March 29, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLII  No. 22


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Premier concerning Hydro.

Last Tuesday in his Province-wide debate, and again in his opening statement at the beginning of the leaders' debate last Thursday on CBC television, the Premier, at that time, tried to link the privatization to his scheme to recall power from the Upper Churchill. When I challenged him on that point he admitted that it wasn't necessary to privatize Hydro, he will recall, and I stated that the recall could be done either by Newfoundland Power or by Hydro, as a Crown corporation and so on, and the Premier said yes.

Now, since that kind of debate would be centred, I guess, around Bill 2, the Electrical Power Control Act, I would like to ask him: Will he withdraw Bill 1, the privatization legislation, so that Bill 2, his legislation to recall the Upper Churchill power, can be thoroughly debated in this House, judged on its own merits by the people of Newfoundland, uncoloured by the massive public opposition to the privatization of Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To correct some misstatements, Mr. Speaker, I made clear, when I spoke on Tuesday night, that while the Privatization Act is not at all essential to the functioning of the Electrical Power Control Act - as a matter of fact when I introduced the Electrical Power Control Act here in the House I made it clear that it could stand on its own. It was good legislation on its own, but taken together with the Privatization Act it would be very, very beneficial for this Province. That position remains.

Mr. Speaker, they aren't one statute; they are two statutes. I have no doubt they will be voted on separately, and the Electrical Power Control Act should stand entirely on its own and be dealt with on its merits.

To the extent that the argument that the government had made that privatization would enhance our abilities and opportunities under the Electrical Power Control Act, that debate may well continue and people will have to judge that on its merits; but there will, of course, be a separate vote on the privatization matter.

Will the government withdraw the Privatization Act? No, the government doesn't intend to withdraw the Privatization Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about how complex this issue is. I want to refer the Premier to the draft legislation - very similar to our present Bill 2 - that he, as a member of Light and Power's Advisory Committee, presented to his colleagues on the Board of Directors of Newfoundland Power in 1986, when he said, `it would give' - that is the legislation `would give the company greater flexibility to access power generated by others at existing facilities.' Now, that, in fact, was precisely what Light and Power had instructed you to do as well, as the committee. In the opinion that Wells and Company, Barristers gave to Angus Bruneau, then CEO, the Premier wrote this, and I'd like him to confirm it for me, `To carry out such a purpose, the Public Utilities Board would have to be given power to investigate and hold hearings either of its own motion upon reference by the government or upon application of Hydro a PDD, Power Distribution District, Newfoundland Light and Power Company Limited, Light and Power or any other retailer of power.' Is that correct and is that accurate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Absolutely, and it's completely consistent with the present draft, EPCA that's before the House. It provides for an application by any retailer to seek a direction from the PU Board as to its future source of power. It enables the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to refer a matter to Hydro for hearing and for recommendations, it enables Hydro to do it on its own. It's completely consistent with the existing. Mr. Speaker, anybody who read the Electrical Power Control Act could see very clearly from all of the clear words, exactly what was the effect of that act. Anybody who wanted to read it could see it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for the answer. So even if the Premier is right, even if he is right, that it would be better to have a retailer at arms length from government to make the request to the Public Utilities Board. He knows there are existing private utilities in this Province that are already at arms length and could do the job. So I want to ask him, why not use Newfoundland Light and Power, an existing private electrical utility company, who wanted to try it in the first place, as he knows, why do you need to privatize Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is, you don't need to privatize Hydro but the real answer to the question is in the question itself, why not use Newfoundland Power? Government has no right to use Newfoundland Power or use anybody else. The idea is, we want to create a fair and proper management system of hydroelectric power in the Province. The Public Utilities Board would have the complete jurisdiction to do that. Any retailer of electrical power whether it was Hydro or Newfoundland Power or anybody else who might become a retailer, who needed power could have a right to ask the PU Board for direction as to what ought to be the source of that power. Government shouldn't be using anybody, government shouldn't be using people. That only tends to taint the process and, Mr. Speaker, that's part of the objective of proceeding the way in which we did. We thought it would be more beneficial to have it done this way and clearly have all parties involved at arm's length from the government so the government was not in any way a party.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary?

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Premier wouldn't try to twist words and use fancy footwork, I mean, nobody is talking about using the Newfoundland Power people, I just said to him a moment ago, in his own document of 1986, they wanted to do it in the first place. Now let me ask him this question. Let's assume, Mr. Speaker, for the moment, that the Premier's scheme to access the Upper Churchill Power would meet the test of a court challenge, let's assume that, and that is a big, big assumption; there also remains a small problem of getting the power to the Island; it is a question that hasn't been dealt with and I would like to get his comments on it. First of all, how much power would have to be recalled in a block in order to finance the construction of a transmission line, who would build that transmission line and what would it cost?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I knew all the numbers in detail a number of years ago, and I knew the numbers in detail two years ago when we were looking at it in terms of the discussion with Hydro Quebec. I don't have them off the top of my head but I can provide some estimates of what a transmission line would cost. Who would build it?... if, for example, Hydro were the corporation that asked for the right to access the power, then I assume they would also ask the PU Board for the right and authorization to build and maintain a transmission line and they would ask the government to give it access to a right of way to run a transmission line. The amount of power?... the Hydro experts have indicated that the optimum block would be about 800 megawatts and that's why that amount was the number that was being used.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who whould bear the cost?

PREMIER WELLS: The cost would be financed in the ordinary course, unless - and these were discussions that were underway at the time - the Government of Canada did the same for Newfoundland that it did for Manitoba and other provinces in aiding it with major transmission lines, and we would expect, Mr. Speaker, that a government, the Government of Canada, would recognize a major responsibility to do that, bearing in mind that the circumstances exist whereby this Province is in effect paying $800 million to $1 billion a year subsidy to another province. It would be a small contribution back to this Province. I've made the argument to the federal government along those lines.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It sounds like a familiar argument. I think I've heard it before, by the way. Anyway, I will get on with.... The Premier said he will try to get the information for the House. As I understand it we are looking at maybe adjourning on Thursday. I don't know what will happen after that. Will he guarantee or try to guarantee that he has it tabled before Thursday? I understand he is going away tonight and I don't know if he will back in the House tomorrow for Question Period or not. Does he plan to be here for Question Period?

PREMIER WELLS: My scheduled time back is 2:15 p.m. tomorrow. (Inaudible) Question Period (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: He may not be here. I would like him to fulfil that undertaking and hopefully get it to us before the House adjourns at least on Thursday for the Easter break, if that happens, if he can do it at all. I presume if he had it eight years ago it must be easily accessible.

Can I ask the Premier one final question, Mr. Speaker? Again it is part of the complexity of this whole thing. In 1986, in the documents that I have related to his legal opinion presented to Light and Power, he acknowledged - and again of course it is here contained in Bill No. 2, in the legislation, which I don't have right in front of me at the moment - that Quebec hydro would have to be compensated at least for any transmission or distribution facilities rendered unusable or surplus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: It is in the legislation and it is the Premier's own - well, it is, and I will show it to him afterwards, if he likes. As a result of recall power from the Upper Churchill. Given the amount of power that would have to be recalled to justify the cost of building a transmission line to the Province, has the Premier determined how much Hydro Quebec would have to receive in compensation and who would pay that compensation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There is nothing in either the original draft legislation done in 1986 or in the bill currently before the House that mentions Hydro Quebec. Not one word. Nowhere does it appear. This again, if anybody doubts the reasoning behind the course that the government followed in terms of avoiding debate and discussion in these terms, this is part of the reasoning behind it.

Mr. Speaker, that is general legislation giving the PUB the ability to manage the power resources of the Province in such a way as to ensure that priority is given to meeting the needs of the people of this Province. If the PUB were to order that Newfoundland Power was to divert some of its power that it generates in Bay Bulls - Big Pond, or in Mobile, to Newfoundland Hydro, and as a result a portion of their transmission line was rendered useless, then in fairness they should be compensated. Not for the full value of the transmission line, but for the unamortized value of the line to the extend that it was surplus to the needs and could not be otherwise used.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

PREMIER WELLS: I understand that, but nowhere was Hydro Quebec mentioned. Hydro Quebec is not mentioned either in the draft legislation done in 1986 or in the legislation before the House now.

MR. SIMMS: Would you like for me to table it for you?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, please do table it. Hydro Quebec as such was not mentioned in any of the legislation.

MR. SIMMS: Would you like for me to read it for you?

PREMIER WELLS: He may be reading from a legal opinion, a letter, or something.

MR. SIMMS: That is what I talked about.

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, the legislation. My statement is Hydro Quebec is not mentioned in any legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period should consist of clear questions and answers for the record.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this proposed legislation, incidentally is not totally new, if you look at Nova Scotia legislation there is a right to access power. If you look at Manitoba, New Brunswick - I have forgotten which ones now, four or five of the provinces.

MR. SIMMS: They are all there.

PREMIER WELLS: All of the provinces are there but not all of the provinces have such legislation. Some of them only have the right to access in the event of an emergency and others have the right to require the delivery of power to the distributer. Mr. Speaker, this is not unusual. It enables the proper management of hydro electric power in the Province and that is the objective.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier as well. This morning a group called Take Back The Power released the result of a province-wide poll on the privatization of Hydro conducted by Market Quest Research Group. Mr. Speaker, 627 people were polled and I believe that is a very high sample and would give the poll very high accuracy. Of the people polled, 80 per cent had made up their minds while only 20 per cent were undecided. Of the decided 79.1 per cent opposed the privatization of Hydro, Mr. Speaker, and only 20 per cent supported government's plan. Now, faced with that significant rejection by the people will the Premier now live up to the commitment he made on Province-wide television on Thursday night and withdraw the bill to privatize Hydro?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to withdraw the bill to privatize Hydro. The government intends to proceed with privatization of Hydro, but we also intend to make sure that the people of this Province are fully and properly informed as to all issues and the pros and cons of the proposal before any judgement as to their opinion or their support, or otherwise is made.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Thursday night the Premier pledged, on three separate occasions, to withdraw the bill if he did not have the support of the people of the Province to proceed. Now the Premier has clear evidence that the people massively have rejected the sale of Hydro.

I now ask the Premier, is he going to be a man of his word, or is he going to be, as many Newfoundlanders are beginning to realize, a man who you cannot trust?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of withdrawing the legislation. We have no intention of running helter-skelter from the hysteria created by the gross misrepresentations, much of it caused by the members opposite, some of it caused by others, and some of it legitimate in genuine concern of people that does need to be addressed.

The government intends to make sure that the people are fully and properly informed, and at that time the government will make its judgement as to whether it has an acceptable level of support to proceed or not, but the government's objective is to proceed with the privatization.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, of the 627 people polled by Market Quest Research, who were asked: Do you feel there should be a Province-wide vote to decide if Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized? 82.8 per cent said yes, 12.3 per cent no, and only 4.9 per cent were undecided. Clearly the people of Newfoundland don't trust the Premier or his government to make the right decisions for them.

If he won't withdraw the bill, will he make a commitment today to put the issue to the people of the Province in a referendum or in a plebiscite?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government has no intention of running helter-skelter because a group with a particular cause is participating in creating this kind of hysteria, and putting forward the proposition that they have conducted a poll and that the government should be guided by it.

I have stated very clearly the government's policy on the matter, and that remains.

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 Environment and Lands.

Madam Minister, the ATV regulations become effective April 1, 1994, in just three days. Since September you have repeatedly stated that there would be an education program to inform the people about ATV use and the new regulations. Could you inform this House why the education program has yet to start and why you have not followed through on your promise?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It started today.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: That's a great lot of notice for the public out there, I must say, Mr. Speaker.

Does the minister agree and/or condone a statement by a high official of the Department of Environment and Lands to a member of the ATV Association, which was: We will have no problem educating 100,000 people when we confiscate thirty or forty machines.

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

MS. COWAN: I have no knowledge of an official saying that, but I will tell you one thing we are not going to do, we are not going to use a minister to demonstrate it by turning the minister out on a wetland with an ATV, à la Charlie Power in the wilderness.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, a final supplementary.

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

I would like to say that the minister seems to be quite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: The minister seems to get quite agitated and irritated whenever the question of ATVs is brought up. I wonder is that because she is being forced to put this through the House, to implement these regulations at a given date because it is a pet project of the Premier?

I would like to ask the minister: You are not ready to proceed with these regulations. Your own department recommended that you defer the regulations until April 1, 1995. Will the minister now reconsider these poorly planned regulations and delay implementation for one year?

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

MS. COWAN: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when that gentleman looks at television and sees the advertising that is going to be on this weekend he is going to be embarrassed that he ever stood up in the House and appeared so ignorant.

Throughout this Province there are destroyed lands. If I appear agitated it is because it happens to be a subject that is extremely important to me as Minister of Environment, and I am proud that I happen to be Minister of Environment in a government that is concerned about the environment, concerned about the use of ATVs, and very proud to be the Minister of Environment who is bringing it in on the first of April, regardless of whether you think we should or not.

Mr. Speaker, again I think the gentleman is showing a lack of responsibility that should be absolutely abhorrent in anyone who lives in this century.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier pertaining to an article in today's Evening Telegram - I notice the Premier's conversation with the Minister of Finance - I have a question for the Premier. I just refer the Premier to today's Evening Telegram where the headline says: "Fisheries cuts could go deeper."

I want to ask the Premier, the report that says that he, Brian Tobin, Lloyd Axworthy and three other federal ministers were members of an ad hoc federal-provincial committee that recommended the number of fishermen in the Province be reduced to 6,700. I want to ask the Premier, did he participate in the federal committee? Did in fact the committee recommend a reduction to 6,700 when really the Cashin report just a few months ago recommended 13,000? What was the basis of your recommendation, if indeed the committee recommended such numbers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Province created a committee of which I was the chair, committee of ministers, and there is a federal committee chaired by Mr. Massé. I met with them - all of the ministers didn't - I met with the federal ministers, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Dingwall, Mr. Axworthy, and Mr. Massé, about three weeks or so ago in Ottawa, I would think. I was pressing them to get on with this and we put in place a proposal for the two governments, and together with people involved in the industry, to have an involvement in developing a response that would deal with the three key issues: compensation for people affected, a restructuring of the fishery in the future, and a rebuilding of the economy of the Province in order to provide job opportunities for people who would be displaced from the fishery.

Since that time officials have been working on developing an approach. An approach was developed and went forward to the federal Cabinet for consideration in principle. Mr. Speaker, I can only say to you that I hope in the not too distant future the federal and provincial governments will together be making a formal statement spelling out the position with respect to it. Until that time I'm not in a position to discuss any details of the proposal.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it quite interesting that the Premier did not deny the numbers of 6,700. He didn't deny the committee had recommended that, so to me it seems pretty obvious that that is indeed what the committee is recommending.

Let me ask the Premier: Did the committee recommend a similar reduction in the number of fishermen in other Atlantic provinces, and what were the numbers? Or were you, Mr. Premier, up in Ottawa again offering to sacrifice more from Newfoundland than would be expected from other provinces, such as we saw with the income supplementation program and the unemployment insurance changes? Are you up again offering -

AN HON. MEMBER: A sacrificial lamb.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - this Province as a sacrificial lamb, as the member says, offering that we cut out thousands and thousands of fisherpeople from the industry, when perhaps there is no need at all of recommending it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: Were you up there offering more lamb? That was the question.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Such as you did with the income supplementation program.

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) question, I would be quite happy to answer it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, the Premier didn't hear the question?

PREMIER WELLS: I just heard a bunch of garbage (inaudible).

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Premier, perhaps the Premier thinks eliminating 15,000 or 20,000 people from the fishery is garbage, but I don't, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that right now. I don't think that at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The question I asked the Premier was: did the committee recommend a similar massive reduction in the number of fisherpeople in other Atlantic provinces? What were the numbers? Or were you up in Ottawa once again offering your federal cousins a greater reduction of numbers from this Province than would be expected from other provinces? Is that what you were doing? Were you up there flying by the seat of your pants again, making policy on your whims, without having the support and consultation of your Cabinet, and in particular your Minister of Fisheries?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That last part is the garbage that I was talking about, and I will ignore it because it is just that, garbage. As to the first question, no, Mr. Speaker, I stated very clearly that the two governments will, I hope, in the not too distant future, be making a clear statement on what the present circumstances are and what is proposed. At that time we will make a full statement to the people of this Province.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The provincial Minister of Fisheries last night denied the report - actually, I guess, said that he didn't know about it. How can the Minister of Fisheries for this Province, Mr. Speaker, not know anything about what the Premier has confirmed today, how can the Premier again, as we've seen with the Hydro debate, how can he go on his own whims making policy, setting policy by the seat of his pants? Why are you once again deciding the future of the Province, I ask the Premier, on your own personal whims and your own objectives? Why are you doing that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that's the garbage part of it, I will ignore it. I confirm nothing except that two committees existed and I met with the federal committee, that's all I've confirmed. I've told the House that the federal and provincial government's will shortly make a statement. Now what the Minister of Fisheries said he will accept responsibility for, I suppose I have some responsibility for it too, but I have no reason to quarrel with anything that the Minister of Fisheries said so far as I know. I can only operate on the assumption that the Minister of Fisheries gave the member or anybody else that asked him a question, fully correct information. As to the member's suggestion that I confirmed something, that is utter nonsense. That's his own fabrication, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Health, the minister of crossword puzzles.

