador West average out to about fifteen mils in cost. In Goose Bay it is thirty mils, and in the Island portion of the Province he refers -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon? In the Island portion of the Province he refers to seventy-five.

Mr. Speaker, what the people in Labrador have a direct concern about, they've been told - they've heard news reports of the Premier saying it's going to be 30 per cent. If we use the figures that he says in responding to my presentation of petition here, it may possibly - what they think may be occurring, Mr. Speaker, might be 30 per cent this year. Is it going to be 30 per cent and continuing until they get to the 30 mils in Goose Bay or is it going to go all the way to the 75 mils?

MR. BAKER: We don't know.

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says they don't know but undoubtedly they would have a pretty good idea of what the rates would be, they undoubtedly understand what the public utilities will be using as a criteria to establish the rates, Mr. Speaker. Are they going to be suggesting to the Public Utility Board that the rates charged would be equal throughout the Province? In that case, Mr. Speaker, the people of Western Labrador will face a 500 per cent increase. That's what they could be facing and that's what they are afraid of, Mr. Speaker, a tremendous increase.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier will relay my questions and the people who are residents of Western Labrador want those answers because they are concerned. I don't believe that the people of Western Labrador should face these tremendous increases. Mr. Speaker, they expect a certain increase over and above but they don't want this huge, tremendous gouging of them because this would be tremendously unfair to them.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister of Health instead of interrupting my petition that he would continue doing his crossword puzzle, at least he might get that right. At least he might get that right because he's done nothing else right since he's been minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

The Minister of Health is asking me why should the people of Labrador City and Wabush not pay 500 per cent more, is that what he's asking?

DR. KITCHEN: Pay the same as we pay in St. John's. Why should they get a subsidy by everybody else? Can you answer that?

AN HON. MEMBER: My god!

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is suggesting that the people of Western Labrador should pay the same rate. So he's suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Western Labrador should pay the same rate as they pay in St. John's. That's a 500 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker, that's what he's suggesting. Now should he also suggest that they pay the $2,000, no subsidy, for an air fare for ambulance care to come down to the Health Science Complex, is that what he's suggesting?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Because I asked him that question two weeks ago and he hasn't got back to me yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: Now maybe he hasn't finished his book of crossword puzzles but at least return some answers!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. A. SNOW: I'm so surprised.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I know I'm speaking to the petition and I support the petition presented by my colleague from Menihek with his concerns from people of his district - but as the debate goes on with regard to the privatization bill, it gets more and more frightening, Mr. Speaker, when I hear members opposite talk about the pros and cons of this particular piece of legislation. Make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province are so concerned, make no wonder. Members get up - like a minister of the Crown today, got up and contradicted what the Member for St. John's East said and given some of the figures that he said, based on 160-odd years, make no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this Province are asking questions, saying why and how and how come? Make no wonder, make little wonder, those are the people who are making up budgets, those are the people who were supposed to be explaining to the back-benchers exactly what's included in the document pertaining to the privatization of Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, one member shot back and said, `it's good business.' This is not business, Mr. Speaker, this is a monopoly. This is a cash cow. This has nothing to do with business. Where's the competition after this? There's absolutely none. You could take someone out of Kindergarten and put them in there with a good board of directors and that company will bring in all kinds of profits, Mr. Speaker, within hours. I said it before, Mr. Speaker, once the shares go on the market anybody in this Province who buy's them can turn them over half-an-hour after for two or three dollars. Anywhere from two or three dollars, from that up they can turn them over and make all kinds of profits because like I said, it's a cash cow, it's a monopoly, it's a license to print money, it is, for another word you want to put on it, it is a mint, Mr. Speaker. I say members opposite are not digging a hole; they are digging a glory hole. The Member for Windsor - Buchans should know, that is for sure, what a glory hole is.

The great democrat who just a couple of years ago went around this country speaking to every premier and the Prime Minister of this country and telling everybody in this country about Meech Lake. How nothing should be done behind closed doors, how it should be out in the open. How the Prime Minister and his staff did this and did that. The people in this country were - he was, I suppose, next to being canonized. But there is only so high you can go when you plant and plan and work and put and base the principle of your administration on one person. What happens when that credibility starts to come down?

The administration suffers because everybody behind fell in line. All that is left to do for members opposite is drink the Kool-Aid. It is ridiculous what is happening in this Province today. Everywhere you go, no matter who you talk to, and yet the Premier won't listen. The Premier just won't listen. Members are always talking about polls. This is one time I think they should take a poll. I say they have taken the poll and the poll shows them. There are not too many papers waving over there now, 85/10, or 96. I will tell members opposite that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are like elephants. They have memories like elephants. They are going to remember this day, this infamous day come next week when this particular piece of legislation is passed. They will remember.

If they don't there is one member here who will remind them come a few years down the road. There is one member opposite who will be able to answer for that. He doesn't even have to fill out his nomination papers. He is re-elected already. Because he stood up for his constituents. I look around the front benches of this Administration and I look at what members are going to run in the next election. The next election, I say to members in the back benches, be careful. Do your homework and I can assure you that you will speak up for your constituents and not for what the Premier and some of his front benchers are saying.

Based on the facts, the Member for Ferryland, his figures - and he has -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today and present a petition on behalf of fifty-four people of the District of St. Mary's - The Capes. I will read the prayer of the petition.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask the people of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation, as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to stand today and present this petition on behalf of another group of individuals from the district. The petitions are coming in hand over fist every day. I have plenty more here to follow if the time comes. The people of the Province would like to have a referendum on this important piece of legislation. They've been asking for a referendum now for the past week or ten days or so. It seems like the request is falling on deaf ears. The Premier has gone on provincial television and on open line shows trying to defend his position on this. I say that there is an old saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I think that the jig is up this time round and that people are starting to take this to heart. They have found out that the Premier doesn't walk on water, that he can sink, and this may be his last walk.

It is very important that the people of the Province have a say. I will refer to what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation spoke on earlier when he talked about the people - `the people are the government'. Yes, the people are the government, but the problem is, Mr. Speaker, the people are not having an opportunity to have their say on this issue. It is only over the past couple of days that the Premier has gone out trying to defend this piece of legislation, trying to defend his actions, I should say, more than anything else, in trying to push this piece of legislation through the House, and trying to defend the actions of members opposite as they try to ignore the people in their districts who are coming forward asking questions on this.

I go back to another saying, an old one, `What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.' I guess that falls on a lot of ears on the other side of the House. That includes the Member for St. John's South also, who heard it loud and clear last night, but it seems it went in one ear and out the other, and that is all we can do about that.

I take exception sometimes to some comments, I suppose you shouldn't, but I take exception to comments that are thrown back and forth, such as those made by the Member for St. John's South and by the Premier, himself, who talked today about what happened in the 1960s and how members on this side of the House had a part in that. Well, my dear man, I couldn't have had a part in it, because I was five years old when the Premier and the Minister of Justice gave away the Upper Churchill - I was only five years old, so why would he blame me for having any part in that? He is here now, twenty-five years later, giving away the Lower Churchill and everything that goes with that, and I won't be able to be blamed for this one either, thanks be to God, I say to members opposite.

It is a privilege for this government to be able to govern this Province and represent the people, not a right, a privilege, and as far as I am concerned, they are doing an injustice to the people of this Province by not giving them a chance. Several times we heard `Sprung' being shouted out across the House. Again, I wasn't here then. I am not saying who is right or wrong, but I was not here then. This deal you are putting down now will be fifty Sprungs, this deal you are trying to push through now. We will pay for it forever and ever, and generations after us will pay for it forever and ever.

I want to touch on a few of the issues that are in the bill, itself and, more importantly, the rural subsidy that is going to be phased out by December 1999 and which will affect my district which is 100 per cent rural. This subsidy that we receive now, when that is taken away, as far as I am concerned and from what I can gather, the rates in rural Newfoundland will possibly double and in some places triple because of the subsidy being phased out. I think this is wrong. I think we are being forced again and this is a whole new resettlement game, resettlement all over again. People won't be able to afford to live in rural Newfoundland, and they are being penalized because they chose to live in rural Newfoundland. I think that is wrong.

We talk about the advertising campaign that is being put on by Newfoundland Hydro and the government at a cost of $100,000, that only gives one side of the story, Mr. Speaker. Why not go out and have public hearings so we can debate this issue and have both sides of the story, instead of advertising, sending out brochures, and doing radio ads that only give one side of the story, the government side, as they push forward what they are trying to say. I talked before about the water rights of the Province. It seems that most people are concerned about the water rights.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to respond to the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. The typical stuff we have heard in this House ever since this debate, not debate really because members opposite have taken up so much time with filibustering. If they are so right, what they should do is debate the bill, as I said before.

I want to tell the member that I had a public meeting on this issue last night, unlike a lot of other members opposite. It was an extremely interesting meeting about Hydro. As a matter of fact, we had a show of hands. We had ninety-eight people at the meeting. There are 10,800 voters in St. John's South and we had ninety-eight people at the meeting, and among the ninety-eight people there, we had Mr. Malone, who is a very sincere gentleman. He speaks from his heart and I respect what he says - I don't agree with him but I respect what he says. Of course, we had the most arrogant, ignorant, buffoonish, politician in the history of this Province shouting and bawling.

MS. VERGE: Who was that?

MR. MURPHY: Deputy Mayor Andy Wells, the buffoon of all buffoons. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I told him last night the same as I will tell members of this House, that Andy Wells did exactly, last night, what he did a few years ago when he was on the PU board shooting off his big face, that cost the taxpayers of this Province $1.5 million. Now, that is in direct costs, I didn't get into the other costs that sent them down to Texas for twelve weeks that cost the taxpayers over $21,000 to learn the economics associated with PUB.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: That's what the taxpayers of this Province - that's what he charged them, not counting his salary.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. MURPHY: Twenty-one thousand dollars. And I can go on and on but I didn't last night. But I tell you, now I have the figures and I will tell this to the members opposite or any other member, who is supporting Mr. Wells and getting Mr. Wells information - false information I might add, and his foolish information, because all Andy Wells is, is a buffoon who has cost the taxpayers in this Province millions of dollars, millions of dollars, and look at the rate increases when he was the consumer rep on Public Utilities, I tell the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

I had a public meeting and they had a show of hands last night, with all of that crowd who travel around, and there were sixty-two people against the privatization of Hydro, counting the people who all members know, the `Bas' crowd, and all the rest of them, waving their hands and jumping. And, you know, thirty-two people there were in favour of privatization.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, and I know the residents of St. John's South, and I say to the hon. the Member for Humber East, it was a 50-50 show at the best, so I don't need to be lectured by anybody opposite about what the people of this Province are saying, and not day-by-day, not hour-by-hour, but minute-by-minute, they are understanding why this government are doing what we are doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Andy is going to be the next leader.

MR. MURPHY: Andy could be the next leader, then the people of this Province will really have something on their hands. I challenged him last night to run against me in St. John's South. Do you know what his response was? Nothing, zip, and when he asked me: `Why didn't you attend the meeting, I told him why I didn't attend, it was because I was at a Marine Atlantic meeting trying to defend thirty-five direct jobs for the residents of my district and 150 indirect jobs in St. John's. That's what I was up to, and I need a buffoon like that to tell me where I should and shouldn't be?

Like the rest of you, I have listened, I have faced the residents of St. John's South and I will continue to do it and I stand my record in representing them against any member in this House, any member, including the Member for Burin - Placentia West, who is now on the coat-tails of the Minister of Industry Trade and Technology, and would have had nothing only for this minister, nothing.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to you: I have heard enough rhetoric, I have heard enough foolishness and it is time for us to get on with this bill and do what needs to be done on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, put this bill through the House so we can get the industrial development that's needed -

MR. FUREY: Tell them about the (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: The Minister of Industry Trade and Technology says: tell them about the $100 million and the great flour explosion up in the Straits. No, I don't want to repeat that, I said it before. I don't know if the people of Newfoundland know it or understand it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) explosion.

MR. MURPHY: Well, I mean, when Premier Moores went out and bought twenty-five bags of Cream of the West; now, he could have bought Robin Hood, but Robin Hood was a little cheaper, so he wanted to have the best flour, but that's for another day -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: - and I will remind the public about that.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we are presenting petitions on Hydro and the Member for St. John's South, whose record, for the constituents of St. John's South, is not the debate or the question here, today. The question is the sale, the privatization of Hydro. That is the motion, it is not the member's record. And I don't suggest for one minute that his record is tarnished in any way, with regard to how hard he works for the people of St. John's South, but let us get to the issue of this debate, let's get to the issue of the petition here.

The member opposite said that he held a public meeting unlike many members opposite here. Now, let me put on the record, Mr. Speaker, that it is this side of the House that began public meetings, it is this side of the House that has put pressure on government to explain in detail what the merits of this privatization sale is and let me, for the record, Mr. Speaker, say, we had, on March 10, a meeting in Grand Falls - Windsor, on March 11, a meeting in Baie Verte, on Sunday, March 13, a meeting in St. Mary's - The Capes, on Sunday, March 13, a meeting in Placentia; on Sunday, March 13, in the districts of Kilbride and Ferryland, a meeting in Petty Harbour and on Monday, March 14, a meeting in Labrador City and tonight, March 24, a meeting in Bonavista South. So don't stand, member, and tell this side of the House that you are the only one holding meetings. This is the side of the House that started public debate and has brought to the conscious level of people in this Province what exactly is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Perhaps the hon. member would tell me how many public meetings they had on Sprung.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the petition again.

In terms of the details, the financial aspects, of what this deal will do, let me use the Premier's own figures so members opposite might understand: the cost to ratepayers, let me list them for you: Debt premiums and costs related to the portion of Hydro's debt that will be paid off from the proceeds of the sale of New Hydro, $20 million to $30 million; fees and commissions paid by New Hydro on the issue and sale of shares, $15 million to $20 million; foreign currency exchange losses as a result on Old Hydro's debt, $90 million to $100 million; part of the unfunded pension liabilities that will go to New Hydro, $25 million to $30 million.

In addition to that, compensation to persons who are deprived of their interest in land, expropriation, $5 million; the cost of purchasing, servicing and managing the investments in New Hydro for defeasion, $10 million to $15 million; and all other costs related to the sale or purchase of Old Hydro to New Hydro. There is no number on that, Mr. Speaker, because we do not know it. These privatization expenses will cost the people of this Province between $165 million and $200 million a year.

Now let's look at the cost to taxpayers. What are the real costs to taxpayers? I remind members opposite that these are the Premier's figures that he announced to the media: $15 million rate adjustment fund; $10 million a year in debt guarantee; $30 million to $40 million a year from federal transfers under the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act; and another $30 million to $40 million contributed directly by the Province to the new pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, these are the costs that the government has failed to bring out to the public. These are the costs, not voodoo economics, not Calvert mathematics, sound mathematics, the Premier's and the governments own figures, but they have not - repeatedly they have not - debated this issue in public where we have asked them to debate it. They were shamed into holding public meetings. The Premier was shamed into getting on provincial television and saying: I urged the members of my Cabinet, and I urged the members of my caucus, not to talk about the real issue and the real purpose of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no new investment as a result of this sale. There will be no new jobs as a result of this sale. There will be no new technology, or technology transfer, as a result of this sale. That is what this issue is all about, and the government has failed miserably in putting out the real facts and information to the people of this Province, and that is something, I can assure them, that the people of this Province will not forget.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. E. BYRNE: And they will be held accountable, as past governments have been held accountable, for other like issues.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. BAKER: Order No. 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply on the resolution and Bill No. 7, and a Bill Respecting the Granting of Main Supply to Her Majesty, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I notice with interest that the Minister of Finance called Order No. 2, Interim Supply. Mr. Chairman, we all know what order number one is: You are not allowed to speak.

MR. SULLIVAN: Gag order, gag order.

MR. TOBIN: Gag order. Not allowed to speak. Order number one is from the Lord, Mr. Chairman, to all the members opposite.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The emperor.

MR. TOBIN: The emperor. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to speak in this debate today as it relates to interim supply. I don't know what is taking place in this Province but I can tell you one thing, that what this government is doing is unacceptable.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to do one at a time because I wouldn't want to confuse the minister. There are a couple of things I want to -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, will the Minister for St. John's South forget about Andy Wells? He looks like he can't relax. Every time he opens his mouth he looks around. It is like Andy is up there watching over him. You are being manipulated, man, forget him. Now he thinks Andy is running against him, so every time he gets up now it will be Andy. He will lose everything if he gets totally sidetracked by worrying about who is going to be running against him, I would say to the Member for St. John's South. It is evident today how worried you are because every time you open your mouth -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If he would speak for his constituents it wouldn't matter who runs against him.

MR. TOBIN: That is right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But the way he is, he should be worried.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. If you speak for your -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) dragged out thirty-two out of 10,000 who supported him on Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I want to today - here is the member, he said I didn't have a big turnout. It wasn't a great big turnout. Sixty-two people voted against it, thirty-two voted for it, and I'm going to go with the thirty-two who voted for it. That is how I am going to represent my constituents. That is what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please! Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: The Member for St. John's South -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - is on record as saying -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: - sixty-plus -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

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

I remind the hon. member we are discussing the resolution on interim supply.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and we are discussing interim supply in fine fashion, I can assure you that. We are discussing interim supply and the finances of this Province. When sixty people turn to a member and say: Don't sell Hydro, and thirty say to their member: Sell it, and he says: I am going to represent the majority, I'm going with the thirty. That is Calvert mathematics. Is that what he calls it Calvert mathematics?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tors Cove.

MR. TOBIN: Or Tors Cove mathematics. Mr. Chairman, I happened to get a copy today of the local newspaper. I have to look at it. Council's budget. I'm glad the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs is here. The council's budget this year. Burin brought down their budget. I would like particularly for the minister to listen to this: Burin town council has opted to cut administration cost by $30,000 in this year's budget in its attempt to combat the rising expenses and lower revenues. Council will also reduce convention costs, travel costs, public relations. Pension reductions due to lay offs will save $2,000, and election expenses. Mayor Jerry Appleby termed this year's budget the toughest in his twenty years in office.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Just listen for a minute, now, Mr. Chairman. The breaks however were not without consequences as he placed an additional $26,000 - Council lost about $50,000 on FPI taxes this year. Revenue generation from utilities decreased by $7,000 with the 2.5 ceiling on gross revenues.