The assistant executive director of the Health Science Complex said that dispatching an ambulance from St. John's was the proper way to handle an emergency in Witless Bay in late January. She said volunteers from that department are not part of the emergency response team and it was proper protocol not to call the Witless Bay Fire Department. I ask the minister, is that the proper protocol and if not, when did it change?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago - a week or so ago, maybe a bit longer than that - when that question was first raised I asked that the incident be looked into very carefully, it has been looked into and just a few moments before I came over here I got a report on it. So what I'm going to do now is study this report and ask any necessary questions that arise from it and then I'll have a statement to make in the Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a copy of the protocol for dispatching emergency calls within the City of St. John's and area. Recently on November 9, in Portugal Cove, a Mr. Day called me and said a person spent twenty minutes on the roof of a house because the fire department wasn't discharged when it was proper protocol. 911 was called in Mount Pearl just recently, a person lay on the ice for twenty-one minutes when an emergency response vehicle was nearby. There's too many blatant examples of protocol not being followed. Now I ask the minister, if it is not proper protocol for the Witless Bay Fire Department to be called in emergency cases, why is it published in the directory of the telephone book that St. John's - on the inside cover - St. John's, Long Pond, Mount Pearl, Portugal Cove, Pouch Cove, Torbay and Witless Bay Exchanges call 911 for all medical emergencies?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not responsible for what goes in the telephone book, thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll ask him if it's not protocol to dispatch Witless Bay, why were they dispatched for every, single medical call, to their knowledge, in the area in 1993? Why were they dispatched since this death in January of 1994? They've been called twice. I was at one specific area this past weekend when they were called to an arena. Why are they being called now, before and after and not on this particular time if it's not protocol?

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Mr. Premier, due to the vital importance of the tourism industry to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador, would the Premier treat it with the importance it deserves and appoint a new minister immediately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It's an important question but just before I do, Mr. Speaker, I just got a message from my office. Mr. Tobin's office called to say that the figures in the paper are incorrect and that the minister will be issuing a statement giving the correct numbers. That's as much as I know about the numbers that are in the paper.

Now, to the question that the hon. member raised. Mr. Speaker, the government has responsibility to ensure that the interest in tourism and the vital interest this Province has in tourism is well protected and we will take steps in due course to ensure that whatever adjustment is necessary in the ministry will be made, but I don't consider it to be a vital need right at this moment. I have every confidence in the Acting Minister of Tourism and Culture. He performed that responsibility for many, many years and I want to take time to consider the matter before I take any definitive steps.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table six copies of An Order in Council to meet the requirements of the Financial Administration Act. This is a pre-commitment under the Department of Tourism and Culture to permit the department to commit to tourism advertisement contracts for the '94 tourist season.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 180 citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador who seek to stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Mr. Speaker, these are part of some 15,000 petitioners that we know of, perhaps more, and others that we do not know of who have been petitioning this House to prevent the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Mr. Speaker, we have been told throughout the presentation of these petitions since the House opened that this is totally unrepresentative, that the people are not opposed to Hydro, and that they are not calling the members opposite. Someone said this morning that the Premier was talking about how he was getting all these calls at home and at his office and they wondered who the calls were coming from since the Premier had an unlisted number. Perhaps all of his friends who know his unlisted number are the ones who are calling the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in the House yesterday we had a couple of very unfortunate occurrences, occasions where there was an awful lot of disruption, and conduct that is unbecoming of the House of Assembly. The reason why this conduct occurred, Mr. Speaker, was because the Member for St. John's East, in presenting a petition, refuses to stick to the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members at the back of the House are speaking across the House and I really can't hear the minister although he is right next to me.

MR. BAKER: The reason for these disruptions, Mr. Speaker, was because the St. John's East, in presenting a petition, refuses to present the petition and follow the orders of the House as laid down in terms of the presenting of petitions. He uses the opportunity to personally attack members, and, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, that is not the purpose of petitions in the House of Assembly. It is to present the position of the individuals, and he is supposed to deal with the prayer of the petition, and so on, this kind of thing, Mr. Speaker, and not get into personal attacks on individuals that cause tremendous disruptions and disorder in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a valid point of order and I think the member should be brought to task for what he has been doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member on the point of order, first of all.

MR. HARRIS: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the minister is trying to use up the time for petitions to make a big long speech. I am quite happy to speak to the petition, and the prayer of the petition, so I do not know if Your Honour needs to make a ruling on that point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just on the point of order. I point out to hon. members that the Minister of Finance is essentially correct. Order 92 provides that a member shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes. Now, we enjoy a certain amount of latitude, but, I think, it does get out of hand if any member goes far beyond that to start with. I am more concerned about factual inaccuracies being tossed back and forth across the House. Now, technically it is not a point of privilege, and not a point of order, but members, I think, to keep at least within the realm of courtesy to each other should refrain from saying things that are incorrect, and if they do not know it at the time and it is shown to be incorrect I think they should correct themselves accordingly, otherwise I sometimes despair that we will ever have proper order in the House.

I will allow the member to continue.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a very wise ruling. I did correct the misstatement that I made. The Premier apparently does have a listed number.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I understand there has been a fair amount of latitude given in the presentation of petitions, however, once again the member has gotten onto personal attacks on members rather than presenting the petition he is supposed to present, and unless something is done about it there is going to be chaos in the House every time members get up to present a petition. The hon. member should confine himself to the petition and to the subject of the petition and not go on a personal attack of members. This will cause chaos in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What is important for people to understand, particularly people in the galleries who may be watching, is that the hon. member is presenting a petition on behalf of people who asked him to present a petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Raise it after the petition. Every member gets five minutes to speak to a petition.

If members rise on points of order, as the Minister of Finance has just done on two occasions, spurious points of orders in the second case, because it was exactly the same one as the first one, that time comes out of the member's five minutes. So their strategy, clearly, is to interrupt -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, their strategy is pretty obvious and clear to anybody who is watching. I know they had a heated two-and-a-half hour caucus meeting yesterday afternoon with arms flailing and voices raised and everything else, but it is pretty clear to everybody now what you are doing. So sit back, relax. We've got petitions. Give us our five minutes to present the petitions. Don't interrupt, don't yell across, and don't interrupt with spurious points of order!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to make your point.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that members opposite shouldn't be interrupting, particularly with spurious points of order like the Minister of Finance did, because it comes out of the member's five minutes, and a member only has five minutes to make the points on behalf of the people for whom he was asked to present the petition.

I think it is very unfair of the Minster of Finance to raise that point of order, and obviously now we have both used up his five minutes, unfortunately.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order, first of all my submission is that it's not spurious. The hon. gentleman used the word `apparently' and he is too good a lawyer not to realize the effect of using that word as he did.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, I can't hear the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

My first comment is that the point of order made by my friend, the Member for Gander is not spurious. The Member for St. John's East used the word `apparently', and the gentleman is too good a lawyer not to realize the effect of using that word in that context.

Secondly, we are not as evil-minded as my friend, the Member for Grand Falls. I can only speak for those of us who sit to His Honour's left, but for our part, we are more than happy to let the hon. the Member for St. John's East go on for his five minutes and, for our part, we will consent -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I realize my friend, the Member for Burin - Placentia West has trouble letting anybody else speak - but for our part, we are quite prepared - and we will give leave - to ask Your Honour to allow the Member for St. John's East five minutes to make his presentation but, I say again, if he is out of order, we reserve the right to bring him to order and we will do it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, lately in this House this side only has the opportunity to present two, and sometimes three, petitions before the Government House Leader stands. He permitted ten and fifteen and twenty for several days, and used it as an excuse for us delaying Hydro.

I think it is unfair to bring up a point of order during the limited time that we have for a petition. Now that we are limited to only two petitions per day, and sometimes three, when we have hundreds of petitions to present, from income supplementation, from education, from Hydro and other things, and we are not having the opportunity here in the House that people asked us to do, and then to take away the time, when you only have five minutes on it, is improper.

We have allowed a certain degree of latitude in the past, and I think it is necessary to carry on a proper discussion here. I think they are being picky and silly and so on in getting on with this nonsense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members raise a number of issues that might be helpful to deal with at this time.

First of all, I think the point of order that was raised is that the hon. Minister of Finance suggested that the Member for St. John's East was using a petition as an occasion to launch a spurious attack, I think was his language, on another member. Unfortunately, I think you can attack other members as long as you do so in the proper language, and that seems to be part of our parliamentary system. Whether it is polite or not is another question.

If one uses factually inexact or incorrect information it is a little bit difficult to deal with that as well, because it is not a point of privilege unless a member who is accused of having not told the truth to the House, as it is sometimes said, admits it. So in our parliamentary tradition it is hard to deal with that particular matter, but I think, in fairness to everybody - it is my view, obviously - that if you say something and it is incorrect, and it is pointed out to you as being incorrect, you should withdraw it because you don't really help our manner of conducting business in the House, and this is evident of it.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says we shouldn't raise points of order because it detracts from the time available. If that were the case, then most of what we do is time limited.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Well, in any event we get into these things whether of not it is during Question Period, and there is certainly nothing in our rules that precludes a member from raising it. Whether or not it is fair, is a different matter, I am not here to judge fairness, I am here to only judge matters of order and whether or not we have a rule that covers it.

On the statement itself and what a member is entitled to do during Presentations of Petitions, I refer hon. members to Standing Order 92, which says that the member `shall confine himself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains'. Essentially, what the party says, I would take it to be the prayer, which often raises allegations of things related to it.

I would hesitate to confine any member very closely in that regard because I think the latter part with the material allegations gives one quite a bit that one might say about the government's intentions or its policies or things like that, but certainly, on the matter that we are dealing with here, Hydro, it seems to me that the balance or the majority of what the member would or could say relates to what the petition itself says and that is, whether the members are in favour or opposed to it.

These points of order are troubling, but I think it comes down to more a sense of how we should conduct ourselves in the House rather than any real point of order, so in essence I don't think that the hon. Minister of Finance has raised a point of order where I can rule the hon. Member for St. John's East as having been out of order in this matter. As to the second point raised by the hon. the Government House Leader. Does the House wish to give the hon. Member for St. John's East another five minutes to continue his presentation?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave? I heard the `no leave'; is there leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, on this side.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, okay. Do we have leave from both sides of the House? The hon. member has an additional five minutes.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, Mr. Speaker, the petition is the petition of 180 citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador, who along with hundreds of thousands of others we now know, Mr. Speaker, along with hundreds of thousands of others, are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier seems to have a great deal of contempt for the will of the people of this Province including these petitioners, but the facts remain, Mr. Speaker, that a scientific survey done over the weekend, after the Premier has had a full week, hundreds - well I don't know how many thousands, I would say fifty or sixty or maybe 100,000 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hundreds of thousands.

MR. HARRIS: Hundreds of thousands the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs says, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent trying to propagandize people. The half-an-hour of free time on NTV, a public debate, propagandizing over the airwaves, all that has been going on after months of public discussion about Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and now we have 80 per cent done by a scientific survey done today by a group of concerned and interested citizens, or not done by them, obviously done by people who know how to do it, 80 per cent of those people are opposed.

Now if we look at say 300,000 on the voters list or something like that, I don't know exactly but 80 per cent of that, if we extrapolated out scientifically, that looks like in excess of 200,000, maybe 230,000 or 240,000 people are opposed to the privatization of Hydro. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's why these petitions are important because they are representative of the wishes of the people of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the only course of action that I believe is open to the government and the Premier at this stage, based on the fact that there has been public discussion, is to withdraw the Privatization Bill, to acknowledge that the people of Newfoundland are opposed to it, and not to seek to use, which I am sure the government is thinking about doing, not to seek to use the public's money some more to try and propagandize them against their will to go along with what the Premier wants to do in privatizing Hydro.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it has gone too far, the Premier has committed himself publicly on several occasions to the wishes of the people on this matter. He doesn't accept the wishes of the people, what is he going to do, keep asking them again, and again and again until he gets the answer that he likes? Is that the plan that the Premier has: we will ask them again and if that doesn't work, we will propagandize them some more; we will phone into the Open Line four times, as the Member for Terra Nova was accused last night of doing -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) her twice.

MR. HARRIS: I didn't hear her at all but other people who recognized her voice said they did. But is that what we are going to have, Mr. Speaker, a continuation of some sort of farce which is determined to manufacture consent, or is the Premier going to do the honourable thing and withdraw the Privatization Bill as he has committed himself to doing, and perhaps he should also do the honourable thing and resign, because he is so far out of touch with what the people of this Province want.

That's the second step that he should do, Mr. Speaker, in response to the farce that's been created as a result of this bill. The people, Mr. Speaker, have spoken. They may be emotional, the people, they may be emotional. They may care passionately about issues, Mr. Speaker, but they are the people and they are the ones whose decisions are the ones that we should implement here in this Legislature, not the will of the Premier. It's the will of the people that counts, Mr. Speaker, and the will of the people is expressed by these petitioners, very clearly. It's clear now, Mr. Speaker, that they not only represent themselves, they not only represent the others who's petitions have not been presented because member's opposite have refused to bring petitions forward, they're representative of themselves, of the others but also of the population as a whole.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't see in a democracy how the Premier has any course of action open to him other than to do the honourable thing, withdraw the bill and resign. Both of those things seem to be necessary now, Mr. Speaker, because the Premier today expressed his contempt for the will of the people as determined scientifically after the Premier has had his way, has had his debate, has had the public airwaves monopolized for three or four days on this issue and the decision has been made by the people, the Premier should accept it and follow it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of approximately 500 to 600 students from Donald C. Jamieson Academy in Salt Pond, Burin. Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition is to the House of Assembly;

Petition of the undersigned students of Donald C. Jamieson Academy in Burin, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take action to respect the views of all the people concerned in their education system and the rights of the people be given every consideration.

WHEREFORE, your petitioners humbly pray that your House may be pleased to request the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take such action as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, what this is, on Saturday afternoon I received a call from a group of students in Donald C. Jamieson Academy and they had a petition that they wanted me to present in the House of Assembly of which I agreed, Mr. Speaker, to present. That petition is by a group of students requesting - they are going to write the Premier as well but they called me in, Mr. Speaker, and there's three basic things of interest to the students, I'd say to the Minister of Finance. The first thing that they were concerned about, I say to the minister, is the length of the school year and the length of the school day. Mr. Speaker, the students were concerned that government had claimed that any restructuring of the school system must be accompanied by an increase in the length of the school year and the school day. What the students are saying is that they do not agree with that proposal. They felt that the performance would increase if teachers are permitted to teach which is a concern of theirs.

The other issue raised by the students when they presented their petition and in their petition is the 2 per cent rule which limits the number of teaching units to be lost by a school board in a year to 2 per cent of the total staff complement regardless of how much student enrollment may decline. Mr. Speaker, as most of us realize, the students are very concerned because of what it will mean to them individually if their classes become larger then what they presently are. The third position raised by the students is that we do agree that the primary core area of language, mathematics, science and technology are of most importance. However, let's not forget the vital contribution made by other subjects in the area, for each course contributes to the overall growth of an individual. We want a complete education.

So that's what the students of Donald C. Jamieson Academy in Salt Pond are saying, Mr. Speaker. One has to recognize that when a group of students from that school, and the school is made up of 600 students from Grade 4 to Grade 9, and they initiated a petition on their own and they presented it to me on their own. I believe the students need to be complimented, Mr. Speaker, for the interest that they have in their own education. The interest that they have in providing for them the type of an education that will give them a satisfactory quality of life. I think that is very important as well.

I know the Minister of Education is not here today but I'm hopeful that the Minister of Finance will probably be able to speak a few words on this petition, as the students would like to know basically where government stands. I also want to say that the students with the petition, a copy of the petition, have written a letter to the Premier outlining and expressing their concerns as well.

I guess quality of education is what is very important to all people attending school and to all parents who have children attending school. I am not aware of very many petitions that have been presented to this House by a group of students on their own initiative, from Grade IV to Grade IX, so I think it speaks volumes about the interest to the students in that school, and certainly about the staff in the school, and the parents obviously, who have promoted the students into becoming that much involved in furthering their education.

The government must take a responsible role in education. It is not enough to restructure education for the sake of saying we are going to restructure it. Everyone agrees that there have to be significant changes made in terms of the educational system in this Province, but I'm not sure that the answer to the education system is to make larger classes, if the 2 per cent rule is eliminated, which is what the students here have expressed as one of their concerns, the 2 per cent rule -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. members' time has expired.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me say that on behalf of these students -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: On behalf of these students, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great satisfaction to present the petition. I am honoured to be able to speak on behalf of 600 students from Grade IV to Grade IX who have drafted this petition and signed it and asked me to present it. I think as I said it speaks volumes about the character of these individuals. Donald C. Jamieson has turned out students second to none in this Province. It is a good school, it has great students. I think what their request in this petition has asked the government to do is something that I hope that government will address very seriously. I know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance only has a couple of minutes, but I am sure he will speak to it.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to commend the students and the member for his presentation of their concerns. It is indeed a matter that affects everybody. There are major changes that will probably happen in the educational system over the next few years and I believe it is important that everybody understand these changes, including government, and that action is not taken unless everybody fully understands the changes.

We started the process some years ago and a royal commission travelled this Province for a year or so and received briefs and heard the concerns of many parents and teachers and students and so on all over this Province, and then did a recommendation to government on the changes that they felt should occur to the education system. Since then we have been going slowly, we have not been rushing, and implementing as many of these changes as is possible to implement. Ultimately we hope to bring about the complete change.

I think that their point is well taken. That even now there is room for consultation, even now there is room for input from especially students in the system, in terms of what changes might take place. I know that they are probably concerned about the lengthening of the school year. It was shown conclusively I believe that in many instances in this Province - and I think especially at the higher levels - students were only being taught 110 days to 120 days a year. Certainly that is not enough. Certainly there have to be changes made so that students have more effective learning time within the schools. I think everybody would agree with these changes.