This is interesting. Burin town council. Fifty thousand they lost with FPI taxes. Utility decrease, the act that was brought in by the previous minister, reduced them by $7,000. Operating grants were decreased by $15,000 to the town of Burin. Federal grants by $1,000, miscellaneous revenue by $7,000, and the debt charges increased by $53,000 because of paving and upgrading of water lines and sanitary costs that went up by $52,000.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) a book?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, there are two things, I say to the minister. Today I seen him in the newspaper holding up a picture - now I don't know what is on the picture but the last time I seen him holding up a picture in the newspaper is when he kissed the pig.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the pig looked good.

MR. SULLIVAN: He couldn't recognize who was with the pig.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if that's right or not but the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation heard what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs just said.

Mr. Chairman, as it relates to the finances of this Province, Mr. Chairman, this government has brought municipalities and everyone else to their knees. They downloaded, Mr. Chairman, and now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation the other day in the Budget said it's going to accelerate the passing over of transportation roads to municipalities. I'd like to know how the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs feels about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, when I sit down. I only have two minutes left.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to tell me what he thinks about the Department of Works, Services and Transportation unloading the transportation roads on the various municipalities throughout the Province? I'd like for the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I will. Mr. Chairman, I can announce it today. I'm that sure that there's a certain road in my district going to be paved, I could announce it today but I won't, Mr. Chairman, it is not my place, it's the place of the minister. I can also tell the minister - and I hope he's listening - that I will not announce it because it's not my place and I will not tell what containers he had in his office, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I'm not telling. I will never tell, Mr. Chairman, but the minister happened to show it to myself and a delegation from a council, I say one day, and the delegation recognized the containers.

MS. VERGE: Oh, did that contain liquids?

MR. TOBIN: No, they didn't. No, no, it was nothing like that. It certainly didn't contain liquids, I say to the Member for Humber East.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know how the minister feels about - why is transportation trying to unload the responsibilities onto municipalities in this Province? Why is the budget cut to $20 million for provincial government roads, when the last year that we were in government it was $48 million, I say to the minister? Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance is better then the former minister but there's a lot of improvement needed.

Mr. Chairman, the other night I attended a meeting in my district regarding the Burin Peninsula Health Care Board. A meeting, Mr. Chairman, where people from one end of the Burin Peninsula, from Fortune - Hermitage, Grand Bank and Burin - Placentia West were present and they made it quite clear that they don't want the minister to make the decisions that he's making. They were upset to the extent that the president of the Joint Councils got up and called the Minister of Health a liar on the radio, Mr. Chairman, in the papers. The Minister of Health doesn't care to listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not awake yet. He's puzzled I think.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, when I'm speaking to the Minister of Health I expect his attention because I'm dealing with an issue that is very important to my constituents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, thank you very much. I'm glad to have a chance to participate in this debate about interim supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair didn't see the hon. minister standing. I've recognized the hon. Member for Humber East but if the hon. member wishes to give leave to the hon. Minister of -

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, if the minister is going to reply to some of the points, some of the very hard hitting and important points made by my colleague the Member for Burin - Placentia West then I have no hesitation in giving leave. Since some of my colleagues seem to be dubious about the member's motives perhaps I will just keep going, since I have been recognized.

Chairperson, many people who read the story on the front page of The Evening Telegram yesterday were quite alarmed to see the large amounts of money this government has been spending on various economic advisory groups. People are not seeing any results for the considerable outlay of public funds on economic advisors. People are feeling the negative effects of cutbacks in health and education, and are at a loss to understand the government's setting of priorities in spending.

I would like the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, since he is the only minister present with responsibility for this area, and I would appreciate if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology would explain the justification for the government over the last year or so, and on into the next year according to the Budget for 1994-'95, in having an Economic Recovery Commission and an Advisory Committee on the Economy. What are those groups contributing? Why are there two?

Government seems to have a fixation on consolidation and merger and amalgamation. Why the array of economic advisory groups, councils, divisions, et cetera? The Evening Telegram lists the Economic Recovery Commission, the Advisory Commission on the Economy, the Economic and Social Policy Division, the Strategic Economic Initiatives Division, the Resource Policy Analysis and Planning Division, the Economic Research and Analysis Division, the Regional Development Program Division, the Resource Programs Division. Why do we have all those different divisions and commissions? Isn't there considerable room to consolidate, and perhaps by bringing the few economic brains together, getting a better output, and either transferring some of the savings to more productive uses in education and health, or using the savings to bring down the deficit. Why do we have all those advisory groups and divisions?

I would be quite willing to pause here and allow the minister to give a response.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: I thank the hon. member for her question.

I can say: Stay tuned; we are going to look at these things, and that is part of the process that we talked about in the Budget. We are going to look at all of these agencies. In fact, we have asked the new President of Enterprise Newfoundland to look at his agency and his new responsibilities to see, in fact, if we can rationalize and restructure some of that.

I should point out to the hon. member that every agency that she talked about, every single one, was there when we inherited the government in 1989, with one exception - the Economic Recovery Commission.

I just ask her to stay tuned and be patient. There are some things in the works and there are some restructuring propositions on the table we are considering.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, in an appendix to the Budget speech document there is an indication that the government, during the 1994-'95 fiscal year, will be conducting a major review of Arts and Culture Centres and provincially operated community recreational facilities. That is listed in highlights of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but since Arts and Culture Centres fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Tourism and Culture, and since I understand the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is now the Acting Minister of Tourism and Culture as well, I would like to ask him about the major review of Arts and Culture Centres indicated in the Budget speech document. What is the purpose of that major review? Who is going to be doing the review? Will it be done by public servants, or will it be done by people outside of the public service and the government? What will be the terms of reference for the study?

What is the intended time frame, so I am asking: purpose, personnel, people, terms of reference and time frame, and before the minister rises just so that he will have the complete set of questions on this topic. Since the Strategic Economic Plan, the much heralded Strategic Economic Plan, contains a stark action item, indicating an intention to transfer administration and control of Arts and Cultures Centres to appropriate local or community agencies, is the government now rethinking that approach, and is the government prepared to consider continuing to own and operate Arts and Culture Centres depending on the outcome of the major review to be done in 94-95?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Indecision? He called a point of order when he should have called Division, that's what you are talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) decision (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: It wasn't indecision, it was a difference of opinion between an hon. member and the Speaker at the time, as I recall.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Speaker was right.

MS. VERGE: The Speaker is always right.

MR. FUREY: The Speaker is always right.

The government has talked about in the past, moving to divest of Arts and Culture Centres. They cost a lot of money, the revenue streams that come in in no way cover the costs of these centres so we decided to take a look at it and see what kinds of things we could do with them. We have set about a series of discussions - I should tell the hon. member there is no study; don't be misinformed, I don't know where you are getting the idea that there would be a study, it's a review I think is what you referred to.

MS. VERGE: It's a major review.

MR. FUREY: A major review, that's not a study. Let me tell you what's going to happen -

MS. VERGE: The (inaudible) indicated in the Budget documents.

MR. FUREY: That's right, it is not a study. We are moving to divest of the Arts and Culture Centres. The former Minister of Tourism and Culture, the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island started that process as far as I can recall by initiating discussions with the councils at Stephenville and at Gander. I should tell the hon. Member for Humber East that I also had a meeting the other night in Corner Brook in her own riding with the Mayor and some people from the City of Corner Brook and I told them they ought to start looking at the Arts and Culture Centre in Corner Brook to see whether in fact the city is interested in acquiring that property as well. Did the member hear what I just said?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I will repeat it. I had some discussions with the Mayor and people in Corner Brook the other night, Mayor Pollet and the town manager I believe was there and the senior -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FUREY: The city manager, sorry, I represent a number of towns, I apologize, and the Economic Development senior person, Mrs. Pye, and I told them to start thinking about the Arts and Culture Centre and that facility in Corner Brook and they ought to start looking at ways that they might want to acquire - You heard what I said?

Now I should tell you we have had one proposal back. The former minister and his officials have done some work and a formal proposition has come to us now from the Town of Stephenville, and I think something just came yesterday from the Town of Gander.

MS. VERGE: Stephenville has been in for years.

MR. FUREY: No, no, it hasn't -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: No, no, not the town. The town had initiated (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: The town itself had put forward a proposition I should tell the member to acquire this facility and that proposition is now being studied, so when you say a study, there is no study. Now I have assigned senior people from the department, I will tell the hon. member, to continue with these discussions. We hope to deal with Stephenville first, Gander second then I hope to move to Corner Brook, possibly St. John's and then perhaps Labrador. Does that answer your questions?

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Grand Falls.

MR. FUREY: Well, Grand Falls yes, wherever there is an Arts and Culture Centre. There was a second point to your -

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I now have the actual document. The Budget '94 document, the Budget Speech document, the Appendix, Page 7, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, at the bottom of the page, states, "Funding has been provided for the continuation of provincially operated community sports facilities and Arts and Culture Centres around the Province. There will be a major review conducted on the operation and use of these facilities in 1994-95." I asked about the major review, I asked about the purpose of the major review, the people who would be carrying out the review, whether they would be public servants or people outside of government, I asked about the terms of reference for the major review, and I asked about the time frame for the major review.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: I tell the hon. member that sits with my colleague the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in his capacity looking after sports in the Province. Essentially what we are talking about are swimming pools that are attached to these centres but if you separate that out it is our responsibility to divest of the centres from the Arts and Culture Centres perspective. We hope to have Stephenville concluded very shortly. We hope to continue our discussions over the next thirty days or so with Gander, and finish that. Then we hope to move on to the next ones, the next ones being Corner Brook, which I have just alerted the Mayor and the city to, I would like them to start thinking about a proposition to take this over. In some cases they will be able to do it. In some cases we will be able to accept their proposals and in other cases there may be modifications. The time frame for takeover - I think in one of the propositions there is a three year descending subsidy and at the end it is a cut-off and they would acquire it. That is in one proposal and I am not sure what the substance of the second proposal is because I have not read it.

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: All of them, the minister tells me, the proposition is take over now with declining subsidies.

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

MS. VERGE: It is an extremely alarming move. I had hoped that with some thought and care government would have realized that municipalities and community groups will not be able to sustain Arts and Culture Centres. Provincial government subsidization is absolutely essential for ongoing operation of Arts and Culture Centres.

Chairperson, I have nothing against decentralization of administration and control, or even ownership of Arts and Culture Centres. In fact I favour that approach. I agree with the rationale put forward in the O'Flaherty Arts Policy Committee Report which the government has now had for four years, but any decentralized operation can succeed only with ongoing provincial government subsidization. Now, if the provincial government is going to withdraw provincial funding over three years, if it is the intention as just stated by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to withdraw provincial funding over three years we will not have any Arts and Culture Centres left in the Province. Municipalities or local committees will be saddled with white elephants and they may linger as bingo halls but it will not be very long before the buildings will be boarded up, white elephants. Chairperson, this is extremely alarming.

Now, as for Corner Brook the minister's approach to the mayor comes as news. That has not been made known to the people in Corner Brook. The minister just said it in the House of Assembly, but I can assure the minister that there will be a great number of citizens and organizations in Corner Brook who will be very upset at the notion that the minister is intending to saddle the City of Corner Brook with an Arts and Culture Centre and expect the municipal government to pick up the $300,000 or $400,000 annual net operating cost that is required. Chairperson, I stand to be corrected on that figure. It may apply only to the arts portion of the building and not the swimming pool portion of the building.

As I said before, decentralization, I think, could have many advantages and for many years now I have advocated decentralization using a model similar to what we have for community colleges or hospitals for that matter. Surely the government must see that the same as for education and health, a decentralized administration, or a group of volunteers serving on a committee cannot carry on the use of Arts and Culture Centres without provincial government subsidization, and substantial provincial subsidization.

With the required provincial government support, a decentralized committee or commission, I believe, could make much more effective and productive use of those facilities and could boost box office revenue if built into the decentralized model is an incentive to improve attendance and box office receipts, then I think we will all see the benefits, but if the minister and his colleagues are intent on withdrawing provincial government subsidization over three years, then I am afraid by the time of the much heralded 500th. Anniversary of John Cabot's landing in this Province we won't have any Arts and Culture Centres.

Then they are talking about building a grand $30 million arts complex in St. John's, so we will have a white elephant Arts and Culture Centres in St. John's, assuming there is not a double standard, which I very much suspect, there will be a white elephant Arts and Culture Centre over here on Prince Philip Drive in St. John's. There will be another one in Gander, a third in Grand Falls, a fourth in Corner Brook, a fifth in Stephenville, and a sixth in Labrador City, while we are going to have a new $30 million arts complex in St. John's. That's ludicrous. If we can't afford to continue ongoing provincial government subsidization of the six Arts and Culture Centres we have, how can we possibly talk about building a $30 million arts complex in downtown St. John's? It's ludicrous.

Here we are, talking about this grand, expensive, new downtown St. John's arts complex. We are talking about a mega-million dollar civic centre for St. John's, a multimillion civic centre for Corner Brook, yet we are going to withdraw provincial government subsidization for the six Arts and Culture Centres, five of which Premier Smallwood put in this Province in the late sixties and early seventies, and the sixth of which the Peckford administration put in Labrador City in the 1980's.

This is absolutely amazing, and what is really upsetting about it is that there have been responsible groups in Stephenville and in Gander who have been trying to deal with this government on a sensible basis for years now. In the case of Stephenville, the first approach was made by the Stephenville festival about five years ago to try to negotiate a mutually beneficial arrangement for local or regional control, but surely the minister opposite must realize that Arts and Culture Centres will not survive unless there is ongoing provincial government subsidization.

Now the minister seems to want to add something to this debate. I hope he has just realized that what he said a few minutes ago was wrong and now indicates a definite intention to provide the necessary provincial government subsidization.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Before recognizing the hon. minister, I just want to, on behalf of all hon. members, welcome to the gallery twenty-one graduating students from Lumsden School Complex in Lumsden, in the district of Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. member has a great passion for the arts, as do I. I think she is being a little alarmist, though, in some of her comments, but that's okay. She is paid to be alarmist.

In June, 1992, if the hon. member would bear with me, the plan that was released, the Strategic Economic Plan, she wasn't asleep; she has read it. She has studied it, I am sure. There is nothing new in what we are attempting to do.

Action item 71: Transfer administration and control of the Arts and Culture Centres to appropriate regional or community organizations.

MS. VERGE: Not with withdrawing provincial subsidization.

MR. FUREY: Hear me out, now.

In here we are talking about a review. Are there community organizations out there that can use these facilities better? I taught theatre in high school. I can tell you, it was very difficult for me to get young people into the Arts and Culture Centre in Stephenville. It was really difficult.

MS. VERGE: It is worse now.

MR. FUREY: Well it may well be worse, but I can tell you it had nothing to do with politics. It had nothing to do with political parties. It had everything to do with the rule books, the rules that they were organized under, and the cost to operate these centres. It was very difficult, and I can tell you we paid every time, in Stephenville Crossing where I taught, every time our theatre group went there we paid. We were good enough that we generated enough revenues to pay all our bills and look after everything, but we were lucky; we were one of the fortunate ones.

These centres should be opened and really used by community groups all over the Province. They shouldn't be just these elite little centres that are closed off. Now they have opened up over the years; I will admit that, but all we are saying here is that if the opportunity is there for community organizations, councils, towns, cities, or whomever, to take these over, and they can do it and show that it is feasible, and that they can do it and show that they can break even or make money, that is great. We would like to see that done.

The Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island explains to me that even in the proposals from Stephenville and elsewhere we, through the cultural affairs division, will still be tenants. We will pay whenever we bring in events from -

AN HON. MEMBER: Winnipeg Ballet.

MR. FUREY: The Winnipeg Ballet, or wherever, to use these facilities. We will be tenants then. We will be paying into that community that owns that facility. So don't be alarmed by that kind of thing.

There is a very interesting proposal on the table now from Stephenville. One came in in a very preliminary fashion - I gave it a cursory look - a couple of days ago from Gander. Are these proposals the right way to go? We would like to look at them and see whether in fact they are good proposals. It's just in line with the Strategic Economic Plan which is two years old. Action item 71. Now we are giving life to it in the Budget, that is all we are doing.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, the Strategic Economic Plan is really just a political manifesto. There is a major section of that document devoted to economic opportunities in the arts and culture. I commend the authors of the report for recognizing the economic value of the arts.

There is no supporting rationale for action item whatever it is about the government divesting itself of Arts and Culture Centres, but nevertheless, as I've explained before, that is an approach that I personally support, because not only do I see interest among arts groups and community organizations in cooperating in the running of Arts and Culture Centres, not only do I not know about ideas for improving access to the Arts and Culture Centres and better use of them and higher box office receipts, but I am aware of the approaches that the Stephenville Festival and the town of Stephenville, and not as aware, but somewhat aware, of the approach of the town of Gander in response to an overture of the Member for Gander.

What disturbs me is the notion that the government is intending to down load these cultural centres on municipalities or local organizations and withdraw provincial support in three years; if transfer to regional authorities is done properly, and an adequate level of provincial government subsidization is maintained, I think we can all enjoy benefits from a new administrative arrangement. But members opposite are kidding themselves if they think that any council or local board of volunteers can make up for the $5 million annual operating deficit for Arts and Culture Centres. More than half of that is attributable to the St. John's Arts and Culture Centre, which is by far the largest and the highest staffed in the Province. The annual net operating deficit of the other Centres averages $400,000 or $500,000.

Yes, the Stephenville group's council, Stephenville Festival and so on, can do a better job of running the Stephenville Arts and Culture Centre than the provincial government, but not if they don't have provincial government subsidization at the level that it is now being provided. The Stephenville Arts and Culture Centre thrives when the Stephenville Festival is on in the summer, and it is the Festival personnel who run the box office, despite a recent attempt for that successful arrangement to be scuttled with a more expensive government staff.

The Stephenville Festival is now going into its sixteenth season. It has survived against all kinds of obstacles put in its way by the provincial government, past and present administrations. The volunteers who make up the Stephenville Festival board and the few staff they have have done a magnificent job of mounting a festival year after year attracting visitors and tourists from far outside Newfoundland and Labrador.