I accept their petition in the spirit in which it is intended. I want to assure them that we will use every avenue of consultation open to us. We have a desire to improve the educational experience in this Province as much as possible. I think everybody agrees there must be change - the only question is, how much change, and which change? Mr. Speaker, we are taking our time with this matter because it is so important, and we hope that the end result will be to everybody's satisfaction.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the teachers and the students at Donald C. Jamieson Academy on their initiative in organizing and preparing a petition to this hon. House and in arranging with their member to present it here today. The students are asking for a voice in the decision-making processes, and we have been saying for a long time, that government should be involving all the stakeholders in decision-making relative to educational change.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that change in the educational system is not only desirable, it is necessary. The Minister of Finance, a few moments ago, said that we are talking about what changes, to what extent, and what would be the process of implementation. For some time we have been advising the government to proceed somewhat more slowly than they had stated they were going to proceed with their Adjusting the Course, Part 1 and Adjusting the Course, Part 2.

Mr. Speaker, we wish to say to the students that we have heard their voice, and we know what they mean when they talk about disruptions in the classroom. Students themselves are very concerned with the behaviour of other students that prevents some students from accessing a good and positive learning environment.

Mr. Speaker, the 2 per cent rule as it applies to teacher staffing, members on all sides of the House have been receiving letters from their constituents relative to that. I know because many of the schools and teacher organizations, and parents, have been forwarding me courtesy copies of letters that have been forwarded to members on both sides. The teachers, the students, and the parents in rural Newfoundland are very concerned that we suddenly changed the 2 per cent rule which helped to guarantee a low student-teacher ratio in rural Newfoundland, and which helped to protect the programs and the curriculum that was in place.

Mr. Speaker, we want to say again, today, that the government would be well advised, and they should take note, that if they simply take out the 2 per cent savings clause from the Newfoundland teacher's contract and don't replace it with a comprehensive, well-thought-out small schools policy, the situation in rural Newfoundland is going to become a lot more difficult as far as teaching and education is concerned than it is today. The result will be multi-grade classrooms and fewer courses offered in the curriculum. As enrolments decline, we are going to see a lot of small schools become even smaller.

Mr. Speaker, we have acknowledged that this is a very serious problem, and as an example, I will just read a letter which came from rural Newfoundland to me a few days ago. It is written to an hon. member opposite - I won't mention the member's name. It reads as follows: `I am writing to you concerning the government's threat to take away the so-called 2 per cent clause in the teachers' contract. If Mr. Wells and Mr. Decker take the so-called 2 per cent clause away, then the result will be not only a lot of teacher layoffs but also a doubling up of classes, and mostly in rural Newfoundland. Here is a government saying that our standards are the lowest in the country, yet they are going to take away the 2 per cent clause, lay off teachers, double up grades and set us back about twenty-five years. The Liberals call their plan Adjusting the Course but I would call it knocking her `way off course, about twenty-five years, in my estimate. How can a teacher be expected to teach in a multi-grade situation and prepare about twenty subjects, with all the stress and distractions of the '90s?' That tone is but an example of the letters that have been received. What it is saying is that when we make educational change, we have to be aware of the impact on all of the students in the Province, and while the 2 per cent savings clause was not put in as part of the teacher contract at all -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HODDER: - it is an important part of the educational structure in this Province today. We should do all we can to keep it in place.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to rise and present a petition from my district, the district of Baie Verte - White Bay, with approximately 185 names.

The first thing that comes to me as I present this petition - of course, the petition is as follows:

Your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to stop immediately the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and hold a referendum to ask people of the Province their views as to whether Newfoundland Hydro should be privatized or remain a Crown corporation.

As I present the petition, and as I listened to the first part of the session here today in Question Period and, of course, when the Member for St. John's East stood up to present his petition, I couldn't help but wonder, as I looked down through the names, is this a poll also? Is this another way for people to present their views? We have been hearing so much about polls lately, well, I consider this sort of a poll.

When I look down through the names I think about what the Member for St. John's North said as he talked about polls yesterday, and about the polls that he did. You know, I could have stood a long time ago in this House, at least three or four weeks ago when we started to talk about Hydro, and talk about a poll that I was doing since I have started this, but I guess the response I would get is that of course, that's a biased poll and you intimidated people to say what they wanted to say, and so on, so I didn't bother to say it. I wouldn't bother to talk about that type of poll. It wasn't a scientific poll. It was just an indicator of what I got personally, so I wouldn't mention it here in the House. But if I did mention it I would have no problem whatsoever in saying, if I were to take a number count, and I will be conservative, at least 80 per cent of the people that I have talked to, without my bringing up the subject, said that they were totally against the privatization of Hydro. There were no ifs, ands, or buts. I will admit that out of the other 20 per cent, probably fifteen of them didn't know, they didn't have a decision made on it, and that was fair enough. I didn't intimidate them.

So as I look down through the list of the people I have here in my district today, a lot of them I knew them. As a matter of fact, most of them I know, by name and face, and I can't help but think of the Premier's statement the other day when he stood in the House and said that he went through a petition and actually picked up the phone and called somebody on the petition and asked them what they thought.

The funny part that strikes me about that is I said, now who would he call? If I gave him this petition today, and my mother's name would be on the petition, for example, now I can't picture 10:00 in the morning, as my mother goes about her morning duties, and gets a phone call, picks up the phone: Excuse me, Mrs. Shelley, the Premier is calling you. You know how I feel about Hydro. Did you sign this petition?

I can't imagine what my mother would - well, I know what my mother would say to him, but I can't imagine some lady walking around somewhere, unless it was somebody that the Premier called -

MS. COWAN: She would be polite.

MR. SHELLEY: She would be polite, I say to the hon. minister, but I could never fathom exactly what happened, what he said that day. I can't imagine the Premier sitting in his office, with so much work, and so busy, going through a petition and picking somebody he didn't know, out of the blue, and calling her and saying: Excuse me, ma'am. Did you sign that petition? You know I am against Hydro. Now, did you sign that petition?

What do you expect her to say, I say to the Premier? What do you expect her to say? I'd say first of all she was in shock for five minutes that the Premier called her; that's to start with. I can't imagine calling somebody, and that kind of intimidation, and I relate that to the same thing from the Member for St. John's North, calling people, saying: I am your MHA; you know where I stand on this. Now, did you sign that petition? Are you against Hydro?

To do a poll? That's not a poll. That's total, total intimidation, to start with. They are not going to tell you the truth, off the bat, I would say to the member.

Besides that, the numbers that you presented here in the House, I can't even fathom that you are getting that kind of response, the same as the Premier here, saying you get ten to one calls. He said that our Member for Placentia had a sympathetic vote. I would say that the calls the Premier is getting are sympathetic calls. There must be staunch, strong supporters of the Premier who are calling in to tell him to root on, as we had some of the calls last night on the call in show. I don't think they knew the difference, maybe not a click about Hydro, but they were saying: Well, I support the Hydro - and their answer, when Mr. Jamieson would ask them why they supported it, they would say: Well, we trust the Premier. They didn't give a reason for the privatization.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Some people said: I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SHELLEY: Some people said: I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador. What a shame, Mr. Speaker, that some people had to abuse Open Line. And I will say for or against, whichever side that abused it, it is too bad that they had to abuse it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: I mean, I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador. Pardon?

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand today in the House to support my colleague from Baie Verte - White Bay's petition against the privatization of Hydro.

Two weeks ago in the House of Assembly, I challenged the Premier, who had been consistently and constantly accusing this side of the House of being fraudulent and misrepresentative. I said to the Premier then, if he is so convinced that we have been fraudulent in our statements, and he is so convinced that we have misrepresented the numbers or facts on the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro, then why does he not hold public hearings and expose us, supposedly, for the fraud that we are. But he has not done that. In fact, two weeks ago that is what the Premier stated.

Last Tuesday the Premier himself admitted that he urged, he said, his Cabinet and his back benches to not talk about the repercussions of Bill No. 1 and Bill No. 2 as it relates to the Upper Churchill contract. I say to the Premier that the only one who has been fraudulent, the only one who has misled the House, has been the Premier himself, and in concert with the Premier his Cabinet and his caucus. That is what has transpired.

The privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro would make sense, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, if the following would occur: If the government could demonstrate that there would be increased jobs as a result of privatization, if there would be, as a result of privatization, lower energy costs, if there were going to be new investment in the Province as a result of privatization, if there would be new technology transferred into the Province as a result of privatization, if we were going to receive a large portion of money above and beyond the sale of Hydro, but a large portion that would equal more than the assets of Hydro would work.

Mr. Speaker, none of these things will happen. We will see a net loss of jobs as a result of the privatization of Hydro. This government could only guarantee the number of people and the employees jobs in the transition period. That is what we will see. In energy costs - we will see an increase in energy costs above and beyond 700 megawatts. We will see high increased energy costs as a result of the privatization initiative. We will see no new technology as a result of this sale. A transformer bought in Newfoundland and Labrador is the same as a transformer bought in British Columbia. There will be no new technology as a result of this sale.

Members opposite have continued their assault on members here about how we have fraudulently misrepresented, how we - some members being accused of using voodoo mathematics. They have been using the right mathematics; they have been using the Premier's mathematics. Economists everywhere, I say to the Member for St. John's South, including those at the University, are now saying that this sale will cost Newfoundlanders both as taxpayers, as consumers, and as ratepayers, far more than they will receive from the net benefit of the sale of Hydro. That is what we are seeing.

The Premier has demonstrated, and has indicated clearly, that if the Newfoundland public are not in favour, and have demonstrated that they are not in favour of the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, then he will not proceed with the sale. I say to the Premier today, and his government, that clearly, the people of this Province are not in favour of privatizing Hydro, and that he should take heed to the winds that are blowing out there on the sale of Hydro. Because, in the end result, if he proceeds with this deal, those very same winds will blow him and his government out of office. Because they have demonstrated that they are not listening to the people and that they have not taken any consultative approach.

Open Line - Members opposite, the Member for Terra Nova, two-and-a-half, three weeks ago, said: Don't be so foolish talking about the silly people on Open Line talking about the privatization of Hydro. On four occasions last night the Member for Terra Nova phoned in. Is she now one of those silly people phoning in to Open Lines? Something must be important; something must be getting to the members opposite in terms of the pressure of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the pressure from their constituents, pressure from their constituents, Mr. Speaker, because these same members opposite who have proposed and who support the privatization initiative are now coming to realize that their constituents are not in favour of it, Mr. Speaker, not one, single, solitary one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

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

MR. SPEAKER: No further leave.

Order, please!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was not in his own seat and I submit to Your Honour that he cannot withdraw leave, he is not allowed to speak from another speak.

MR. EFFORD: I apologize, and (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and you should apologize. Mr. Speaker, because the minister should be setting an example on this side and should not be doing such things, and really, if the minister hadn't spoken the member would have had leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. The hon. Opposition House Leader I think is correct. Members heckle from other chairs but they are really not heard by the Chair unless they are in their seats, so I think the –

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Good point. Does the hon. member have leave to continue? Does the hon. member have leave?

I don't hear any `no leave', so -

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay, go on.

MR. EFFORD: I said no leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, no leave.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition to the hon. House of Assembly. I don't think I will read the prayer of the petition because it is a similar prayer that has been read many, many times here from this side of the House. I haven't heard many prayers read from the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that they must be getting lots of correspondence from their constituents, and I am sure the members are using every tactic possible, especially the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who continues to shout and holler across the House and belittle, Mr. Speaker, what is being brought forward here. Many times people stand up here representing people from his own constituency, presenting petitions and those people should have their voices heard as well as other people.

Mr. Speaker, I present fifty-three names on a petition from the District of Bonavista South, and I could assure you that I have lots of others, Mr. Speaker, that will be presented; they won't be hidden, they will be brought forward and their concerns will be echoed here in the House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, our people here on this side of the House, the Opposition, continue to go out in their districts, hold public meetings, have people come forward and listen to their views and concerns. We have challenged on many occasions the people on the other side of the House, and one member spoke up and said she didn't believe in open line shows, they are all fictitious things, they were silly, the people who were calling in there; the written media, it wasn't worth the effort of reading it, and last night, lo and behold, my phone was ringing about fifteen times and they said: if the Member for Terra Nova could call in four times surely, you could call in once.

I don't believe the Member for Terra Nova called in four times because I only recognized her voice three times and I have known her for fifteen years, Mr. Speaker. She didn't call in four times it was only three, and I don't believe anybody who would say any different, but, the polls last night, Mr. Speaker, regardless of how they were abused by some of the people on the other side and some people who were put up to call in, they were a real reflection of what's happening in rural Newfoundland. It was consistent with the polls we have done here, it has been consistent with the polls of the Power to the People, Take Back the Power, they are all showing an overwhelming opposition to this piece of legislation, Bill No. 1, The Privatization of Hydro, which is being put before this House and asking people to support it without knowing what the bill is all about, without having any input into the bill, they are supposed to believe the Premier, Mr. Speaker, he's the one who stands up and speaks and said: because I say it is true you should believe in me.

But the people are seeing that the glow is starting to go off the Premier, the shine is starting to fade and there beginning to question his motives, and rightly so, Mr. Speaker, rightly so. As I've referred many times here in the House before, to some of our own people, when the shine started to come off them people did remember. They remembered for years after that, Mr. Speaker, and when they went back to the people for their support then the people came out and spoke very strongly of what they stood for and what they represented. It wasn't the wishes of the people that they had brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I fear the same thing will happen to members on the opposite side. I plead with the members on the opposite side to go out into their districts and listen to their people. Those are the people, Mr. Speaker, that put them here in this House. Those are the people that asked them to come forward and speak on their behalf. It's not happening, Mr. Speaker, it's not happening. They're following their leader. They're like sheep, Mr. Speaker, where the leader goes I will follow. They should speak out on behalf of their people. What the people are asking, Mr. Speaker, is a very simple question, what has the government got to hide? What has the government got to hide by not coming out to the people and putting forward their position? A very simple question and if it's such a good deal then why isn't it taken out to hold public hearings to hear the people's voice and concerns, such as I would suggest, lesser pieces of legislation has been done with in the past? Mr. Speaker, their question to me is, why sell something that we already own? Why sell something that's continuing to turn a profit back to the coffers of this Province? We continue to talk about the money owing on it, well let's forget about what money is owing on it as long as it's paying for itself and putting money back into general revenue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. FITZGERALD: - that we should maintain, Mr. Speaker, and make sure that it's always there -

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

MR. FITZGERALD: - under our control to allow -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member can't continue to speak.

MR. FITZGERALD: - to be brought forward to the people of our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to support the petition put forward by my colleague who did a fine job of putting forward the voice of his constituents which we see here time after time in this House. It's such a great feeling, I'll tell the hon. members in the back benches there, it's such a great feeling to be able to stand in this House and say what you really feel. What a difference over here to be able to stand up and say what you really feel instead of sitting back in the back benches and not standing up and pretending a poll that you had or jumping on an Open Line as a ventriloquist throwing your voices in all different angles -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) filling the tourism vacancy.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, all the eyes brightened up as he talked about filling the Cabinet post, I tell you today, you should have seen the back benches. But what a wonderful feeling to stand over here and be able to stand, speak and say what you want to say. It's a great, great feeling, I must say. As I look at the names on my petition today - I said I can honestly say I'll look through this petition - I didn't even send out the petition. I didn't send out the petition to be signed. People in the district had the initiative to go around and do it themselves.

Now, I have to ask all hon. members on both sides, what does it take for this government to concede defeat? What will it take for them to concede defeat? Forget about the Bas Jamieson Show, forget about the Bill Rowe open line show -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) phoned in four times.

MR. SHELLEY: Well I mean you're four to one to start off with. So we gave you that advantage and you still lost - 80 per cent to 20 per cent, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Four to nothing.

MR. SHELLEY: Four to nothing. Four times - you should have multiplied by four on the Open Line show last night with four calls coming from one person or as my hon. colleague said, three calls from one person. So you should have won three times to one to us but look what happened, even with that kind of barrage coming in we still had 79 per cent and then we get the poll from the power to take back the people is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Take back the power.

MR. SHELLEY: Take back the power. A statement by the Premier in The Evening Telegram today it says, Wells says if the government proceeds with a poll it will be conducted by a credible and competent polling group outside the Province. Not M-5 our own Newfoundland advertising, he doesn't trust them. Maybe it has to be from the five wise men who started out on this deal in the beginning. Maybe they are going to do the poll. Who are the competent, credible ones, I wonder? In the beginning when we started this debate, Mr. Speaker, I said, I wonder are we getting the right indicators, are we getting the right vibes from people that they are really against this? I wondered in the beginning as it built and continued to build, even up to a couple of weeks ago; then I was pretty sure, I was 99 per cent sure. I then said I am sure now we are getting the right vibes. As I mentioned earlier, getting it from my own district, I wouldn't say too much about that because we can't go around giving biased opinions, you aren't going to believe that, so I didn't bring it up much.

The Member for St. John's North did his own phone calls. What a poll! Hi, this is Lloyd, I am wondering if you will support me on the Hydro privatization? I really looked bad on TV the other night so I am wondering if you would back me up a little bit? I am feeling a little bit down about it right now. I wonder if you could support me and send me a little sympathy card? I still say to hon. members over there that the ten to one calls that the Premier of this Province is getting have to be sympathy votes. I don't know where he is getting them.

AN HON. MEMBER: The backbenchers are calling.

MR. SHELLEY: The backbenchers are calling, ten to one. That is a good idea. The Premier tells all the backbenchers, when you go home this evening you make sure you call and support me on privatization.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: And three call in. I really wonder what it will take for the government today to concede defeat and say we were totally, totally wrong and we are sorry, smack the Premier on the wrist and say, I'm sorry, but you made a booboo. You didn't come out front. It was back room Confederation politics, as someone mentioned in the media yesterday. Why didn't you bring it out in front if it was such a great thing?

Then we were accused of hysteria. We weren't the ones when we asked the question way back, I don't know when - it is only a rumour that we are going to privatize Hydro, just a rumour. Meanwhile, all this was going on. As a matter of fact, all the people in the back here thought the same thing. It must be a rumour. The Premier just said so. They didn't know. They were all shaking their heads and so was I. I believed it.

MR. TOBIN: They did a lot of shouting in caucus yesterday evening.

MR. SHELLEY: I don't know what was coming through the walls in that caucus room yesterday, boy! We had to close our door because of the noise coming across the hall. I don't think they were applauding each other.

I say to the Premier that if he thinks we are creating hysteria -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, there are no more petitions to be presented, I understand? Well, this will be the last one then. By all means, yes, of course.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition containing 1,048 names, Mr. Speaker. The prayer of the petition - I won't read it all: Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to leave Hydro as the status quo as it is recognized by Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and its financial experts to be a profitable and viable Crown corporation, and so agreed by the undersigned, and so forth. This is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, there are several groups of papers here. On a couple of them the prayer is slightly different, but the purpose of all of them is to oppose the privatization of Hydro, and I am presenting them all as one great petition with 1,048 names on it. It is interesting to have a look at where some of the names are from. Not all of them are identified. On some of the pages here there are simply names without addresses, but I quickly ran down through them just to see where in the Province these people are living. There are a large number from the central area, St. John's and Mount Pearl, Grand Falls-Windsor, Botwood, Peterview, South East Bight, Point Leamington, Philips Head, Northern Arm, Torbay, Terrenceville, St. Bernard's, Red Harbour, Carbonear, Gambo, Gander, St. Mary's Bay, Lewisporte, Centreville, Parkers Cove, Milltown, Bay d'Espoir, Bay d'Espoir Hydro, Carmanville, Nippers Harbour, Norris Arm, and there are others, Mr. Speaker. The point is that the names on this petition are coming from all over the Province and that should come as no surprise to hon. members opposite. We are receiving incredible amounts of opposition from every area of this Province and it bears no relation to electoral district or who presently represents that particular district. In fact, most of the names on the petition that I'm presenting here today come from districts represented by hon. gentlemen opposite.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if I'm getting them, obviously hon. gentlemen opposite have to be getting the same names, or maybe people won't bring them to them, they know they won't present them anyway. And that is a sad day, when hon. members opposite are refusing to present petitions. I remind them that one of the responsibilities of being elected to this hon. House is that you are responsible, you are duty bound, to present petitions on behalf of your constituents when they are brought before you. It is a sad day when constituents of districts represented by hon. gentlemen opposite don't feel that they can be properly represented and that they have to come to the Opposition and beg us to present petitions in the House in their name.

The point that needs to be made once again is that what is really coming through here, and what has come through in meetings that we've had - I was in Bonavista with my friend, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North, on Thursday night - had a great meeting, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonavista South.

MR. WINDSOR: Bonavista South, I apologize - Bonavista South, in the great town of Bonavista. There were many people at that meeting who were strong supporters of the party opposite in the last election, well-known supporters of that party, several of whom I spoke with afterward who said: I've never voted anything else but for the Liberal Party, but I will never vote for the Liberal Party again. They are strongly opposed to this particular piece of legislation.

So it is not a political issue, Mr. Speaker, it is a basic matter of principle. What has happened as a result of this is that so many people in this Province who failed to see any logical reason for this government bringing forward this legislation have lost confidence in the government, certainly, have lost confidence in the Premier. That is a sad day, when literally hundreds of Newfoundlanders are saying: We no longer trust the Premier; we no longer trust this government. We thought we could trust their judgement, we thought we could depend on them to do in the House of Assembly what was in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This government has stopped listening, Mr. Speaker. They have to recognize the fact that all of these petitions, the polls that are being done in the last number of days, all are exceedingly consistent in their opposition to this piece of legislation. They are not blind, they can see it, but they are denying the facts that are so clearly in front of them, facts that are saying to them: The people of this Province do not want to see Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro privatized.

They can sit there and say: We are elected to govern, we know better. There are rare occasions when the government is in possession of information that allows them to have a better judgement on a particular issue. This is not the case. The bottom line here is that what we are talking about is an asset that is owned by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the same people who are signing these petitions, who are calling the Open Line shows, and who are being polled in the polls that are being done, the shareholders of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Those shareholders are saying to this government: We do not wish to have our Hydro corporation sold. And as the shareholders, surely that is their right, Mr. Speaker. It is their right to speak out loudly and clearly and tell this government, who are simply the administrators of Newfoundland Hydro on behalf of constituents all around this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: - they have a right to tell them: We do not want our asset to be sold.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WINDSOR: We do not want Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro to be privatized.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say a few words in support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl, who points out that the petitioners represent places from far and wide, from all parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, every nook and cranny, as my friend, the Member for Grand Bank used to say in the past. I want to speak in support of their petition. The prayer of the petition is clear and obvious.

We have been seeing some very strange and unusual things happening over the last little while, particularly the last couple of weeks, where we saw the Premier, after accusing us of spreading confusion or causing some difficulties in terms of helping people understand, he is the one who went out and asked for Province-wide television time. He is the one who asked to appear on a CBC Open Line program here, to appear on a radio Open Line program over in Corner Brook. He is the one who created the sudden flurry of activity and interest in the Hydro debate. And on Tuesday night in his Province-wide television address he says: Ah, ha! I have been keeping it a secret. We did have a hidden agenda. I told my colleagues not to open their mouths. I told them, and they agreed, and for that I greatly give them my respect. But, he spent twenty-five minutes of his thirty minutes telling us what his hidden agenda was. He needed to privatize Hydro because, and he went on to talk about this ability to be able to recall Upper Churchill power. That was Tuesday.

Then on Thursday in the debate, when I pointed out to him that in his own documentation back in 1986 you didn't need to privatize Hydro, you could have that same thing done by having Newfoundland Light and Power make the application to the Public Utilities Board, the Premier agreed, on Province-wide TV, after telling us on Tuesday that he wanted to privatize, or had to privatize, because he wanted to access this Upper Churchill power, then on Thursday, admits he didn't have to privatize to access the Upper Churchill power.

Mr. Speaker, is there any wonder about the confusion? Then of course, I asked the Premier in the House yesterday about some of the things he had been saying, and is it true that he would not proceed unless he had the support of the people, and he said no. Yesterday he changed his mind again and said: No, we are going to proceed to privatize.

So, Mr. Speaker, the gall of the Premier to accuse us of misleading people, or spreading confusion. Can you believe it? It is just absolutely crazy.

Now, I just want to touch on the performance of members opposite in this debate as well, while I have the opportunity. Now, I had occasion to travel around the Province and attend a number of public meetings, some large and some small. It doesn't matter what the numbers were, but there were people with some concerns and interest, and I had occasion to travel to a number of places. Members opposite were asked to have public meetings and they absolutely refused, with two exceptions; one, the Member for Pleasantville who listened to the people, had several hundred people at his meeting, and then made his position known, and he did not support the Premier in his efforts to privatize.

The other was the Member for St. John's South, who called a public meeting where, I think, he nearly got lynched, or close to being lynched, according to the reports. I have to confess, I wasn't there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was this?

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. John's South.

I have to confess, I wasn't there, but those were the reports. Then we had the example of the Member for St. John's North, who really hit the jackpot. He really hit the jackpot yesterday when he said to us in this House: I've done a poll over in St. John's North. Oh, what is the poll? I called twenty-five people on seventeen streets, he told me afterwards. Twenty-five people that you called - you called them - that is not exactly how you conduct a poll. Hi, I'm Lloyd Matthews. I'm your member. I'm with the Premier. I'm supporting Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: How would you do it?

MR. SIMMS: We did it by using independent people who made the calls for us.

It's too bad my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I had more to say. Maybe the Government House Leader would like to give me a little bit of leave so I can complete.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to give the hon. gentleman all the time he needs, but we will do it in Interim Supply, so I would move that the - class is now at attention. Is that what my friend, the Member for Grand Bank has said? I move that Orders of the Day now be read, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 21.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand there is consent to deal with Motion 3 first. That is the motion that will refer the Estimates to the Standing Committees. If so, let's deal with that one and then we will get on with the business of the day.

Motion, in accordance with Motion 3 on the Order Paper, that various Heads of Expenditure be referred to various Government Services Committees as outlined in the motion itself, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for St. John's East asked about the number of days. The Standing Order says sitting days, not calendar days, so if he had a concern there is no concern on that account anyway.

Your Honour, given that we are going to be debating Interim Supply, and the need to ensure adequate debate on this matter of a billion dollars, I would move the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Contrary-minded, `nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, could we now go on to Order 2(a) that is the Interim Supply. By the count given to me by the Clerks at the Table we have now used five and one-third hours on this debate. We will have the opportunity to do a number of hours more this day and then we will see where we go from there. The House will not sit I hope beyond 10:00 p.m., I would say to members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: No matter how much members opposite demand that we sit beyond 10:00 p.m., Your Honour, we shall not.

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

 

Committee of the Whole

 

MR. CHAIRMAN (Crane): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could continue from where I was before I was so rudely interrupted.

MR. MURPHY: Relevance, Mr. Chairman, relevance.

MR. SIMMS: This in Interim Supply. Anything you say is relevant in Interim Supply, I say to the Member for St. John's South.

I was pointing out the procedure used by the Member for St. John's North in conducting his now infamous poll, the one he told us about in the House, or he let it slip the other day in the House. He said: I telephoned twenty-five people myself personally. Mr. Chairman, if ever there was an example of intimidation tactics used in conducting a poll there is the perfect example. You couldn't very well conduct a poll -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) old widows.

MR. SIMMS: I don't know who he called but I have no doubt he called his constituents. I believe him when he says that. Mr. Chairman, the thing is that the hon. Member for St. John's North has done exactly what the Premier has admitted to doing in a certain way. Because the Premier told us last week he picked a name from a petition and he called him up. Hello, this is Clyde Wells, did you write your name on this petition? The person said: No, Mr. Premier, I didn't, of course I didn't, no, I didn't mean to do it, I didn't want to do it, I'm sorry, the devil made me do it. Or something like that.

Then we have the Member for St. John's North phones twenty-five people.

MR. EFFORD: What's wrong with that? (Inaudible) to his constituents?

MR. SIMMS: He says: Hi, this is John Efford - this is what is wrong with it. I'm with the Premier. I'm in the Cabinet of the Premier, you know, and we are supporting Hydro, so I hope you will support Hydro. That is no way to do a poll. The minister knows the difference in that. That is silliness and nonsense. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we conducted a poll Friday evening and Saturday which -

MR. EFFORD: And your poll is right.

MR. SIMMS: Well, ours is fairly -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) no doubt about that.

MR. SIMMS: Well, let me just say to the minister.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Verified by two others.

MR. SIMMS: Let me tell the minister now. Today on CBC radio, (inaudible) Anne -

MR. EFFORD: CBC. That is where you get all your information.

MR. SIMMS: No, today - just relax, I say to the minister. Just relax.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) awful testy over there today.

MR. SIMMS: They are all testy over there today. I guess after that caucus meeting yesterday when the arms were raised like this, boy, and the Premier was going and laying down the law to them all, you needn't worry about them being testy. On CBC -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) road work (inaudible) take it all back (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: That is okay, I don't need to beg for road work, I say to the minister. I don't need to beg for road work. That won't make any difference to whether people vote for me in Grand Fall's District, I can assure you. Not one bit. They got very little when I was in the government out there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Let me repeat that and say as modestly as I can that the people of Grand Falls District were treated with fairness and balance in the ten years that I was in the Cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, you see what their strategy is. Try to talk you off. They had this big caucus meeting yesterday. They said: What we have to do is when they get up on petitions we have to interrupt, interject, yell, shout, laugh, anything. Get them off track. That is what he is doing there now; it is his task I guess today as a member of the front bench to do that. What I was trying to say to him is that you don't conduct a poll in the manner of the Member for St. John's North. I was talking about CBC radio - CBC radio today, Anne Budgell, interviewed Mark Graesser a professor at the university, a political science professor -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, now you're going to attack Mark Graesser?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, and they loved him when the polls were showing -

MR. SIMMS: When the polls were showing them going very well, polls conducted by Professor Graesser and his students, oh it was all fine and hunky-dory, lovely. Now they've spent their time in the last two days attacking Cyril Abery, they talked about Greg Malone, they talked about Bill Vetter, they down-graded Wade Locke today, the economist in the front page of the university, Andy Wells, I mean they've attacked just about everybody in the world. Now today, because they've ran out of people to attack, they finally attack Mark Graesser, a professor of political science at the university, whose students, along with him, do polling and teach polling techniques, that's part of their training, very good. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology confirms they do a good job and he's a good man and the Member for Eagle River, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, confirms they are good people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What I was about to tell the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is that the way our poll was conducted was a very valid poll, very legitimately done, large sample, quite a large sample of 274 names, one question, so it's scientific because you hardly need to be a political science professor to analysis the results of the answer to one single question.

MS. VERGE: He said it was a fair question.

MR. SIMMS: He said it was a very fair question and thought that the results were very accurate but if that wasn't enough - so our polls showed somewhere between 70 and 85 per cent opposed.

AN HON. MEMBER: 87.1 per cent

MR. SIMMS: There was 70 and 87.1 per cent - 87.1 per cent on the high level if you just counted the decided voters, 71 per cent or 70 per cent if you counted everybody including the undecideds. Now that sort of agrees with the poll on VOCM yesterday morning, Bill Rowe, the one they like or the one they used to like and again the one they don't like, Bas's show, where they had another three to one poll last night. In spite of the fact, the ones who are voting for privatization only got less than one-quarter of the vote and that was with the help of the Member for Terra Nova, I understand, who I'm told called - she confirms it herself that she phoned four times. So even with her help, after saying it was all nonsense you hear on Open Line, she didn't mind calling in herself to contribute to more of that nonsense I guess, is the way she looked at it and then confirmed this morning by an M-5 poll, Market Quest - a reputable firm here in Newfoundland that does research and opinion surveys for various clients - and, Mr. Chairman, their poll indicated very similar numbers. Somewhere, 63 per cent opposed - what is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: 79 per cent of decided.

MR. SIMMS: 79 per cent of decided voters were opposed - how many were in favour?

MS. VERGE: Four to one.

MR. SIMMS: Whatever it was, it was a very low number as the members know. So I don't know how much more evidence you want but let me say to the members this, in case they're looking for more credible evidence, let me just tell them that we also have commissioned a public independent poll as well to be done by a very credible and reputable Canadian polling firm, results of which we'll have in place early next week, I guess. So this will be more evidence if you need more evidence. Now I have to say also, Mr. Chairman, by the way, we don't think that this is the best way to gauge the public reaction to this issue. We don't believe this is the best way but having pressed the Premier and asked him time and time again to do a plebiscite, a referendum or something, even public hearings and having told us: no, no, no, we won't do it. Well then we felt we had no other choice but to conduct some public polling ourselves so that we have something that may be not quite as shaded, jaded or manipulated as one the government is doing.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, could be. No because ours is only one question, I say to the minister. I bet any poll you did or do or will be doing or are doing or whatever, will be more then one question.

MR. EFFORD: You got that right.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I got it right is right. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, isn't it interesting, I had a couple of calls today, Mr. Chairman, the minister and others might be interested in hearing this. I had a couple of calls today from people who were called last night on a poll; it is not one we are doing -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) poll.

MR. SIMMS: No, that's already done, it was announced this morning, his was -

MR. EFFORD: It was announced before.

MR. SIMMS: No, but I will tell you who it is. Maybe the minister can tell us who it was, two questions.

MR. EFFORD: Two questions?

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: One question dealing with denominational education and one question dealing with Hydro privatization, so the minister might be able to tell us who is doing those kinds of polls.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government.

MR. SIMMS: No, the Premier denied that yesterday; they are not doing any polling, I don't know if the Member for Port de Grave -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, let me start off this way by telling hon. members opposite and the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the only poll that I have done in Port de Grave district, except for one occasion, my good friend and colleague from Eagle River did one for me prior to an election, which overwhelmingly shocked me by the majority that I was going to win by but nevertheless -

AN HON. MEMBER: Underestimated.

MR. EFFORD: Underestimated, a little bit, yes, fractional, but anyhow, the only polls that I have done in Port de Grave district or believe in doing in Port de Grave district, it was 1985, 1989, 1993, other than that, Newfoundland Light and Power and the Newfoundland Telephone Company sticks up a few poles and that is the only thing I ever intend to see in my district. This nonsense of governing by polls, in other words, every time the Opposition gets something that they disagree with now, that we run out and we conduct a poll and then when we conduct a poll we decide if we are going to govern this Province. Now, how silly can you get? That's the reason why after seventeen years of government that we ended up with a $6.7 billion debt around here. That's the reason why we have to go through this massive restructuring of the financial administration of the Province and try to provide enough money for the essential services of the Province because of the mismanagement of you people over there for seventeen years.

We inherited a total collapse of the financial economy, a total mess of the administration in this Province and now the best you can sit down there are Andy Wells and Greg Malone and a few of those people lead up the charge for you to go across the Province and do polls. Do all the polls you want, that means absolutely nothing, the people of the Province conducted a referendum, conducted a plebiscite, conducted a poll in May the 4, was it, May 4 of 1993.

AN HON. MEMBER: May 3.

MR. EFFORD: May 3, that was poll enough for the people of this Province. Clearly the majority of the people of this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty-seven to forty-three.

MR. EFFORD: Well, how come you are over there in the Opposition and we are over here? Whether it is one goal or ten goals, it is still a winner, and as my hon. colleague from St. John's South, in his first election won his election by one vote and I won by 2,800, he is the Member for St. John's South and I am still the Member for Port de Grave too, whether it is 1 or 2,800, he has a victory so you could talk about semantics and about numbers and who got the most, you people over there are the official Opposition of this Province and here is the governing body of this Province, you can't have it both ways, you had your -

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be long.