The notion that that facility will be turned over to a group in Stephenville, the council or some other group, and cut loose from provincial government subsidization, is very frightening. There is no way the Festival would be able to continue there, or other performances take place there. Basically the building would have to be turned over to another and more lucrative use, such as gambling, or it would have to be boarded up the way other buildings on the Harmon Complex are boarded up.

Now, Chairperson, to think that the government might give up on the Stephenville Arts and Culture Centre or the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre and then go into a $30 million grand arts complex in St. John's, I mean who's going to pay for the annual operating costs of that? The government couldn't even pay for the rent for the museum at Murray Premises last year. Has the government thought this through? To me it seems ludicrous. So when I read that there was going to be a major review during 1994-95 of the operation and use of Arts and Culture Centres I thought, well thank goodness, at least the approach announced by the previous minister of a three year phase-out of provincial government subsidization is being rethought. So I say to the new acting minister, the former minister, it's high time that there was a major review done. It's high time that the government heeded the recommendations of its own arts policy committee which it's had now for four years. It's high time the government took seriously what artists and arts organizations are saying and it's past due time that the government made a responsible, productive approach to overtures that have been made for five years or more by the Stephenville Festival for improved administration and use of the Stephenville Arts and Culture Centre.

Now, Chairperson, I hope the Member for Stephenville is going to participate in this debate because I know the Member for Stephenville has been a supporter of the Stephenville Festival and the Stephenville Arts and Culture Centre. Even though the Member for Stephenville might grudgingly go along with the Premier's crazy scheme for privatizing Hydro, I can't imagine that the member would participate in a government decision to cut loose a Stephenville Centre and withdraw provincial government subsidization because I think the Member for Stephenville appreciates the value of the Stephenville Festival and the necessity for the festival to have the Arts and Culture Centre facility.

Now the Stephenville Festival does have alternatives, there are some other facilities in Stephenville but not nearly as good or appropriate. Then there are people in other places who are eyeing the Stephenville Festival but that festival was created and built in Stephenville and I'd like to see it stay in Stephenville but that'll be possible on a proper basis only if the provincial government provides adequate support both for the continued operation of the Arts and Culture Centre and for the festival itself. Now the festival has had to endure knock after knock, last year a major cut in it's meagre government grant, despite the fact that the much touted Strategic Economic Plan specifically identifies tourism and culture as among the very few growth opportunities for our Province and despite the fact that the Strategic Economic Plan in the same section, points to the Stephenville Festival.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the hon. member - it is 4:00 p.m. and I'll read the questions for the motion for adjournment at 4:30 p.m.

The first question is, I'm not satisfied with the answer to the question to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations concerning the ISP: The hon. Member for Kilbride.

I'm not satisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister of Health concerning nursing cuts at Western Memorial Hospital, Corner Brook, and the report of the assessment of the hospital the Premier directed last July: The hon. Member for Humber East.

I'm not satisfied with the answer to my question to the Minister of Health concerning Harbour Breton Hospital: The Member for Ferryland and the Opposition party whip.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: I know my hon. colleague from Stephenville wants to have an opportunity to answer some of the questions and -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Well, you wouldn't give me the courtesy a few minutes ago to get up and answer some of the questions that were thrown at me by your colleagues, so you sit there and you listen to me now and listen to the hon. Member for Stephenville.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying that my hon. female colleague across the floor tends to confuse me. She stood in this House no more than half-an-hour ago and ridiculed the government and the Minister of Health. She accused him of laying off eight nurses in Corner Brook.

MS. VERGE: Nine.

MR. REID: Nine, and she has the audacity to stand in this House and complain now about the possibility of not being able to fund Arts and Culture Centres. My dear, you have your priorities sort of mixed up as far as I am concerned; you have your priorities sort of mixed up.

I ask you, the hon. member, why should the residents of Carbonear who don't have an Arts and Culture Centre, or the people living in Lumsden or the people living in St. Anthony, have to pay for an Arts and Culture Centre in Corner Brook, St. John's, Gander, I don't care where it is, from taxpayers dollars? Why should I, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs have to stand in this House on a daily basis and be ridiculed, and ministers before me, and I will go back to when you were a minister, and be ridiculed because governments have no other choice but to cut funding to certain programs?

Why should we, as the administrators of this Province, have to listen sometimes to the tripe that comes from people who as far as I am concerned have no consideration other than a political consideration, when they stand in the House like you did and complain about nine nurses being laid off in Corner Brook and half-an-hour after, get up and ridicule the minister because we are not going to keep the Corner Brook Arts and Culture Centre. Well I don't know what my government's policy is on Arts and Culture Centres, but as far as I am concerned, I am more interested in keeping hospital beds open and nurses working and teachers working than I am in Arts and Culture Centres.

Mr. Chairman, I find it sort of amusing because in the last eight months I have had the honour of opening three stadiums in this Province. There was one in Port au Choix, one in Harbour Breton and one in Wesleyville, and, do you know how they are operated? Let me tell the hon. members how they are operated. They are operated by funds created in the communities that they serve. The operating costs of the Harbour Breton stadium is borne by the people who live in Harbour Breton and in the area, and I have no problems with that, none whatsoever.

The people of Wesleyville and that area down there, put their money on the table every year so that they can operate a stadium for the use of the children who are in the area and for the adults as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Lumsden.

MR. REID: Lumsden uses it, the member tells me - and you are paying for it but we helped you to put it there, but you, you parents are paying for it on a regular basis; so I ask the question, but let me go beyond that. I was in Stephenville, I have been in Stephenville two or three times this year and the Mayor and the council, on a number of occasions have said to me: Mr. Reid, we think that we can run the Arts and Culture Centre in Stephenville more economically than you can, as a government, and we want to try it. What's wrong with letting them try it? More power to them, pat them on the back and say: Thank God, we have communities around this Province who are able to stand on their own two feet and say: we don't need all that much from government, we can do it alone; and congratulate Wesleyville and the Harbour Bretons and the Port au Choixs of this Province, congratulate them.

There is no Arts and Culture Centre, I will guarantee you in Wesleyville. There is no Arts and Culture Centre in Salmon Cove, Perry's Cove or Kingston. There would have been one in Carbonear, if hon. members on that side had their way back in 1988 that would have been a burden on the taxpayers of Carbonear and the whole area.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react to some of the comments that my hon. friend from Burin - Peninsula West made a few minutes ago when he was up talking about Burin, and it has to do with the bill basically, because it has to do with the finances of the Province in general, and I say to my hon. colleague from Burin - Placentia West, he should be thankful that he has a Burin in his district because Burin pays its own way. The Burin Town Council has been paying its own way for years, they are still not up to $328 a household, which means that every cent it gets in water and sewerage and every cent it gets in - right, Mr. Hodder? Every cent it gets in water and sewerage, every cent it gets in roads, anything it wants it has to pay 100 per cent for. Thank God that there are still a few communities around the Province in that situation.

Now only is it in that situation by paying its share, and paying, I guess, more than its share, places in my district and in your districts and around the Province that are finding it hard, at least it is putting a few dollars into the coffers of the provincial government so that we can dish out a few dollars to help a few communities around the Province.

I'm assuming, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is against a St. John's arts centre. I don't know much about the St. John's art centre other than the fact of what I've read in the paper and I've heard, and so I'm assuming she is against it. Can I ask her also - I'm not going to give her the chance to get up now and say yes or no, but later on maybe, tomorrow or another day, she might be able to tell me. I'm assuming she is also against the Corner Brook 1999 Winter Games. Because if she is against the Corner Brook Sportsplex that she was talking about a few minutes ago she is against the 1999 Winter Games. Because without that sports facility in Corner Brook, which is going to cost a lot of money, Corner Brook and Newfoundland will not be able to avail of the 1999 Winter Games.

I'm going out next Thursday, can I tell your people in Corner Brook that you don't support me? I wish you would come out and say that because right now, at the present time, I'm debating how much money from the infrastructure program I'm going to give or we are going to give or the federal government is going to give to Corner Brook to start that complex. If you as the Member for Humber East are not - or from Humber, I should say - in favour of it, maybe I should know about it. Because I'm going to tell you right now, that if you are not in favour of it and the people in the town and the city are not in favour of it, I can certainly use a few dollars in my district.

I will finish up by saying that some time ago I announced to the House that there were some 114 communities in the Province that were in a bit of financial difficulty in regards to the Newfoundland Financial Corporation. I will say to you that surprisingly enough, and pleasantly, I suppose, because I feel quite good about it, a large number of these communities that were back in January in some financial difficulty have found their way clear now to pay off a large portion of that amount of money. It is almost coming in on a continual basis. I suppose with the help from the municipal operating quarterly grant - my hon. critic on the other side knows what I'm talking about here - that is helping them and it is helping them as well, and the fact that I've offered a four year repayment plan for those which just can't meet these commitments this year. I'm really pleased.

The media today asked me about that question and I thought I should bring it up and let my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House understand that municipalities are taking that responsibility and getting that particular financial problem straightened out. By doing that I'm hoping then that I'm going to be able to deliver more money around the Province through the infrastructure program under the capital works guise.

Mr. Chairman, that is the basic -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Yes, I will just be a second. I just want to clarify a point that the Member for Humber East mentioned a few minutes ago. I think you mentioned the Cabot Legacy, how will we ever afford to operate the arts centre for the Cabot Legacy? I think you talked about how will we ever afford to operate the arts centre which we propose to build on the 500th -

MS. VERGE: If you can't afford to continue subsidizing the six Arts and Culture Centres (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, but this isn't an Arts and Culture Centre we are building.