MR. EFFORD: Well then, it may not be, but the one clear thing, the people of the Province will decide how long it will be. Mr. Chairman, I spoke to a group of people last week in my district, and one of the questions I asked the people in the district: do they want us, as a government, this government of the day, to go out and start borrowing and start doing the foolish things, the foolish decisions to further increase that $6.7 billion debt, where we are paying out $585 million on interest, and will be for the rest of our lives and our children's lives and grandchildren's lives, they will be paying it off, the mistakes of the past, is that what you want me to do as your representative in the House of Assembly, to continually make foolish decisions, and I suggest, there is a couple of business people sitting on the opposition benches, if they had operated their businesses in the way in which you operated the government in the past, I can assure you they wouldn't be able to sit back and fold their arms now collecting interest on the money they have deposited in accounts.

You don't operate that way. You don't go around and make foolish decisions and I have more confidence in the people of this Province that we are going to make some sensible, rational decisions that will be short-term pain for long-term gain, and that's the key issue here, Mr. Chairman. The key issue is to ensure that we do have a future, that we do have an economic future in this Province but you cannot keep borrowing, borrowing and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, and expect to say: well, come on back whenever you want it, we will give you more. That is so silly it is not even worth mentioning.

I spoke to another group out in my area and I asked them a simple question. If you are earning $2,000 a month income and you spend $2,500, you realize that cannot continue. You could get away with it one month but not the second month. So you have to make some things change. Some things you have to do without, some things you have to cut away, some things you may have to change. You may have to change the way in which you work. Instead of having one job a day you may have to get a second job in order to supplement your income. In order to take care of your debt.

Government is no different. In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, it is privatization. Government should not be involved in the operations of business. Entrepreneurship should be left up to free enterprise. Members opposite know that. Although now I notice the Leader of the Opposition has to go around to his fellow colleagues and tell them: Don't notice Efford. You have to remember, Efford is not talking about polls now. Efford is talking about something that makes financial sense, something that the Tories absolutely know nothing about, have never displayed in seventeen years of government. They have never shown any financial management at all.

We have the responsibility of making some major decisions. I have total confidence in the decisions that are going to be made are not only for the political interest of a particular party or a particular government of the day, but the interest of the future of this Province. I was elected by the people in the District of Port de Grave to make some wise decisions. I was elected to make some rational, sensible, logical, common sense decisions. To get away from the pickle factories and to get away from the cucumbers and to get away from all that silliness and make some decisions that are going to protect my children and my grandchildren and all the children in the future of this Province. Just imagine making decisions that people four or five generations down the road are going to be burdened with the stupid debts of a government of the past. Governments of the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is still a giveaway.

MR. EFFORD: Giveaway? Five hundred million dollars coming into the coffers of the Province, or $300 million, whatever the number is, is a giveaway?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Okay. We talk - what do you say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Churchill Falls.

MR. EFFORD: What about the Second World War and the First World War and the Boer War and the war between Custer? What about the 500 years ago in history? What about when the people came over here from England and France and settled on the shores? What about all the 500 years ago? What about the seventeen years of Tory mismanagement, Mr. Chairman, what about the seventeen years there? What about the $7 billion we are in debt? What about the $585 million we are paying out in interest? What about all that, Mr. Chairman, that is money that the people of the Province could have to create a better economy?

The problem is that we are making some sensible, rational decisions and they can't stand the fact that we are doing something right. That is the key factor. Now they are going to try to `poll' us out. If they are going to `poll', they should take the `polls' to Newfoundland Light and Power, or Hydro, or Newfoundland Telephone, or some cable company, those people who have experience in sticking poles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in Address in Reply to discuss the situation that the government due to policy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) Interim Supply.

MR. E. BYRNE: Interim Supply. I apologize to the Government House Leader. To talk about government's policy and rationale to changes to the student loan program.

Post-secondary education. Memorial University, Cabot, Trades, Marine Institute, were founded on the premise that accessibility to education -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) $585 million (inaudible)!

MR. E. BYRNE: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. May I speak? I sat down in silence and listened to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: No one else did.

MR. E. BYRNE: I certainly did.

I expect the same courtesy from him that I provided to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to members opposite and members in the House that post-secondary education, and the institutions in this Province, were founded to provide accessibility to every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, especially those who come from rural Newfoundland, because of the higher tuition costs and the higher costs associated with education of moving into larger centres to be educated.

The Province's recent change to the student loan program does not in any way, shape or form reflect the reality that those institutions were built upon. The changes, in general, will decrease accessibility to education in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And if the minister will listen I will tell him how and why.

Generally will decrease the accessibility to students in this Province, those who will not be able to afford a student loan, those who will not be able to afford to go to university because of the increased debt -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the policy changes on student aid will -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will kindly listen to what I have to say he may get an answer to his question. If he is committed to interrupt this process, then take it outside somewhere. I have something of importance to talk about here today, and if you want to talk then you stand up and get recognized and talk like you did the last time.

I listened to you, Sir, and I ask you to listen to me!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Let's not get into a fiery debate across the House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, you must have had a hard night last night, did you? It must have been a very difficult night.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that there are members opposite and maybe - I am not so sure about the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - who have benefitted greatly from Memorial University, Cabot and trades institute and post-secondary institutions in this Province, and they, I can tell you, the Member for Eagle River, the Member for Stephenville, they did not have the burden placed upon them as what they are about to do to the students of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, in my own case -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you again, will you sit the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation down and ask him kindly to refrain from interrupting me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Let's listen to the Member for Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the minister has some difficulty with what I am saying, then he has the opportunity to stand up and respond to what I have said.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, let me give the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation some numbers to chew on.

First of all, under the new system here all grants will be eliminated. Remission begins, supposedly, at $22,000. That eliminates people from Cabot and the Marine Institute from any hope of remission on student loans because if they were in a three year program, which the majority of them are, they will reach $18,000 or $19,000 at that level. They will not be acceptable, or not meet the criteria for remission.

Now in my own case, when I attended university, the only reason that I could go there was because of the student loan program. My parents could not afford to send me there. There were seven children, one salary. The only reason that I could afford to go there was because of student aid and the loan and the grant system here.

When I left university I came out of university with a $16,500 student loan; a loan, not grants, a loan. I will have paid that back over nine-and-a-half years at approximately $300 a month, and in paying that back I will have paid back to the Government of Canada, or the banks, in excess of $30,000.

Now what the government has done with this new policy is that they have guaranteed that somebody in a four to five year program, or somebody who wishes to go on to post-graduate work, that their debt load will be doubled that for a five year program. They have guaranteed that students will come out with at least a minimum of $22,000 and a maximum of $45,000 to be paid back. Now that's the principal we are talking about.

In paying that back over 114 months, which is nine-and-a-half years, students in this Province will be required to pay back in the vicinity of somewhere between $44,000 and $75,000 to $80,000. That is what this policy has done, bar none.

If the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and members opposite, or any members in the House today, believe that is not a deterrent to attending post-secondary education, then I ask you, what world are you living in?

The Member for Eagle River knows full well what I am talking about. He must have sympathy for the students on this issue, he must have sympathy for what students from his district will come out, and how will they get access to University education.

Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the process. For the past eighteen months, the past year and a half, students who sat on the student aid advisory committee have been lobbying the Minister of Education to hold a student aid advisory meeting to talk about the serious issues and inequities and inequalities that exist in the student aid system. That did not take place. The minister even said: I wasn't even aware that there was a student aid advisory committee. A student aid advisory committee meeting did take place. It took place on Budget Day in the West Block, the same time that the Budget was being given and denied students the opportunity to talk about student aid changes. The government did not consult in any way, shape or form.

I would like to get into the criteria on the student aid changes. The government has been unable to say when these changes will take place. There have been different reports. Some of the news media have reported that government officials have said that it will take place during the summer semester, right after the winter semester. The Minister of Finance indicated that these changes would take place beginning in September. Nobody truly knows. When the minister talked about the remission stage, that students at a certain point would be given remission, that they wouldn't have to pay back all of the loan if they meet certain criteria, pressed for an answer on what the criteria would be he didn't have the criteria. There were no - and I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that there are no criteria established yet on who will be granted remission on student loans and who will not be granted remission on student loans.

That is what is happening. That we have seen a blanket policy made to save $10 million off the backs of students in this Province who have paid through the nose over the last five years in rising tuition costs, in rising books, in rising travel, in rising accommodation subsidies here, with the same levels of student aid and student grants that have existed for the last decade. That is what we have seen.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: No it is not, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, but in about two and half, three years from now, your time will be up. I can guarantee you that.

Mr. Chairman: I am a student at Memorial University and I object strongly to the Wells government plan to eliminate student grants to post-secondary students. This letter reflects many of the concerns that students have and we will see tomorrow and throughout the coming weeks: I need this money desperately to be able to continue my studies. I am trying to get off unemployment insurance by improving my job chances through education. Premier Wells may claim that government already subsidized post-secondary students heavily in Newfoundland and Labrador but we need help because of our poor economy. I also understand that the banks will administer all student aid. As difficult as it is to deal with government when it comes to student aid, I fear students will have a much more difficult time dealing with the private sector and the banking institutions. Mr. Byrne, as a constituent of yours I demand you voice students' opposition to this draconian plan of the Wells government. I, my wife, three children will be waiting to hear what you have to say in this matter.

Now, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Kilbride. I understand - and I'm not going to get into a shouting match back and forth. I'm going to make some points as he made or attempted to make some points. I wasn't sure or clear on the points he was making.

One of the things that any government has to do - it is like any organization or any business or operation or financial institution - you have to make some major decisions. Student loans have always been a problem with me as an MHA dealing with students going to University. Trying to access a loan and the grant portion of that loan. It has always been based on an income, a gross income of a family. This is one of the things that I totally disagree with, based on the gross income.

So if an individual has two or three children, whatever - let's use the example of two kids going to University, or attempting to go to University - those individuals would naturally go and apply for a student loan with the hope of getting a grant. If one of the parents is working, and they have an income - and let's use for example an income of $35,000 a year gross - they cannot access the grant portion of that student program.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Hold on now. This has been the issue all down the years. I personally have had the experience with members of my own family or relatives of mine who went through this. Constituents of mine, time after time. I saw kids enter university from September up until December, still appealing and arguing back and forth, trying to get a student loan and a grant before this is straightened out, no food, no money, depending on friends and depending on family to put the money in. Now nobody wants to make a decision to make it more difficult for people to obtain an education.

I disagree with him when he said that students could not access loans, that's utter nonsense. A student can get a loan to go to university, there's no doubt about it. The end result is the key, when a person comes out of university how much he/she will owe and will have to pay back, that's the key issue. Getting a loan is not a problem because now everybody is put on an equal plateau. Anybody making $50,000 a year or less will be able to access the full amount of a student loan going to university. That's a big step forward from what has happened in the past. The issue here is entering university and being able to complete a post-secondary education, whether it is university, Cabot Institute or whatever, so there's where you start. So they're wrong to get up in the House of Assembly and say that they could not get a loan. It's absolutely wrong unless there's an isolated or a particular case that - surroundings that are beyond the normal financial situation but the average student would be able to access a loan.

Now those people who would normally be between $35,000 and $50,000 would never be able to get the student grant. If that was their parents gross income, not net, gross income they would not be able to get a student grant. They would have to borrow the money all up through the years. So it's nonsense to say that this is going to change all of the way in which students access loans - access university. When the day comes down, Mr. Chairman, at the end of the graduation day and having to pay back the money, there is your criteria and how they can access help from government, based on a need, on a need basis how much money that they will have to pay back. That's when individuals find themselves in difficult circumstances, all employed, the criteria will be as such that they can get the interest and - if I am correct, I haven't read all the criteria yet - have that portion of the loan forgiven.

Now let's go back to making financial decisions in government, Mr. Chairman, this is a key factor. No government wants to change or make things any more difficult for the taxpayers of this Province and those people who have to be provided with essential services then they absolutely have to. Now, I've joked back and forth in political - spoke in political debates back and forth the House about the amount of debt that this Province carries. Now let's leave away with who caused the debt, whether it's the Liberals or the Tories for a second, get away from the political thing and let me make a point. I was just doing some multiplications when the hon. Member for Kilbride was talking, we pay out every year in interest, on the debt that the Province owes, the people not the government, the people or the government is all one and the same, $585 million a year. Now that may be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Let me explain it now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, ask a question. $585 million a year and you multiply that times ten years, that's over $5 billion going out in interest payments in a ten year period. If the debt of the Province was cut down or if we had not had that massive debt that we have for 500,000 people, look at the money that we would have in the revenues of the Province to provide people with more of the services, more of the education opportunities and more of everything else that they deserve. The whole problem is that we owe so much money that the cost of financing that debt is taking up the monies that we need to provide health, education and all the other essential services of government. This is the real fact.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I got - that's one thing I don't do is read a speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Now, we are cutting to the bone again. We're getting to the truth again. So, Mr. Chairman, the only issue is, some hard decision has to be made. You cannot spend money that you do not have whether you're in government, whether you're in business, whether you're in private life, no matter what position you're in you cannot spend money which you do not have. You go to the money markets, you go to your own local bank, you go to the Household Finance or whatever, you cannot borrow money unless you do have the capability of paying that money back. So the real truth, Mr. Chairman, the real truth about the whole situation is that we do have difficult times and that everybody is going to have to bite the bullet. Everybody is going to have short-term pain, but if we make some hard fast decisions, hopefully - and we all hope this, that in future this Province will be a better Province in which to live, more financially conscious of the needs of others, and not just spending with no thought of the future of the Province. That is the key factor here, protection of the future and not the political partisanship of any particular party of the day.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to be able to rise today and talk about Interim Supply. There are just a few very brief comments I would like to make. The minister got up earlier and talked about the history. He went back and talked about the book on cucumbers, Churchill Falls and all those things. I said time after time in this House that the attitude of looking forward has to be brought into this House. About 80 per cent of our time is taken up with mistakes on cucumbers and Churchill Falls. I do not like either one of them, I do not support them and I do not care who supported them. We have to start moving on and looking forward.

I think about the Budget that came in and the first time, I, as a newly elected politician stepped into this House to listen to a Budget come down. People in this Province were looking for some hope, even a glimmer of hope, from a government that keeps saying we are looking into the future. The minister mentioned about making a mistake and doing something for future generations. That is exactly what I am worried about, and especially about the privatization of Hydro. That is exactly my point, I am worried about the future. That is why when I look at my kids I wonder if they are going to be feeling the same way about the privatization of Hydro in twenty years from now, when maybe one of them will be politicians, as I feel right now about Churchill Falls.

Every day we are taking it for granted now, a big booboo that was made so many years ago, and we just sit back and say, too bad, we cannot do anything about it. That is the point I am making, about looking into the future and making sure we do not make mistakes now that we are going to regret for our children. That is exactly my point. I say to the minister with all honesty, and with everything I can muster from what we have talked about, is that the privatization of Hydro is going to be that mistake again, the same bloody mistake again.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible)

MR. SHELLEY: Or because you say so. Which is it? If we are going to argue this back and forth again like we did with the legislation when it was going through, when we talked about Bill 2, I say to the minister the whole point is, let us open it up and halt what is going on right now. Let up put it out.

MR. EFFORD: That is what you did when you were in government.

MR. SHELLEY: I certainly was not in government for seventeen years. When you talk about seventeen years ago I was eight years old. I do not want to talk about seventeen years ago. I am sick of people bringing up seventeen years ago. I would not have supported things they did back then. I did not support some of the things the federal government did. That is exactly my point, that we do the right thing now. This privatization bill, very simply put, is short-term gain. It will balance our books for the next two years but what about later when we leave and are out of here? If you cannot stand here in this House of Assembly as an elected MHA and be assured - you are the government of the day and you have to be 100 per cent sure this is not a mistake and if you are not then you cannot stand in this House and support this privatization bill.

If it is such a good thing, I say to all hon. members, well let us halt it for two or three months, or six months. The Premier says we created hysteria out of this, okay, let me say I agree with that, we made hysteria of it. You are right, the Opposition, the Greg Malones, the Power of the People, and everybody else, they are people. Why do hon. members keep shooting down these people? I do not know their politics. I do not know Greg Malone's politics. I do not know Wade Locke's politics. I am just telling the hon. members right now in this House, and I will swear on any stack of bibles that I do not know the politics of Wade Locke, neither do I care. I do not know the politics of Greg Malone. I do not, I say to the hon. minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the politics of Steve Neary?

MR. SHELLEY: I do know the politics of Steve Neary. I do know the politics of the hon. Member for Pleasantville. I do know their politics but I do not know the politics of these other gentlemen, and I really do not care. The point is that there are other people on both sides who have called into open line and said, I am a Liberal. I am still supporting Premier Wells, by the way, but I can't support him on this bill.

Now what about that person? Don't you think they have concerns? Sure they do, because they are afraid of another major boo boo taking place that our generations are going to have to live with again. That is what I say to him.

So I say to the Premier, if this is hysteria, okay, I will agree with hysteria. Let's say he is right. So, Premier, now you've got your chance. Let's cut it all off, take two months, send out your fancy flyers like you did the other day, take your half hour debate on the tv like you did the other day. He did all that, and the people still don't believe him, so when is the government going to finally concede defeat and say: Listen, we made a mistake here. We tried to push something on the people of this Province and they didn't have anything to say about it.

I still believe, to this day, that there are many members over there who did not know what was going on with privatization of Hydro. You did not know how far it was advancing. I am willing to bet on that, that there are many members who sit over there today and when the Premier, when I asked the question - I think it was myself or somebody else - way back, I don't know what date it was: Is it true you are going to privatize Hydro? No, that's only a rumour, silly rumours the Opposition are bringing up.

The same thing again, and lo and behold we find out three weeks later sure enough, behind closed doors with the five wise men, the five elite friends of the Premier, sure enough, it was ongoing for a long time.

So I say to the Premier, you had two chances. You had, first of all, to come clean in the beginning and open it all up and you could have explained it all to people. Then none of this hysteria would have happened. Then you had a second chance. When we finally broke it open, or the Greg Malone's, or the POP's or whatever of the world broke this open, or smoked it out, you had another chance. You spent money - what is it, $60,000 Hydro spent for these beautiful little flyers to come in our mailboxes out to my constituents explaining it all. Then, lo and behold, driving home to my district on the weekend, ten times within half an hour, advertising about Hydro, what a wonderful thing it is. So you had your chance again. Then, lo and behold, the Premier comes on for a full half an hour on live TV, the perfect Premier, to explain how everything is going to be perfect.

Well, I will say to the Premier, people are not buying it and, I will tell you, I agree with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on one thing. We do agree on one thing for sure, the polls; they are just indicators. I agree with that. I think it was Ottenheimer or somebody who said they are only good for the dog's use, but as far as polls go, I agree with you; they are just indicators. The only real poll, I have said it all the time anyway, is election day. You are right, they are just indicators. I agree with the Minister on that, but let's take the indicators. There is nobody over there in their right mind, nobody on the hon. government side right now, who really believes that there is no opposition to this. People keep standing up and saying they had two calls, and maybe that is all you had, but believe me there is opposition, very strong, strong opposition, to this privatization, and I will tell you it is for one big reason.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I certainly am, and I challenge the government members to open it up and debate us in public. If it is a great thing, open it up and debate us in public, in front of constituents, in front of crowds, in front of forums, in front of university students, in front of unions. I challenge any members to open it up and debate it in front of those people, and we will lay all our cards on the table and see what hand they pick. If they really believe it to be good...

The simplest one to me is a referendum. If it's great stuff -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will give you another half an hour. We will give the Premier another half an hour on tv. We will let him send out some more fancy brochures, and whatever he wants to do, I say to the Premier. You do whatever you want to do. Stand up and shout and bawl, go across the Island with a bus if you want to, like you did during the election, the big red machine, when you didn't mention privatization of Hydro. Go across the Island on a bus and take all the time you want, Premier, and all of your hon. colleagues over there who are following very close behind. As a matter of fact, you had better back up a little bit.

I say another thing to the hon. members over there, this is just one issue, and all the members here in the front, all of our seasoned veterans, it might be fine for you, but I am only a new politician, and so are some of the members in the back here, and I am going to be here for awhile, and I will tell you what.

I am going to stand and talk on behalf of my constituents right to the bitter end, and remember, I will warn you right now, if you plan to have a long, long career in politics, remember to stand and speak for your constituents. Don't be led around by a Pied Piper. Stand up and speak on your own. Give your bit of guts and you will be here a long time, because all of these fellows are not going to be here for that much longer, maybe one more election at the most. But remember they are standing on their own, the fellows with the guts -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: I missed something here. I said you guys will be here for maybe one more, but you have some young rookies in the back, they are still aspiring politicians and I can tell you now, here is my warning, you had better start speaking on behalf of your constituents, because if you don't, you are going down with the ship and the ship is going down, let me tell you, the ship is going down.

Now, I only have a couple of minutes left I think, Mr. Chairman, I think it is just a couple of minutes left, one minute left, so I just want to make one point on Interim Supply and I say to the Member for Eagle River: I talked to quite a few people in Labrador this weekend, I happened to return there for a couple of days; I lived there for six years -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Labrador West?

MR. SHELLEY: Labrador West, - as the member knows, Labradorians in general, I speak for Labradorians. I lived there for six years and I can tell the member that they are very, very displeased with the Labrador subsidy on sports being removed; such a small sum of money like they say, $50,000 or $60,000, I am not sure - maybe the member can tell me later, such a small sum of money that means so much to those people up there who are isolated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: May I just finish up, Mr. Chairman, thirty seconds, if the member -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave?

MR. SHELLEY: May I just make a point to the Member for Eagle River?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave? No leave.

MR. SHELLEY: No leave? Too bad.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I can't believe - I didn't intend standing up but after the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, made the concession that, maybe one more election, maybe one more election, 1997. Now, where is the confidence in the leader, 1997? I am prepared to take my chances in 1997 with the confidence placed by the hon. Opposition, maybe one more election. Maybe it is not so bad out there as people would like us to believe, is it? Ah ha! Ah ha!

AN HON. MEMBER: We heard the same thing a year ago.

MR. EFFORD: A year ago prior to May 3, we heard the same thing. Well, I have a kind of feeling, we'll take maybe two more elections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or three.

MR. EFFORD: Or probably three more and let me tell the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, that I don't intend retiring and I don't intend sitting on the Opposition any more either. I don't intend, Sir. So I am going to tell you, the one, clear thing that we can be sure of, that we have the confidence of the people of this Province that when they made a choice on May 3, they made the right choice. That is the key question, that's it and the hon. member knows it now because he said: maybe one more election.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I am quite satisfied, maybe one more, then we will think about the next one after that, that's what we have to look at. Now, just imagine, there is the key question, Mr. Chairman, just imagine, the people of this Province electing us by the majority that we had last May, we are now going to concede that all the decisions that are going to be made over the next two or three or four years are going to be Greg Malone, Andy Wells, Mark Graesser and all of those people. Now just imagine -

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget Bas.

MR. EFFORD: - and don't forget Bas. Now, just imagine who is going to make the decisions to run this Province?

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Bill Rowe?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, put Bill on the list, too. You will never know where he is, Bill is here and there, hither and thither, flip and flop, so, Mr. Chairman, there is no question about the fact of the people of this Province putting Greg Malone and Andy Wells into the decision-making, where the future economy of this Province would be so turned around, that we would be taking a flip flop back into the 1500s, because I could assure you, some of the financial decisions -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's modern compared to (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That's modern compared to what we are seeing there, so I know now. I have to add this, too, Mr. Chairman. I was up in the hon. member's district a couple of weeks ago, the first time I was ever in to Harbour Deep, a beautiful, little community. Now, I went in there and I had a meeting with the town council, met with a group of people who are taking a basic navigation course, and met with another group of people on, Improving Your Odds, three different groups of people in that particular day.

Now, I can tell you one thing about the people of Harbour Deep - they are fantastic people. They provided me with a welcome and a meal that it will take me a long time to forget so I want to express my appreciation to the people of Harbour Deep. But one thing I can tell you, they weren't saying I wish I had our member here. They never made a mention of the hon. member for all that day. The other thing I will tell you is that the three groups brought up the issue about Hydro, the three groups, two minutes into a conversation with them they asked: What's all this hullabaloo about Hydro? What is everybody talking about? I've got more important problems in Harbour Deep, more problems that are more important to me than worrying about Hydro. So I can tell the hon. Member for Baie Verte who just spent ten minutes on his feet, that the people in Harbour Deep are not torn up about whether the government owns Hydro or whether it is privatized. They know and trust this government to make the right decisions for their future as well as the future of the whole Province and he knows that all too well.

AN HON. MEMBER: 82 per cent.

MR. EFFORD: 82 per cent in Harbour Deep?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Go away with you, boy! Go away with you! Dream on. Any individual who would stand to his feet and talk about 82 per cent after just telling us there, well, maybe one more election you'll win. Well, that's pretty hard to take. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I don't mind sitting down here until ten o'clock this evening and listening to the hon. member get up another four or five times, debating all he wants to because he shows total confidence in this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have so many figures and I'm sure - I think I have one here, too, Member for Eagle River, in case we need it. The government members have been saying all along that ten times as many people called the Premier's office supporting Hydro as were against. The Member for St. John's North is on record as having carried out his personal very extensive poll of seventeen streets, twenty-five people total and he tries to look at a scientific poll. Well, you should read today's Evening Telegram, and go back and read Hansard, some of the things I've been saying here in this House for the past two weeks; and Wade Locke has addressed - an independent person who could not sit still any longer. He felt compelled - I never met the man in my life, but in this telegram, he said, `To me, the economics of it is not self-evident contrary to what has been claimed,' and he said, `I am a professionally trained economist. This is my job, this is what I do.' I'd like to refer to a few more things that he has addressed which are very important in this Hydro debate. Now, Wade Locke is asking what the people of this Province and we have been asking since the Hydro bill was introduced; we are asking to provide and put forward a cost analysis of the effect it is going to have on the people of this Province. We have asked to provide it. We would like to look at the figures that they have produced to show it's going to be beneficial to the taxpayers and the ratepayers of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: We're not, but I think the people of the Province have been asking this government to give us some information, give us some figures to put out there so we can see if you're telling the truth or not. And I tell the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, most of the figures that have been revealed on this have been sought from questioning, they have been obtained piecemeal. The government has been very reluctant, very, very reluctant to put out in a public forum the real questions and an independent economist has stated that. I've said before in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, who is speaking?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I recognized the Member for Ferryland district.

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Member for Eagle River wants to get up and speak - if he'd like to arrange a public meeting, I say that I will, at any time, debate with any of the members in a public forum on Hydro. You pick the time and place and I'll be there. Don't try to take up time in this House on my time. Do it on your own time, outside the time of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Anybody who would like to read that article; it is on page 1, and continued on page 8. I think anybody is capable of getting the paper and reading it in its entirety.

Now all he is asking for is nothing alarming. He has indicated maybe the figures he is using are not correct. He stated that. Maybe they are not, but they are the only figures we have. The government has been reluctant to put forth any figures on this, and every single one, the figures that we use, the Minister of Finance nods his head and says they are right, the Minister of Justice said yesterday the figures I used are right, we interpret them wrong.

Well if it's going to cost the taxpayers in this Province, and Wade Locke stated that in 1999 the rate payers of this Province will pay a big price for privatizing Newfoundland Hydro because they have it built into a rate adjustment fund, it is called, to ease the burden of increase in electricity so the consumer won't see it next year or the year after, or the year after, but they will see it in 1999. That is when there will be such a massive outcry and increase in electricity, and the Premier of the day, who will be the past Premier, if he is asked to give an explanation will indicate: Oh, but there are other factors that affected the rates of electricity in this Province.

He has admitted it is going up 11 per cent. He has admitted that. He is saying it would go up 7 per cent anyway, and every figure he used has been refuted, to a certain extent, or increased by almost double the figure he is using.

The sad part of this discussion on Hydro is not the fact that we can debate and discuss the figures, but he has failed to put forth on the table a cost. I asked the Minister of Justice yesterday, the Government House Leader, and he told me it won't cost anything to defease and retire $283 million of debt, to carry out a five year and a long-term defeasion on the remaining $760 million. It will cost nothing.

The Premier announced, when he introduced the bill, that a custodian is going to be established to independently - who independently is going to deal with several hundred million dollars worth of debt at no charge? That is crazy. He said, oh, inconsequential, are some of the words he used. I said: Get the figures and tell us what they are going to be, and he hasn't done it, and they haven't provided the figures on many of the things we have asked.

We are finding out in addition to the tens and tens, and in the hundreds of millions of dollars extra that we are going to pay, and here is what the Premier said, and this is very important and I would like you to take note. He said: What we lose in federal corporate income tax we are going to make up in provincial tax. Well let me just point out the fallacy associated with that statement.

Here we are now receiving $9.5 million a year from the federal government of corporate tax that Newfoundland Power pays, and we keep that. Under this bill, we are then going to give that back to Newfoundland Power, because we are going to give Hydro a break on corporate income tax.

Now Hydro is three times the size and would have to pay about $25 million to $30 million corporate income tax we will get back. We are not going to keep that. We are going to pass that back to Hydro, and he says, well, that keeps rates down, and I will agree with that part of it. It does. He says, but we are going to make up for that $35 million by collecting provincial tax from a new company called new Hydro; but he fails to tell the people of the Province where this money is going to come from. This money is going on the expense side of the ledger with new Hydro, and they are allowed a guaranteed profit, and it is going on the rates of electricity in this Province. That is what he doesn't tell the people of the Province.

I will tell you about municipalities what he doesn't tell the people of this Province. He indicates that over a period of three years we will phase in taxes so municipalities can collect more, and at the end of 1998, municipalities in this Province, in total now - and there are only a few municipalities served by Hydro; the rest are served by Newfoundland Power - are going to get a million dollars between them all. What he doesn't tell the people of the Province that is also an expense on the debt side of the ledger of this new company, and when they go to the Public Utilities Board they are allowed to charge that to the customers to recover that rate, and that is going on to the rate payers of this Province. I can tell you, there is only one - and only one - plus on the credit side of the ledger by privatizing Hydro, and that is by borrowing that much less money and saving us $25 million a year.

When you tabulate all those expenses on the negative side of the ledger it adds up into hundreds of millions of dollars out of taxpayers and out of rate payers in this Province that is going to drive the cost of electricity before the turn of the century, practically to the ceiling in this Province and beyond the year 2000. If we are talking about building for the future of this Province we should be planning for the future of this Province and not for a short-term problem. Now, we have to realize that there are no financial motives with foundation for privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Just think for a second, just use common sense, if you know nothing about economics and finances, just think for a second, why would you take a company that is giving a guaranteed rate of return that is only down to 5 to 8 per cent, that has no new legal costs, no new investment dealers out selling shares, no new cost of defeasance in these agreements, no new cost by giving an increase in return on equity with the new company expecting to get 6 or 7 per cent more. None of these costs would be there if we did not have privatization.

If the Premier wants to get extra revenue all we have to do is to ask Hydro to make a higher profit and increase the rates proportionately in this Province and do it that way, in the front door, and not out the back door that is costing people triple the amount in rate increases which we would face. That is all you have to do. Or charge them 2 or 3 per cent to guarantee the debt of the Province, whatever that might be. There are avenues to do it without privatizing Hydro. It is does not make any financial or economic sense because if it made a lot of financial sense I would have a tough time, regardless of what the party status is, or the party support, I would have a tough time standing up here if it made financial and economic sense to go against it, because I believe strongly in privatizing companies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: I believe strongly in private business and I believe strongly in privatizing companies that do not serve the public interest, but I do not believe strongly in privatizing a monopoly that is going to cost taxpayers and rate payers of this Province, and bring no new investment, no new technology, and no positives to this Province. I think it is disastrous, it is improper and we should defeat it. We should not be sitting back following what our leaders own motives and goals are. It is time to stand up and be counted on an issue that is vital to the future of this Province and is critical. We should not permit it to happen.

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

MR. MURPHY: The last time I heard that kind of a speech was by Phyllis on Open Line. The Calvert calculus. God help us. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what makes us live in fear? The possibility may come when the hon. member opposite is part of government. That is the fear I live in. I cannot speak for my hon. colleagues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: I say to the hon. Member for Humber East that I have a lot of copies of stuff, too.

MS. VERGE: Good.

MR. MURPHY: I am not interested in playing that game, I say to the hon. member. I say to the hon. member that I tremble in fear of the offer, and I just may not be up to it, is right. Why does the hon. Member for Grand Bank not table it? Throw it out.

I think we have heard enough rhetoric. I know the hon. Member for Ferryland and he is into this up to his neck, and good for him. The problem is he is starting to spin like the Member for Waterford - Kenmount when we were discussing the educational issue. His own numbers are starting to smother him. He is starting to choke on the Hydro issue. He cannot get it out of him fast enough because he is correcting himself now, I should say. I think what we have to do is pick up the Hansards and look at the Hansards and look at the hon. member's numbers from Day 1 and go through them, spin around, and I will bet the hon. member is after contradicting himself at least a half a dozen times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: We will see.

MS. VERGE: What about your cost benefit analysis?

MR. MURPHY: It seems to me I heard that question before from the same kind of a face, only there was a little hair on it. Same kind, same motives, the same whatever. My response at that particular time, and I will respond to the hon. member now, is what we have to be extremely careful of, okay - and I thought and I would say - let me say it publicly, that Councillor Jeff Brace last night, for anybody who saw that particular debate, was extremely astute and did an excellent job -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: That is alright.

MR. TOBIN: What about (inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: I would say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, if he is going flashing around paper he wants to be careful. Alright?

MR. TOBIN: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Because - well, that is fine. I'm not threatening. I'm just saying if the hon. member wants to get up and speak over that, that is fine, then I can get up and speak over this.

MR. TOBIN: Speak over it.

MR. MURPHY: No, no, no, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Well the heading on it is: Travel expenses for Glenn Tobin, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Don't look at that, because you can balance the Budget on that.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order.

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

MR. TOBIN: Chairperson, if the member makes reference to a document he has in the House then he has no other choice but table it. I would suggest the Chair order you to table the document you just made reference to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Point of foolishness, that is all. Let me say I heard the hon. members opposite. I heard the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay today and I heard the hon. Member for Kilbride getting up and expounding and everything else. It is typical. I will tell you how impressed I am. It is extremely easy to get up and say the government doesn't do this and the government doesn't do that, but you don't offer a solution. The obvious reason is you don't have a solution to offer. Simple.

Let me say to hon. members opposite. If they would just take the time to have a look at what the Minister of Finance on Budget Day handed out. Just a small highlight document. Where does the money go? Almost 25 per cent of what this government takes in, almost 25 per cent, $525,976,000 goes into servicing the debt of this Province of 535,000 people or let's say 550,000 people.

MS. VERGE: None of that is for Hydro debt servicing.

MR. MURPHY: No, that's right. I say to the hon. member, she is correct, it is not the Hydro debt servicing, it is not the Hydro at all. What it is, is 72 per cent of seventeen years of Tory mismanagement. That's what it is, I say to the hon. member, that's exactly what it is.