MS. VERGE: It is an arts complex.

MR. FUREY: Let me tell you what it is.

MS. VERGE: An art gallery and a museum and an archives.

MR. FUREY: Exactly. We operate a museum, Stand Alone. There are current dollars that are already factored into the base of the budget for that. We have an archives system which we have a base budget on current dollars for, and we operate a provincial arts complex through the university. Now, what we are suggesting is that the three of those would come together and the economies of scale would build in savings for us. On the capital side, we are proposing that that be a gift from the Government of Canada to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to celebrate the 500th Anniversary. Those discussions are underway.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: So, the operating dollars - I don't understand your logic to say you can't do this, therefore you can't do that. That is pretty convoluted logic actually, and while you are on your feet you might want to also - perhaps the hon. member would tell us, indeed, if she is against the civic centre for Corner Brook. We, on this side, are looking at it in a very positive light and would love to see it done. I can't believe my ears when I hear the hon. member say she would be against the civic centre for Corner Brook!

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

MS. VERGE: The Member for Carbonear, the Minister for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, are simply being mischievous. The Member for Carbonear doesn't seem to have much appreciation for Arts and Culture Centres. He indicated that if the government can't have Arts and Culture Centres in every single community in the Province, then the Provincial Government shouldn't be subsidizing the six that we have. That seems to be his approach. Now, he failed to mention, perhaps he forgot, that when he campaigned for election in 1989 in Carbonear district, he promised that, if elected, he would provide an Arts and Culture Centre for Carbonear because, at the time, there was an active community of citizens in Conception Bay North lobbying for an Arts and Culture Centre for Carbonear.

Now, Chairperson, how could anyone ask if I support the civic centre for Corner Brook and the 1999 Canada Winter Games for Corner Brook? I was a member of the Peckford government that made the arrangements for the 1999 Canada Winter Games in Corner Brook.

Now, Chairperson, in 1988 the Peckford government traded with other provinces and gave up our turn to host Canada Summer Games in 1997 in favour of being in place to host Winter Games in 1999, and furthermore, Chairperson, we decided then that we wanted the Winter Games for the Corner Brook area to boost Marble Mountain, to boost cross-country skiing and to enhance the great tourist potential of Corner Brook, the Humber Valley, and the Bay of Islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a great member!

MS. VERGE: That's right, what a great member! Of course, I support the Canada Winter Games for Corner Brook and, of course, I support the necessary facilities. Now, Chairperson, I underline the word, necessary, because I think, in lining up capital funding, and constructing facilities, we have to be mindful of the fact, which I know the Minister of Treasury Board appreciates only too well, that capital cost is the easy part. The hard part is the annual operating cost thereafter.

Chairperson, I attended the public meeting in Corner Brook earlier this winter when the proposed plan and the site for the civic centre were unveiled - very impressive. There is a tremendous team of citizens working on the civic centre project. There are fund-raisers in place and they are about to have the draw for a $1 million lottery which has been extremely successful, the largest private lottery undertaken in all of Canada. Of course, governments are in the lottery business in a big, big way, but the Corner Brook Civic Centre lottery, the $1 million lottery, is the largest ever private lottery mounted in Canada. At least, that is the way I understand it.

MR. BAKER: That is the $120-dollar ticket.

MS. VERGE: One hundred and twenty dollar tickets. If the Minister of Finance would like to have a ticket, right after the House gets out I will be glad to sell him one, and I extend that offer to all other members. Perhaps the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, my good, good friend, would like to buy from me a $120 ticket for the Corner Brook Civic Centre lottery? He has been a very lucky individual.

MR. EFFORD: I will discuss it over dinner.

MS. VERGE: Over dinner - I will take him up on that offer, too. That is a very good arrangement.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you going to order for her, chicken or fox?

MS. VERGE: Now, Chairperson, what I am simply saying is that we have six Arts and Culture Centres and we have incurred the capital cost of those facilities. We have had the Provincial Government operating them for several years. There are problems obvious with the current method of operating and administering. Some of these problems were documented in the Wells administration's Arts Policy Report, a report the current administration commissioned soon after taking office in 1989, but the government has failed to address those problems.

Yes, there can be improvements; yes, there can be greater efficiencies; yes, it is a good idea to decentralize control of Arts and Culture Centres but, for heaven's sake, you have to provide ongoing annual Provincial Government subsidization. You can't expect a municipality, you can't expect a group of volunteers making up a board, to take on the responsibility for making up the approximately $5 million annual operating deficit on the Arts and Culture Centres. Now, as I pointed out before, the St. John's Arts and Culture Centre is by far the largest of the six we have in the Province, and accounts for more than half of the government's subsidization.

Now, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology also mischievously asked me about my views on the planned 1997 arts complex for downtown St. John's. I realize the facility is intended to house a museum, the archives, and the provincial art gallery, and I see the inadequacy of the present facilities for those purposes, but moving the MUN art gallery out of the St. John's Arts and Culture Centre is not going to save the overhead of those facilities, because those facilities will still be in that mausoleum over on Prince Philip Drive. Moving the archives out of the Colonial Building is not going to save the cost of the overhead of the basement of the Colonial Building because I would hope we are going to continue owning and looking after the Colonial Building.

Chairperson, you know, surely the President of Treasury Board knows, that the annual operating cost for the provincial art gallery and the museum and the archives is going to go up when they are all combined and put in a new $30 million building. It will be more real estate for the government to maintain and heat and light, so obviously you have to be projecting annual subsidization for the grand new arts complex, and all I am trying to say is that we have to live within our means, and before we take on additional facilities, as much as we would all like to have them, whether they're sports complexes or civic centres, or arts complexes, we have to establish our priorities and project a realistic and a responsible budget.

Chairperson, I think I have probably said enough on this subject, and some of my colleagues here are chomping at the bit to get into the Interim Supply debate, so I am going to sit down.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take a few minutes to respond to the Member for Humber East, who put a certain kind of picture - she painted a picture of the lack of support, and the lack of this, and the lack of that, when it comes to the Stephenville Festival, and any Arts and Culture Centres.

Mr. Chairman, it is fair to say that it is the furthest thing from the truth. As a matter of fact, this government is undertaking some major initiatives in a whole range of areas, in probably the most challenging times in our history - major challenging times in our history. And, you know, it's not easy - all of these issues are very complicated. But let me assure the member that on any of the Arts and Culture Centres, the Province is only going to, in my understanding - and specifically, for Stephenville, nothing is going to happen unless we are able to negotiate an arrangement with the councils, with the local organizations, that they have to be acceptable to the arrangement.

We shouldn't rule out the fact that some of the local councils, or regional bodies, may have a proposal that they may just want to take the whole facility over, and if they do, and if they only want a certain amount of assistance, or they want this or they want that, then we shouldn't rule it out. They may come to us and say: We want to take it off your hands. They may want to do this; they may want to do that, but it's all in the stage of discussion and it is a very worthwhile discussion that is happening now.

In the Bay St. George area, the Stephenville Arts and Culture Centre is going to have a very bright future. The Stephenville Festival is going to have a very bright future. The festival has had its knocks but it is a surviving organization. It is working hard and its board of directors have a very big plan again for this coming summer season. There are a range of initiatives that they are now undertaking and doing that I think are going to see it planned for the long term.

One of the things that the Stephenville Festival hasn't done, unfortunately - and they're starting to recognize it, as well as government - is plan for a long term strategy to develop the festival. We have discussed that with them and they are looking at now applying for some funding to assist in a development plan for the future.

I think the festival is extremely important to the Province's cultural promotion, to its cultural attraction and we are going to see some initiatives occur in the next number of months that I think will make it very clear that the festival is more than surviving, that it has a very bright future. We are also trying to work with them to help them move ahead. They've run into some problems, not of anybody's making, it's just that when you're trying to run an organization like that, it is very difficult - it's not all black and white, it's a bit grey in some areas.

I assure you that there is a lot of work ongoing right now back and forth with the festival board. I'm talking to them every week as to what they're looking at for their season, what they're looking at for the long term, how important the festival is to the area and to the Province.

The arts and culture centre - in the same way, we are involved with discussions with the town council and with regional bodies including the festival to see what is possible to do to make it easily accessible, more accessibility for the festival of four other groups in the area that want to use the arts and culture centre.

Part of the problem with the arts and culture centres is that there are so many rules, guidelines and costs that local groups are not using it anymore because it's too expensive or it's to this or it's too that. So what we're trying to figure out is what is the best approach. I don't think there will be any subsidy taken away unless the local group feels that they are comfortable with where they want to take it. So it may be a pilot program at the end of it, we're not sure yet. We are in discussion stages but I think in the next number of weeks, and hopefully, in a short period of time, in the Stephenville area we will have a proposal that is acceptable not only to the Province but acceptable and wanted by the Stephenville Town Council, regional councils, the festival board, other groups and organizations such the Rotary Club and all kinds of other groups that use the arts and culture centre.