Education: Now, people in this Province need to know how much this government, another, better than a quarter, $746,582,000 for education, right now in the '94 Budget. Now, hon. members have to grasp that number, have to understand it. Health: $788,395,000. Incredible, it is incredible to think that 530,000 people have the need. Now, you can go down through and it says: Resources and Property, $142 million; general government, $204 million. I mean, what in heaven's name do hon. members opposite - the Member for St. John's East Extern gets up - he is a critic, he wants so much money from a minister here and how come you don't - the Estimates are coming up and the Member for Humber East will he here sitting and driving it home: you are reducing this and you are reducing that, you are cutting this and you are slashing that, and what the hon. member knows deep down in her own heart and soul, is that there is nothing more that this government can do. You have to have a tax base. Now, we have extended -and hon. members opposite, not the younger members but the older members were part of a government that brought the sales tax up to 12 per cent. Now, that is the most unfair tax of all, 12 per cent.

MS. VERGE: You brought it to 13 per cent when you put on the GST.

MR. MURPHY: The member had better not talk about the GST. You went from 172 seats down to 2 seats, the GST I would say cost her colleagues up on the mainland, a disaster never known before in politics throughout this country.

MS. VERGE: There is another one waiting for (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, that's fine; we will see when the time comes. If the member wants to send over her crystal ball, then I will be happy to look in it and discuss it with her and I will show her mine and she can show me hers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: I wonder who wrote it for him. I wonder who wrote the letter for Andy? Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: Judy.

MR. MURPHY: Judy. Alright whoever Judy is, I don't know, but somebody must have written it for him. I saw the deputy mayor the other night, in action, and it's too bad, it really is sad, it's sad that a man who has intelligence can be so abusive and so filled full of trickery, I mean, that's incredible. He could do a lot for the citizens of St. John's but he doesn't operate in that real world, he operates in a fictitious world, the same as hon. members opposite. The Member for Waterford - Kenmount is up squealing and bawling, looking for more money. I'm surprised that as an administrator of a town - a city while he was the mayor - it went from a town to a city. The senior administrator, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount, the senior administrator who knows how tough it is to find the dollars, who stretched and did everything he could to give the residents of Mount Pearl the best for their buck. He knows what it's all about and I –

MR. TOBIN: He did a good job for them.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, he did a good job and I admire him for it.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: If the hon. member believes that he also believes in the tooth fairy, I say to him. There is the Member for Kilbride, an up-and-coming young gentleman with a lot of brains above his shoulder and I'll be the first to admit it, but what does he do? He stands in his place and he cries and he cries about every single solitary program. Not once does he draw on the fact that the social programs he talks about, that are so expensive today, I suggest to the hon. member, are in a state of near collapse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The member's time has elapsed.

MR. MURPHY: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

MR. MURPHY: Alright, that's okay. Thank you. I'll be back, Mr. Chairman, you can be sure.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gee, that was great just to hear my friend, the Member for St. John's South - he mentioned about poor Phyllis and the last time I heard the Member for St. John's South was at the Holiday Inn with a beer glass, saying, `Fill us' - Fill us another one. Man, that's shocking!

Anyway, before I proceed any further I'd like to acknowledge the fact that compliments are due when compliments are due. After the disturbance that was going on in Placentia for a month, I was glad to see that the hospital remained where it should be, and it was only proper. Now, I use my heart lots of times - some more cynical members say that this was already sent to print, that they had used the term consistently for twenty-one days on the government side in the district of Placentia, and they were fooled. But I was looking around a few minutes ago and the Member for Ferryland and the Member for St. John's South were throwing around numbers, and the numbers I saw there a few minutes ago, of the nineteen members opposite who were present, eleven of them had been out in Placentia district during the by-election. Gee, how many numbers do they need? How many do you need at all? It was just like Custer's last stand, but they weren't dealing with General Custer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CAREEN: They could deal with someone who cut the mustard, not General Custer.

I just led them down a trap, that's all, and they got in by themselves and got overwhelmed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get overconfident.

MR. CAREEN: No, I am not overconfident. I know the tribe. I know that tribe over there.

Anyway, with regard to the hospital, I was glad to see it in because our area is down on its knuckles, and you must have health care facilities to be able to attract people into an industrial area that you hope to promote, and I compliment the government opposite.

I say to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Minister, in the projections, what you are talking about, your Budget this year, what I will ask you now - out in the district of Placentia, through a re-use study with the Federal Government and the Province, they have come up with monies. They talk about a re-use study, and the Provincial Government of the day is looking at the costs that are going to be added on to each one of those years if they buy into it. If that is not in the Budget for this year, Mr. Minister, am I given to believe that the government cannot take part in it, I ask the Minister of Finance?

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't listening.

MR. CAREEN: That's okay.

In the re-use study for Argentia, they talk about monies for the future, ten years, over a period of time, so much money for the first year, and they are hoping that the Province will opt into some or all of the package. If it is not in the government Estimates, Sir, can I believe that the Province won't be looking at factors there this year at all, or have you got - I know the Province is not well off, but is there any miscellaneous money you could buy into?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

I just want to see if I can respond to that one point that the member raises. I think that there are a variety of agreements that may or may not happen during the year, and no money was budgeted for any agreement that was not actually completed. So that if agreements are reached during the year then money will be provided through either special warrants or supplementary supply. Budgets are living documents that change as the demands change. That is all I can tell the hon. member. You won't find, you are right, specific funding in it, because at that point in time there was no agreement.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, minister. There awhile ago there was controversy and there is still a bit of controversy going on about the civic centre in St. John's. I believe in a civic centre for St. John's. I believe that St. John's as the capital city should have all this. What I would like to make as a suggestion here is that there is money cut out through one of the programs here. Works, Services, and Transportation, `WST'! That to the funding on $300,000 for a proposed archives museum art gallery to recognize the 500th anniversary of John Cabot. In the proposed budget. Talking about $300,000 for a proposed archives museum art gallery to recognize the 500th anniversary.

MR. EFFORD: What is the matter with it?

MR. CAREEN: No, I just was going to make a suggestion. Gee, you don't have to be confrontational all the time, do you?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: Yes? Okay. You never got your way in Southern Harbour. You never told that to the tribe over here. Listen. There is going to be money - and we don't know yet how much - that the federal government is going to put into the 500th anniversary. There have been talks all along about the archives/art gallery, et cetera. Why can't the three levels of government - the municipality of St. John's, the provincial government and the federal government - get together and put a proper civic centre, arena, archives, museum and an art gallery together that we can all be proud of, and using the three amounts of money that these can generate? Very important for Newfoundlanders, very important for anybody visiting this Province. That we should amalgamate our monies on.

Anyway, that is enough compliments for this day. I'm talking about using money wisely. You are talking about $300,000 -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) for seventeen years.

MR. CAREEN: You were here longer than I've been and what have you done? Listen, $300,000 planning funds.

MR. EFFORD: Oh, oh!

MR. CAREEN: Nothing wrong, sir. What I'm saying is, if there is another crowd out there talking about a civic centre and an arena, why cannot the federal and provincial governments and the municipality of St. John's get together to organize and put together a proper building?

MR. EFFORD: We are.

MR. CAREEN: You are taking about that, Sir?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. CAREEN: Good. It is nice to hear.

MR. EFFORD: We do not need an (inaudible) to do that.

MR. CAREEN: I was over there telling a couple of your members that last week. They probably got to you in the caucus meeting yesterday evening to tell you that bit of reasoning. That is a good thing to hear because we all use it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't you believe him.

MR. CAREEN: He is only going to take my suggestion today and take it to Cabinet tomorrow.

Anyway, enough compliments for one evening.

Thank you.


 

March 29, 1994            HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLII  No. 22A


[Continuation of sitting]

MR. CHAIRMAN (Crane): The hon. the Member for Waterford Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, now that my colleagues have decided whether or not I'm in the right sequence here or not, I want to offer a couple of comments on the Building and Equipping Schools part of the estimates for the Department of Education.

As members probably already know, some of the schools in the Province are in deplorable conditions. I note that in the Budget there is an amount of $15,302,600 voted for Building and Equipping Schools. I'm not quite sure whether or not the government is going to be able to have much impact in making the decision as to which schools are improved. We know that the proposals in their Adjusting the Course, Part I would call for the government to have a more direct input.

As an example of the kinds of things that we should be looking at, two years ago the government commissioned a major study on school facilities in the Province. I brought the matter up in the House of Assembly last autumn, some time in November, and I made a note in my agenda at that time that I would refer to that matter again some time in the spring. At that time the minister said that the study had not been completed in its entirety and that all the facts had not been brought forward.

Mr. Chairman, the study was completed by the Department of Education in consultation with the Treasury Board personnel and also in consultation with all the school boards in the Province. Now there was a complete analysis done of all the schools, their physical plan and the equipment they had, and there was a pretty comprehensive study done at the time as to the existing conditions. Now, Mr. Chairman, what's happened since then is that the government has sat on that particular study. They haven't acted upon it; they haven't even passed an opinion on it. In fact, the school boards that had their personnel spend many, many hours preparing the background data, haven't even got their own data back. They were told that they would get their data back and they could use it for making their future decisions. Now, Mr. Chairman, what that says is that the Minister of Education is sitting on a major study on educational facilities in this Province and that he has not seen fit to do anything about it.

At the same time we have letters that are being sent to hon. members. I have a letter here which appeared in the Clarenville Packet, and a copy went to the hon. Member for Terra Nova. The writer here describes absolutely deplorable conditions in the school in her community which is Musgravetown. The lady lives in Brooklyn and she describes conditions in her school out there whereby and I quote, `on a day that it rains or the snow melts on the roof, the teacher in the classroom beneath the abandoned room has to spend part of her time moving children and desks around in an effort to keep everyone dry.' She continues, `one classroom has to keep two large garbage buckets in class to catch the water; and she continues, `this has the effect, of course, of being very disruptive to the learning situation and it undermines the efforts of teachers to promote and encourage a good learning environment.

The writer also makes the point here on this particular issue that the government and society see nothing wrong in consigning our children and teachers to dismal places, such a place as this school has become. `In fact, she says, `if I had my children living in such conditions at home, the Department of Social Services would be there to inspect and they would accuse me of neglecting my duty to my children.'

Now, Mr. Chairman, what that says is that many schools in this Province are in a deplorable condition. We don't seem to be doing anything with the minister's study; his facility study that he spent two years talking about, a year-and-a-half doing the research on, and it just sits on his desk. My point is, that we can't wait until two or three years from now, while the government and the churches continue their dialogue and until we completely frustrate the system with the dialogue that is ongoing between churches and the government, at the expense of decision-making which should be done to improve existing school facilities.

I am not disputing the fact that $15 million has been allocated. It's down a little bit from the previous year, by about $300,000. Maybe if that $300,000 had been put in there we might be able to do something for some of the desperate situations we have like the school in Musgravetown. I don't bring up the school in Musgravetown to be in anyway offensive to the hon. member; she is well-familiar with the situation in that school to which I refer. I'm just saying that that is an example of the need we have out there for children to be educated in facilities that are clean and dry. The day is gone when teachers should have to put garbage buckets out in the middle of a floor on a consistent basis in order to catch the rain that falls, of course, with the typical Newfoundland weather.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we need to get the Minister of Education to re-activate the study that was done two years ago and do something about it. Studies are just fine but they do nothing to solve a problem if they rest over in the minister's office and are on some desk gathering dust, while the children out in the school system have to put up with deplorable conditions on a daily basis. As the lady from Musgravetown said when she wrote the letter: If this was happening in homes, if we had children living at home in such bad conditions, the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health would be there saying: No, you can't have children living in these kinds of conditions. But we can send them through the school system and in the school system they are allowed to live in school classrooms where the rain falls on the roof and comes right down into the classroom, obviously the ceiling tiles are not in place, and these kinds of conditions.

MR. EFFORD: Where?

MR. HODDER: This is happening in a number of schools and the letter that appeared in the Clarenville Packet referred specifically to, I believe it is Ash Elementary in Musgravetown. I can't attest to the accuracy of the information other than to say that copies were sent to my office, to call upon the minister to examine it and also to go back and re-activate the study that took $250,000 of departmental money - actually it amounted to $250,000 from his estimates and $250,000 from denominational educational committee estimates; $500,000 to do a study, I say to the hon. minister, into school facilities. The minister might have been better off if they had spent no money on the study but had spent some money doing some work, because it is work that counts out there for the children. That $500,000 study is a wasted piece of paper if it just rests on the minister's desk. As the minister said, it still has a lot of work to be done on it, but some of the children in this Province need better conditions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) that greenhouse out there in Mount Pearl.

MR. HODDER: The greenhouse wasn't in Mount Pearl, I say to the hon. member, and I am not aware of the studies that were done.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the issue at hand and say that I am pleased with the amount -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - but it should be $300,000 more. However I would like to encourage the ministry to get this facility study reactivated and acted upon. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak after hearing the Member for Waterford - Kenmount a few moments ago. If ever the Member for Waterford - Kenmount expounded the idea for the restructuring of the school system, he just said it in his speech. At the beginning he was going to support it and afterwards he said he was not. I don't want to play politics with it because it is too important. I want to give you an example.

MR. HODDER: (Inaudible)

MR. LANGDON: I didn't interrupt you. Let me make my point and then you can make yours and see what happens.

The people that I represent in English Harbour West need a school desperately. The windows are actually falling out of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Okay. I'll make my point and then see if it makes some sense.

The integrated board last year allocated money for Gander Bay to build a new school.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they needed.

MR. LANGDON: They needed it. Now, the situation that the integrated board finds itself in at this particular time is that even though there was $10 million in the Budget there is no money for the integrated board to build a school anywhere in this Province. In the Budget that was just allocated there was $5 to $6 million that went to the RC board and the Pentecostal board because that is the way it is now; there is no provincial planning board. The restructuring of education would allow that to happen. Where there would be a provincial board in place that would determine the priorities in the Province as to where the schools would have to be built.

Now, let me give you an example. Last night I had a call, and I could not believe it, where the Pentecostal board of education is planning to build a new school in Grand Falls - Windsor which would be attached to their church, when there is sufficient space in Windsor, enough space in the integrated system, to accommodate every child that is in the system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is paying for it?

MR. LANGDON: Who is paying for it? The taxpayers of Newfoundland are paying for it because it is in the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why are you attacking the Pentecostals?

MR. LANGDON: I am not attacking anybody. I am telling you what is wrong with the school system. It is a matter of having a provincial board in place to determine priorities, and if that was the case then the school that would needed to be replaced most would be replaced. It has to happen. If that doesn't happen then we will never, ever be able to look after the needs of the people in the school system. That makes sense and that is one of the things that has to be addressed in the restructuring of education. I am not attacking any church. All I am doing is attacking the process whereby we can go out and allocate money because the church has to get it that way. It has been like that for the last 100 years, and because it has been that way doesn't make it right.

The people in English Harbour West are deprived of a school, where their kids go to substandard school facilities, and there is no opportunity for it to be replaced again this year, and that's not right. The government should have a provincial board in place to determine if a school has to be done in Musgravetown, if it has to be done in English Harbour West, if it has to be done in Lamaline, or whatever the case might be. That provincial board should determine where the facility goes and it should be at arm's length from government. If that doesn't happen then it is not right.

AN HON. MEMBER: On the basis of need.

MR. LANGDON: On the basis of need. This is one of the things that the restructuring of education has to deal with. It would identify that and it would be done right. I'm sure the Member for Waterford - Kenmount agrees with what I'm saying. That is my point.

When I talk to the people back in my district it makes it very difficult to explain to them, that even though there is $10 million in the Budget for new school construction they can't get any; because they see it as new money. It is very difficult for them to be able to accept. They say: Why can't we get some of the $5 million or $6 million that is already there? Well, it is not theirs because, by constitutional right, it has to go to the other churches. I don't think that is fair, I think it's absolutely wrong, and I believe that we have to address it and look after the needs of the people in the districts that we represent.

It's the same situation as the Member for Ferryland addressed the other day about the hospital in Harbour Breton. It's dilapidated. It was built in 1935. In fact, when I was an eight-year-old young fellow I was in the hospital with a broken arm.

AN HON. MEMBER: You promised (inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Listen, I haven't promised them anything. I'll address that with them in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Just let me finish. I didn't interrupt you the other day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) should have hung your head in shame!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LANGDON: Why should I have hung my head in shame?.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Listen to the member. You might learn something.

MR. LANGDON: You are a buffoon. You need a lunar telescope to see your brain.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Did he say my time was up?

Mr. Chairman, it is the same situation with the hospital, it needs to be replaced.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I can't hear anything here. There are too many of you fellows talking.

MR. LANGDON: It needs to be replaced and there is no alternative to it, it has to be, because of the geographic location we find we are in. We are 200 miles away from anywhere, and the terrain is such that in the winter down there it is impossible to get to Grand Falls for all the facilities, the medical needs, that we have for the area. I support the people and I have to implore the government that it has to do it, they have to make it not one of their priorities but a top priority for the people in the region.

I'm not playing politics with that that has no place in it. When you talk about people's lives, you talk about the sick and you talk about the elderly, they have a right just as much on the Connaigre Peninsula to good facilities as they do anywhere else in the Province. That facility is outmoded, it is outdated, it has outlived its usefulness, and I believe that there is no other alternative; it has to come soon for the people on the Connaigre Peninsula. By saying that, Mr. Chairman, I believe that we will. There is no choice in this matter, it is of urgent necessity, and I believe that in a short while the government will recognize that and give to the people of the area a rightful facility that they should own, a health facility on the Connaigre Peninsula, which is long overdue and which we must have in that particular area.

With these two items, Mr. Chairman, I finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Chairperson.

I want to ensure that speakers alternate from one side of the House to the other but I did see the Member for Terra Nova trying to get recognized and I trust that she will be recognized when I finish, because I really want to hear her account of her work on behalf of her Premier and her government last night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: The Member for Terra Nova put in a very long work day yesterday that stretched into the wee hours of this morning. She was very busy calling Bas Jamieson, trying to pump up the numbers supporting the government's move to privatize Hydro. Despite her efforts to disguise her voice and to vary her comments the astute audience did realize that indeed it was the Member for Terra Nova calling.