The arts and culture centres, I think, can have a much livelier role in the Province. I think they can be very vibrant centres. So there is nothing wrong with, no harm in, discussing the role of the arts and culture centres. There is no harm in looking at other ways to run them, other ways to administer them and more effective ways to get organizations and individuals into these centres.

One of the interesting proposals that has come forward from the festival association out our way, is to look at the arts and culture centre in Stephenville and also look at making it part of a museum or using part of it as a museum along with the arts and culture centre. It's a nice idea. Instead of building another building it's using the existing facility. That only came in, in the last couple of weeks, that idea being floated around. It is a very interesting process and I hope that we're going to see some positive decisions on it in the near future, but I say to the member that it is being done in the vein of totally trying to find a better way to do something. I think that's the effort being made, that's the work that the officials, the director of cultural affairs and so on, they're working on it from that end of it trying to find a better way to see if we can get more effective use from our cultural centres, especially in regards to the one that is in the Stephenville area. I think if that is done a lot of the problems that the Stephenville Festival has run into when it comes to their cost of operation and their box office problems and everything else, that if we can resolve the problems and have them participate in the decision making that goes on out there, then I think that will help resolve the problem for the future. It may help form a model as to what we can do with other centres in the Province.

I'm pretty optimistic that can happen. I believe the process that we are into is a very good one. It is one that we are very hands on with. We are going to be paying careful attention to what they are doing. We've also committed to working with the Festival to plan for the long term because $20,000 or $30,000, that shouldn't be the issue we argue about when it comes to the Festival. It should be: Where do you want to be in the future? How much of an impact is it having on tourism in the Province? Are the airlines helping? What is going on? Those issues the Festival has to get more involved in and we are hoping that they will.

I think that the process will see them more involved. I think they are now getting more aggressive as to their own organization and wanting to plan for the future. We are looking forward to the efforts that they are making. The Department of Tourism and Culture is working with them now, along with the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, to try to find ways to help them, the Festival itself, come along and promote themselves, and get over the little problems that cause so many headaches for a volunteer group.

They've done an outstanding job over the last number of years. Many members of this House of Assembly have been at the Stephenville Festival during these past summers. I tell you that it is quite an event. There is quite a number of events. I think it deserves more recognition. A number of approaches are being examined to get them more involved and to help them. I say that to you. We are looking forward to hearing some positive comments that the Member for Humber East can make to help that happen. Any discussion that she wants to have on that I would be quite open to it, as a matter of fact. I look forward to seeing her at the Festival this summer, as a matter of fact. Maybe we can do a joint press conference to promote all that later on.

MS. VERGE: You bring the money.

MR. AYLWARD: I will bring the money? Yes, right, thanks a lot. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate it.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It now being 4:30 p.m. we move on to the Late Show. The first question is by the hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations questions surrounding the Province's Income Supplementation Program and the subsequent response from the federal government, based upon a ministerial statement that the minister presented the previous day. My question surrounded, number one, the federal-provincial team that had been established, and number two, what were the twelve elements that he referred to in his ministerial statement.

When I say I'm not satisfied with the answer given, I'm not satisfied from one point of view, in terms of the detail that the Province has in terms of when this program will be implemented, what will be the elements of such a program, can we expect a deadline, and the other point of which I was not totally satisfied with the answer given was: when will the Province begin a public consultation process on the Income Supplementation Program?

Mr. Speaker, we have seen yesterday, in the Province of New Brunswick that a guaranteed income plan was unveiled by the Province of New Brunswick and the federal government, one that dealt with people between the ages of fifty and sixty-five, who had been chronically either unemployed or chronically on welfare. The details of that plan talked about providing $12,000 a year tax-free I believe, which amounted to approximately $15,000 salary, to people who fit in that category, to do work for a period of not less than six months, work related to community service, such as walking trails, those sorts of activities.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the minister supplied me today in this House, upon request yesterday, with the twelve elements that the federal/provincial team is working on, so I would like to ask the minister today, or I guess point out, and hopefully draw out from the minister, what the Province's real plans are? On December 14 or 15, they made known to the public what the ISP program was, they released it in a 53-page document. Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, early in January the mid part of January, I received a fuller document, a larger document, totalling 125 pages which gave more detail of what the impacts of the Province's Income Supplementation Program would be upon the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would just like to get to the twelve elements which the minister tabled today. One legal assessment of the first element he has tabled was legal assessment, which is one element. Program design, what will it look like? On program design, can the minister explain, will the program be like he and his government presented it, will it be more like what was presented in New Brunswick, will it be presented in a pilot fashion? What groups will be affected? Will it be piloted in the construction industry, within the fishing industry, amongst those who are receiving social assistance only or amongst, like they did in New Brunswick, a group of people who were chronically on social assistance or chronically upon UI or dependent upon those.

Also, another element he has tabled here today deals with the interface of the Income Supplementation Program and I believe CAP, the federal government's Canada Assistance Plan is that, where it enters into the 50/50 cost share in social services, am I correct there? So the details of that and how will that be released to the people of this Province, because it is and will be a socially, sensitive proposal as the government said in their own document, and people have a right I believe, a fundamental right, with such radical change to have an input, and as stakeholders and as recipients of this new program have a fundamental right to participate more fully in the changes that are being brought about.

The other aspect, the element that he tabled here today and that I would like to mention, is the interface of the UI program in this Province with the proposed Income Supplementation Program. That issue alone, Mr. Speaker, has serious, serious ramifications and consequences for this Province. Again I say to the minister, and to his government, what will be the impact upon UI, what will be the period of interface between UI and the Province's Income Supplementation Program, what levels are we talking about and does the minister really believe that there are wealthy UI recipients out there today?

These are contentious issues, socially important issues, that will affect dramatically the levels of income and will affect dramatically -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

I just want to clue up by saying that UI and ISP will affect dramatically the way that people in this Province, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will live their lives, the type of lifestyle they will have in comparison to what it is now.

Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to go into a little more detail in terms of the question because I think everybody in this House of Assembly and many people in the Province who had taken an interest in looking at the Income Supplementation Proposal that was released publicly just before Christmas, are left with many more questions than answers because it is still in the preliminary proposal stage. I think I would like to make a couple of comments before I try to deal with the three or four items of the twelve that the hon. Member for Kilbride asked specific questions about. There are a couple of encouraging things in this that all of us should take note of.

The New Brunswick pilot project that was announced yesterday, while there are certain components of it that are somewhat different, there is a very strong signal in that for all of us, that the federal government has indeed bought into the notion that the basic driving force behind the development of the Income Supplementation Proposal by the Economic Recovery Commission here in our Province, of moving to an incentive and away from a disincentive type of system is very strongly evident in the pilot project.

I think the hon. member would agree, in looking at it, that the basis for that, the idea that you would have a basic income guaranteed, that you would do some work in return for that basic income, but then in the other six months, for example, I think the hon. member would agree with me, that both of our understanding of the criteria in New Brunswick, which is being tested now as we speak, that they will implement that program and see if it can be part of the overall national reform, that in the other six months that those same people, as I understand it, are going to be eligible to work at other jobs, if they can get them, and not have any of their original benefit clawed back.

I think that is the whole idea that we are trying to put forward in the income supplementation proposal, that we are saying its time has come in the country when people need a certain basic income level, which is in that pilot project which was proposed in the Income Supplementation Proposal, they need certain levels, but then the great question was: Will I go out and try to better myself because by doing so all of the current rules leave you susceptible to some decline in your basic support level, and that's the big signal that is in the New Brunswick experiment that they will go through over the next little while.

The other thing that I would like to speak of just generally, if I could, is the idea of the unemployment insurance changes that we have discussed in this House on some occasions before that were announced in the federal Budget.

I want to take the time to point out again that one of the driving forces behind the provincial government endorsing and supporting the proposal put together by the Economic Recovery Commission was that every bit of evidence that we had gleaned over the last couple of years, both at the official and at the political level, was that those kinds of changes to the unemployment insurance system that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rely on very heavily were coming, and are going to continue into the future, so this might have only been round one this year.

What we know is that the changes not accompanied by any kind of basic income supplement, or anything else, which is what we asked for and proposed, that if there is going to be that there be a combination, that the lost income be replaced through some other form of supplementation. That hasn't occurred, but it is still on the agenda, something we are going to strive for very hard; but what it has done in the short term is left us another need that has to be filled in the short term while we look at the overall agenda, and that is some non-qualifiers, an increasing number of non-qualifiers who won't get the twelve weeks, and a gap of eight weeks of no income because the benefit period has been shortened. One of the things that we have to do immediately, before we can continue to pursue the longer term agenda, is try and fill that new gap which has been created, because the people need the money, and there is no doubt about that.

I think this experiment in New Brunswick, and one of the things that we will likely try to do in this Province with the education supplement, is to see if we can't target the group of people who have been left with a bigger income need as a result of the UI changes.

It is clear, in tabling the list of the twelve items today, these are the kinds of things that representatives of the federal government and the provincial government, the different departments that were outlined in the sheet that I tabled, will do further work on, because while the proposal was there in generality and in some specifics, as soon as they met it was realized that in these twelve areas there were still a number of questions that have yet to be answered before we could ever talk about implementation.

What we have agreed is that we will try to come up with some answers to these twelve question areas before we move into any kind of implementation mode. The questions also, in these twelve areas, and any others that people will have will be addressed. There will be an opportunity to address them publicly in the joint parliamentary group that will go around Newfoundland and Labrador, probably in the late part of this spring and early summer in terms of - and we expect that the federal group is made up of both sides of the House of Parliament. We'd expect there would be an opportunity for both sides of the House, of this Legislature, to have representatives go with them so we can all hear what the people have to say about Income Security Reform generally, in the country, with us being part of it and whether or not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. GRIMES: - the principles of the Income Supplementation Proposal can form part of that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this afternoon, in Question Period, I asked the Minister of Health to admit that nine nursing positions are about to be cut from Western Memorial Regional Hospital, including both the hospital and the O'Connell Centre at Corner Brook. The minister replied that he wasn't aware of exactly what's going on there but said something about the hospital board having to live within its budget. In making that statement, of course, the minister was acknowledging that ultimately the Provincial Government is responsible for patient care at health institutions, because it's the Provincial Government that sets operating funding, it's the Provincial Government that determines how many nurses and other health care workers look after patients in our institutions.

Since a couple of hours have passed since I asked the question, I am wondering if the minister can now give the House some definite information. I got my information from a good source, but the minister, undoubtedly, is in on much more than I am about health budget-setting and decision-making. I was told that the nine nursing positions being cut include two from obstetrics at the hospital in Corner Brook, two from long-term care at the hospital in Corner Brook and four from long-term care at the O'Connell Centre; the final position, according to my information, is in staff health.

Now, additionally, Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour knows, I have, for some weeks now, been trying to get from the minister the report of the assessment of aspects of management of Western Memorial Regional Hospital that the Premier personally directed last July. Now, the Premier made a show of telling people about that report. More recently, this winter, C.B.C. radio in Corner Brook asked the Premier about the report and he said he would have the minister release it. Now, Mr. Speaker, where is the report on Western Memorial Regional Hospital? Is it being hidden in the same place where the public libraries report was hidden for many months? Is it being hidden in the same place where the child welfare report was concealed for many months last year? Why is it, Mr. Speaker, with this government, that they hold on to reports until they're shamed into releasing them to the public or until somebody leaks them to us and we make them public? Where is the report on Western Memorial Regional Hospital that the Premier personally directed last summer, and why isn't the minister doing what the Premier said he would do by releasing it to the public? Will the minister please stand and tell us where the report is?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises more than one question. I am prepared to answer one but I do not know if it is appropriate to answer two. As far as the report is concerned, I will release it when I feel like releasing it, and if I feel like releasing it.

I want to come to the more important issue of the layoffs. Let me say that the Department of Health normally conducts operational reviews of hospitals from time to time and it did conduct an operational review of the Western Memorial. And also, Western Memorial, like every other hospital in the Province, is faced at the moment with living within a budget which has been assigned. Now, this year, we are living within a fixed budget, the same budget, basically, as we had last year. We know that employees have step increases, and the cost of supplies have gone up and so on, so if we are to live within a fixed budget, that means that there have to be some cuts here and there.

Let me say that as far as I know - and I don't know the precise details, but what has been done is in accordance, I believe, with the operational review that was conducted, which means that we are completely satisfied with what is going on and that these reductions that may be made are in accordance with what other hospitals and other places have to do as well, in order to live within the budget that is coming up.

So there is nothing particularly ominous about what is happening at Western Memorial. I understand that the union has been consulted, as is appropriate, and appropriate notices will be given out. And I think it is important that if there are going to be some layoffs, that they be done soon, because if they are done later and you have to save the same amount of money, it means you have to lay off even more, so I recommend that the hospital, if they have decided to issue lay-offs soon, they do so as quickly as possible. That is the appropriate procedure so that too many people won't be affected.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, if there is much more that I can say on this issue.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With reference to my questions to the Minister of Health today, I was far from satisfied with his anaemic response. In fact, he expressed a greater interest in doing crossword puzzles than taking an interest in caring for health in this Province.

The minister is very well aware, and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage is very well aware, that in 1989 when the Premier walked in on the floor of the hospital and promised funding to put in place a new hospital to replace what is now a fifty-five year old hospital, and the member went back, and went back again this year, and had the audacity to repeat it again, but people learn after awhile. You can only tell people misleading statements, partial truths, or 99.9 per cent untruths or whatever, for some time, and they catch on very quickly.

The minister is very well aware, and he received a letter over one month ago addressing some very, very, serious concerns in health care in the Province, and he sloughed it off with a laugh and a joke. I can tell you, it is no joke when a member of a family has to be a female patient on a male ward, and doesn't have the opportunity to be in a private room with her family and to die with some degree of dignity. I don't consider that a joking matter at all.

When a person in a family takes a heart attack and is taken to the hospital, and is on a stretcher in a corridor because there is only one heart monitor in the hospital, and one private room, and that person can't avail of a heart monitor to monitor his condition, that could be a near-fatal condition, it is not very funny at all. It is, in fact, less funny when this government puts more emphasis upon advertising and communications and transportation to the tune of almost $400,000 and they come out and take a report that is going to do everything to improve health care in this Province - a report that did not have any recommendations at all on the improvement of health care services in this Province. They took the map of Newfoundland and Labrador and drew seven lines on that map, geographical lines, and decided to have seven hospital boards with increased budgets to promote what a good job they are doing and less dollars for actual health care and reducing line ups in hospitals. Now, there are people still down in Harbour Breton, there are two doctors who hold clinics simultaneously in Harbour Breton and often forty patients or so come to these clinics. There is not enough room to line up inside so they have to line up outside on times in freezing conditions. I tell the minister that is not good enough in this day and age. That is entirely not good enough.

We have seen almost a doubling of the population since the hospital went there. In the last few years we have seen almost a 50 per cent reduction in staff in that hospital. We have three doctors, six nursing assistants, six nurses, four kitchen workers - thank God, they are not your kitchen workers. We have one laundry worker and a couple of housekeeping utilities. There are thirty-two permanent people there where there was once fifty to sixty people working there. The Member for Fortune - Hermitage is aware of the problems. There are only four other doctors in the whole district, from MacCallum to Rencontre that are served by that area. In fact if someone in their family had to be assigned to a nursing home they would have to go to Botwood, or even to Grand Falls. The Carmelite, I think, only as a limited number, even to Botwood, and for families to visit that area is a long drive and a long hike.

Absolutely nothing has been done to improve the health care services in that area in spite of commitments in the election campaign by the Premier when he stood on the floor of that hospital. All the minister could say is, Harbour Breton is in the lineup. We have not committed to do anything this year, and I say to the Member for Fortune - Hermitage that we have committed to do it in no particular year. That is what he said this afternoon here in the House. They are not giving any commitment, just to hoodwink the people with the expectation. You should tell it like it is. If you are going to be able to provide a service you tell them. Half the problem is that this government is not looking at spending its money in a most cost efficient manner.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has been spending quite a lot of money on hospitals. Recently we opened a hospital in Port Saunders. The mayor of the town was in to see me today and said thank goodness we've got a new hospital in Port Saunders. It's a tremendous hospital.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: We've got a new hospital in Burgeo that's opening up. We've got a long-term care unit in St. Lawrence and all the people there are very excited about these things that are going through, very excited. We have a chronic care centre in Forteau. Now the problem is that we've got so many of these things to do.

Right now, this coming year, we are working in Placentia. We're working in Bonnews Lodge and Brookfield Hospital. We've got a major renovation going to start in Gander. We're hoping to build a new long-term care institution in St. Anthony to replace the present one that's there. That's another quite a few million dollars in the lineup. We're finishing a clinic in Nain which is worth a lot of money. We're finishing the cancer treatment research foundation up here the road to help in the treatment of this serious disease.

So there's a lot going on and the lineup is tremendous. The people in Goose Bay want a new hospital. The Member for Stephenville wants a new hospital in Stephenville to serve his area. In Grand Bank we're hoping to be able to move the old hospital and join it on to Blue Crest or a similar situation to do it and we are under pressure to do that. In St. John's we have to close one of the institutions over time and that's going to cost us perhaps as much as $50 or $100 million. Harbour Breton is there as well wanting a hospital. Bonne Bay wants their hospital replaced, an old cottage hospital about the same vintage as the one in Harbour Breton.

There's a whole bunch of nursing homes that need to be fixed up. There's North Haven Manor in Lewisporte that needs to be fixed and changed for longer care. There's Carmelite House in Grand Falls which has to be fixed up. There's the Interfaith in Corner Brook that needs renovations and upgrading. There's the Pentecostal Home in Clarke's Beach which needs work done on it. There's St. Luke's here in St. John's that needs work done on it. There's Glenbrook which needs work done on it. There's the hospital in Twillingate which needs work done on it.

So, Mr. Speaker, we have lined up something like $300 million worth of work to be done in hospitals and we have to sort out the priorities. Harbour Breton is there too in the list and in due time we'll come to Harbour Breton and we'll do what's right. There's nobody denying the need in Harbour Breton. There is a need there and nobody is more sorry then I am about what's going on there, but we do not have $300 million to spend on hospitals this year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to remind hon. members again that we are not sitting tonight. The adjournment motion will not be defeated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: We will be calling the Supplementary Supply Bill that was introduced, the Motion was given today. We will be dealing with that tomorrow morning, so that's our plan for tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

According to our rules, the House now stands adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.