The Member for St. John's North was more successful at disguising his voice. I don't think anyone listening last night realized that the Member for St. John's North was calling Bas last night, but we did realize that it was the Member for Terra Nova calling and saying - what was it? `I believe in Newfoundland and Labrador.'

Chairperson, we are here considering interim supply, the spending of millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars on the full array of public services - health, education and so on. Chairperson, Spending on Western Memorial Regional Hospital is a major concern of mine and the people I represent. Last year's Budget, the last year's allocation of provincial funds for Western Memorial Regional Hospital, left the regional hospital short of the money necessary to maintain adequate operations. The government and the hospital board last spring took several difficult decisions, one of which was cancelling first-year nursing education for one year, that provoked a public uproar the like of which we haven't seen until the current uproar over the government's move to privatize Hydro. Because of people's pressure -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I (inaudible) comments coming from across the House but I'm told second-hand, from this side and from very good authority, that my colleague suggested or stated that I called Bas last night. I can take a lot of abuse, and be misrepresented -

MR. TOBIN: She never said that! (Inaudible)!

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - but I would ask her to clarify whether or not she said that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I was praising the hard work and dedicated effort of the member for Terra Nova on behalf of the Premier, and pointing out that of all the backbenchers opposite the Member for Terra Nova is making an extra effort to please the Premier. I said, despite her work and her skill, the open line audience late last night did realize that it was she who was making repeated calls to try to boost the votes for the government's proposal. She contributed at least four votes for the government proposal, according to one or two callers. Now, the member this afternoon was trying to suggest that she actually called more often than that. The point I made is that despite the Member for Terra Nova's effort the audience did realize it was she who was calling. Now, people didn't realize that the Member for St. John's North was calling. People didn't recognize his voice.

MR. HARRIS: I wonder (inaudible) Member for Terra Nova was the caller who called in to express that she was embracing the Premier's views on the privatization of Hydro.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I would be glad to answer the question of the Member for St. John's East. Indeed, the Member for Terra Nova, in various disguises, did effusively praise the Premier. She indicated that she embraces the Premier's proposals and ideas. She was extremely enthusiastic in her remarks about the Premier. I don't think any member opposite, I don't think any of the other back-benchers aspiring to Cabinet appointments, can get quite the same credit for their efforts last night. The Member for Terra Nova clearly excelled in the contest for Cabinet appointment.

The Member for St. John's North is just going to have to do better. If the Member for St. John's North wants to make Cabinet he is going to have to step up the effort. He tried, he did his own poll, he called a couple of dozen St. John's North constituents on several different streets to see if they didn't agree with him and his Premier in their desire to sell off Hydro. That was a pretty good effort but not quite as effective as the Member for Terra Nova. As between the Member for Terra Nova and the Member for St. John's North, I think clearly the Member for Terra Nova is out ahead in the Cabinet appointment competition.

The Member for St. George's hasn't even been here for the last couple of days. The Member for St. George's perhaps has been busy out in his district, because he announced to the West Coast news media a few days ago that he would vote with his constituents, and if a majority of the St. George's citizens let him know that they oppose the government's Hydro privatization that he will vote against it. The Member for St. George's may be out trying to dissuade the thousands of St. George's residents who are now dead set against the government selling Hydro.

Chairperson, I would like to say a few words about Western Memorial Regional Hospital. Oh, here is the Member for St. George's, yes. It's good to see him back. I didn't think the Member for St. George's would want to see the Members for Terra Nova and St. John's North get ahead of him, get a jump on him in the competition for Cabinet appointment.

For the benefit of the Member for St. George's, I was just pointing out that I'm afraid the Member for Terra Nova outdid all of you last night with her tremendous performance on Bas Jamieson's open line, tremendous. Very effective, effusive praise of the Premier. She boosted the vote for the government proposal by at least four. It was truly an impressive performance.

Now, Western Memorial Regional Hospital, which is extremely important in Western Newfoundland, extremely important in providing necessary health services: The regional hospital -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: He was out of the House.

MS. VERGE: Oh, he was out of the House. Okay. Chairperson, I will be diverted.

For the benefit of the Member for St. George's I speculated that he -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: Let me finish my sentence. I speculated that he has been preoccupied lately because we haven't seen much of him here lately. We missed him last Wednesday when he was due to present his motion on the agri-foods. We missed him very much. I was speculating that he has been busy talking to his St. George's constituents after he said publicly in Western Newfoundland - he told reporters in Western Newfoundland that if a majority of St. George's voters let him know that they are against the government proposal to sell Hydro then he would vote against it. He made that announcement in Western Newfoundland. Clearly a majority of people in St. George's at this moment are very much against the government's proposal to privatize Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave! By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

MS. VERGE: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MS. VERGE: I think they want me to finish. No leave. That's not very nice.

DR. HULAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. George's on a point of order.

DR. HULAN: What I explicitly said to the people of the District of St. George's: Why, if the vast majority - and I was asked what the vast majority was and I said at least in excess of 80 per cent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. HULAN: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't finished yet. They said: What is the vast majority? I said: In excess of 80 per cent. Then if that occurred I may have to consider my position. That is what I said. That is what I said, I may have to consider my position. I put that in a letter to a constituent of the District of St. George's today. So, whereas the hon. Member for Humber East is partially right, she is not completely correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: As usual.

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

MR. HARRIS: The member is raising a point of order about - points of order are supposed to be about the democratic process in this House, not the lack of democracy which he's showing towards his district and his members in his constituency, by suggesting that it's only if over 85 per cent of them are opposed to his views would he even consider changing his mind. Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask you to rule him out of order on making that point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairperson.

I have to make a few comments, Mr. Chairman, about the hon. Member for Humber East and the open line shows. I don't know what's so wrong about any MHA or any person calling into the open line shows on behalf of what they believe and to support their party, support their leader or whoever they choose to support. At least they're getting the attention of members opposite for doing.

Let me tell you about the hon. Member for Humber East in her open line show, at the CFRB in Corner Brook. We all remember the Pasadena affair, the Pasadena road?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yeah, right.

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member went on open line out there to try to get the people of Pasadena to call in to the open line show. They had to keep talking and talking and talking and the moderator said, `I don't believe there's anybody out there interested in listening to you.' Couldn't manipulate any calls whatsoever, couldn't get any calls, couldn't manipulate the people, couldn't encourage the people to call in about the Pasadena road, about where we're going to build the Trans-Canada.

So anyway, I go out to a meeting in Pasadena, a public meeting, a stormy public meeting out in Pasadena, where the hon. member was down in the back and she had a few little (inaudible), one here and another there; and they were trying to organize. When I walked into the public meeting I was a bit taken back: I'm in a strange hall now and there are all these people that I don't know much about. The first thing I got was applause as I walked up through: `Thank you for coming.'

Anyhow, we did have a percentage of people there who were really concerned about the Pasadena Road and where the location was going to be. So much so that I got up there that evening and explained the procedure to the people, what government wanted to do with full consultation. Five minutes later we've got people on one side of the hall asking the Tories on the other side of the hall: What do you mean you don't want the road there? What does the hon. member mean she doesn't want the road there? It's our road, we will say where it goes. We don't want the southern by-pass road. Then they started (inaudible). So then I started to explain exactly what government would like to do, in full consultation with the people of Pasadena. The answer I got back: This is the first time ever we had somebody come out here willing to sit down and explain to us. The former member wouldn't even do that, the former minister in government. In fact, the former minister didn't even agree with a four-lane highway going on the West Coast. She was totally opposed to a four-lane highway on the Trans-Canada.

Now it starts to get interesting. We have 200 in the hall all on the side of the hon. Member for Humber East, 200 people attacking the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. So much so that three-quarters into the evening 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the people had gone home. The remaining people who stayed there, 50 per cent of them agreed fully with the position that I was putting before them. So much so that I've now got congratulations, thank-you letters, and do what government intends doing, Mr. Chairman. We can see how strong the hon. Member for Humber East really is in her district.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Terra Nova for phoning into the open line show. The only thing I regret is that she didn't phone in ten times as much as she was accused of doing.

MS. YOUNG: I did.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I just happen to have with me a letter from the Citizens for a southern by-pass in Pasadena. It reads:

"Dear Lynn:

"The Citizens for a southern by-pass in Pasadena wish to present to you a copy of a petition compiled in response to the announcement of Mr. Efford that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is proposing that the new four-lane Trans-Canada Highway be re-routed through the town."

"The petition was signed by 1,600 Pasadena residents of voting age representing 80 per cent of our citizens - 80, 8-0, that is more than 79 per cent, that even meets the test of the Member for St. George's - to reject the new plans to route the four-lane highway along the transmission line or old railway lines through Pasadena and reaffirm the southern by-pass as the route of the Trans-Canada Highway around Pasadena."

Chairperson, members of the House undoubtedly have driven along the Trans-Canada Highway through Pasadena. It is a beautiful town of 3,500 residents in the Humber Valley on the shores of Deer Lake, between the Town of Deer Lake and the City of Corner Brook.

Chairperson, several years ago the Peckford government embarked on a plan of improving the Trans-Canada Highway at stretches throughout the Province where there was traffic congestion. I ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to stay and listen to what I'm about to say. Stay put, we are not having our supper break for another twenty minutes. You invited me out for dinner tonight anyway so stay put and listen now.

There were ten years of consultation. There were three consulting engineering studies done. The minister's own government three years ago approved the southern by-pass route, the route that had been recommended by all three consulting engineering studies, the route that had been decided by the town council, the route that was in the town plan, the route that is approved now as part of the Pasadena town plan filed with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The Member for St. John's South is asking me to name the consultants. The first firm was Corner Brook Engineering, the second firm was Delcan, and the third firm was Knight. He is nodding. All reputable -

AN HON. MEMBER: Dennis Knight and Associates.

MS. VERGE: Dennis Knight and Associates.

So those three engineering firms, the town council, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs of the Wells Administration, all decided on the southern by-pass as being the best route. During all those studies and consultations, during public meetings that were held to discuss options, three basic choices were put out for discussion. One is the existing route which goes through the middle of town; a second was the lake shore route along Deer Lake, along the provincial park, along Pasadena Beach; and the third is the southern bypass. The southern bypass was the clear preference of the citizens of the area and, as I said before, it was recommended by the three engineering firms retained to give advice. It was chosen by the town council. It was adopted by the Wells administration three years ago.

Now, right out of the blue the new Minister of Works, Services and Transportation announces, at the end of January this year, that he is going to reject all of that advice. He is going to ignore the town plan of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, his colleague. He is not going to respect the decision of the Wells administration three years ago because he has a better idea. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is proposing to put the new four-lane divided super Trans-Canada Highway right through the middle of Pasadena, not where it is now but a little bit to the north along the transmission line.

He is going to route the new super highway through three productive farms. He is going to wipe out part of a long-standing successful motel, and he's not going to have it at ground level, the way all our other highways in the Province are built. Oh, no! He has a new concept in mind. He is going to put this new four-lane divided super highway in a trench which, at its deepest point, will be eighteen feet below First Avenue in Pasadena.

Now, some of the members of the House and people listening may be familiar with Lakeland Lodge in Pasadena. Adjacent to Lakeland Lodge is a very substantial luxurious house owned by the people who own Lakeland Lodge. If you can picture that house adjacent to the motel with an eighteen feet deep trench. What the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is proposing is to put this divided highway right through the middle of an attractive, thriving, prosperous, progressive town, to put the new four-lane divided highway right through the middle of three productive profitable farms. He is proposing to put the new super highway literally through the middle of a long-standing successful motel, Lakeland Lodge, and he is going to submerge it in a trench.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: A good question: What is the colour of the member's party? What is the colour of the party now in power? A trench, so people, tourists, visitors, locals, residents, driving through the beautiful scenic Humber Valley as they are heading east after passing Corner Brook on the minister's brilliant, new super highway bypassing Corner Brook will pass Marble Mountain, and then go along the Humber River, and then proceed to Deer Lake. Then at the entrance to Pasadena they will go down in a tunnel, because the minister's proposal for the new highway for Pasadena will have you, just as you get to South Brook, which is part of Pasadena, heading down in a ditch, a trench, a tunnel. That is the minister's brilliant idea for Pasadena.

Ignore the recommendation of three engineering consulting firms, put aside the choice of the residents, ignore the vast majority of the people, set aside the town plan chosen by the council, adopted by the minister's colleague, go back on the decision of the Wells Administration three years ago, disregard the negative effect on successful businesses. After all, there are lots of other businesses. Why would we mind spoiling three farms? There are lots of farms. Why not spoil three farms? There is lots of fertile land in Newfoundland, so what odds if we take the best out of three farms in Pasadena?

I'm not mentioning the plan for this summer which is to take a major section out of Hammond Farm and Strawberry Hill. I don't know if members opposite realize what the minister is proposing to do this summer in Little Rapids, literally remove Strawberry Hill, not the residence but the hill that separates the residence from the present highway. It is crazy, it is insane, it is insulting.

Eighty per cent of the residents of Pasadena signed a petition calling on the government to simply do what they themselves said three years ago they were going to do, to do what the vast majority of citizens decided after ten years of consultation with three engineering consulting studies: Corner Brook Engineering, Delcan, specialists in highway design, and Dennis Knight and Associates -

MR. WINDSOR: City planning (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: My colleague tells me Dennis Knight and Associates specialize in town planning. Where else would a government even think about putting a four-lane divided superhighway right through the middle of a town when there are good alternatives that the same government previously decided on? Only in Newfoundland, you say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you support it?

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Yes I did. I supported the Liberal southern by-pass, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a consensus, if my friend for Terra Nova permits, that having heard from the Member for Humber East we all deserve a break. I think there is unanimous consent that the Committee might adjourn for say an hour. I have no doubt my friend for Terra Nova will seek the floor and we will get a real good speech for a change, having heard from the other side. I suggest we adjourn for an hour, Your Honour, if that is in order.

MR. SIMMS: I wonder, can we make it 7:00 p.m.? A couple of our members have left and gone home expecting to return at 7:00 p.m.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) given the fact we have hours yet to go.

Recess

MR. CHAIRMAN (Crane): Order, please!

When we were closing down before supper the next speaker was going to be the Member for Terra Nova. She is still the next speaker.

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sure that the hon. member would love to be the Member for Terra Nova. It is a beautiful district but....

First of all I want to comment on the comments I heard from the hon. Member for Waterford - Kenmount when he talked about the school in Musgravetown. He had read an article or a letter to the editor in The Packet. I'm quite aware of that school but I would like to point out that school is indeed in Lethbridge, and I taught there for a number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even know where it was.

MS. YOUNG: That is right. Way back, long before the Liberals were elected, the roof leaked in that school. Many's a time I had to move around boxes and make sure I cleaned up a mess the next morning so that the children could move around. However, I am pleased that the member was sort of giving strength to the construction board being set up at the provincial level. This is important and he certainly confirms the need for it.

As well, there's certainly a need for a high school in the Musgravetown area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. YOUNG: I'm sorry, but we do have humour on this side.

That school in Musgravetown I hope becomes a priority. It may not even go in Musgravetown itself. That will depend upon, I guess whichever happens to be the most central location.

It's too bad the Member for Humber East is not here because I was really, really pleased to hear her endorsement for me, saying that I had called in to the open line show four times last night. Actually it was ten or twenty times, I'm not sure. The fact of the matter was that she was endorsing me and saying that I was moving ahead of the pack. That's wonderful that I have her endorsement because I'm sure the Premier discusses issues with her every day and asks for her recommendations.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right! For sure! (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Yes, that's right.

It seems as though we must be hitting an all time low here when the whole debate here today revolves around how many times I phoned into Bas last night. I want you to know that I'm starting to book some lessons now on other languages so that I can phone in in French, Chinese, Japanese and whatever languages there are.

As to the comment that the Member for Bonavista South made that he's heard my voice enough times that he knows, well at least I must be speaking out on issues that he would know my voice, if indeed I did make the comments.

MR. TULK: Do you mean to tell me that the Tories didn't fix that school?

MS. YOUNG: No, they most certainly didn't fix it. I'm certainly hoping that with the provincial construction committee set in place that some of these problems will be addressed. It is a serious problem when we have children sitting in classrooms that are leaking. We certainly deserve better than that. It's ridiculous when students who have to travel a long way on buses find out that they have to move from one classroom into the lunch room.

Mr. Matthews and I were debating tonight over dinner what we would -

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: I'm sorry! The hon. Member for St. John's North and I were discussing -

AN HON. MEMBER: Polling techniques.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, we were discussing polling techniques.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Refer to me as the pollster will you?

MS. YOUNG: Okay, the pollster and I were conferring as to how many times we would phone in tonight and what we were going to discuss.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gold farm, gold farm.

MS. YOUNG: I think so.

With regard to the comments that were made last night, I have no idea what they are but I did hear the comments yesterday morning. I sat in my car and listened for an hour to the comments that were made on the pros and cons, against and for, privatization of Hydro. They were indeed interesting because - phone in and say: Well I'm going against Hydro because I don't like the Premier. Can you imagine that that would be the only reason that people would have for voting for or against something? It's not really a great intelligent statement to make, that I am for something or against something because I like or I dislike somebody. Surely goodness, there are valid arguments that people could put forward to show how important this issue really is to them.

I also want to point out that whether or not people are able to support the privatization of Hydro depends on the information they have received. Last week there was a meeting out in my district. Unfortunately I was unable to attend but seventy people showed up according to one comment on the radio station I heard. Today in the paper I read there were sixty people who had turned up.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many Tories were there?

MS. YOUNG: I am not sure how many Tories. Somebody wants to know how many Tories turned up; I don't know and I really don't care. I certainly haven't had any great feedback from that meeting. Some people went there, I am sure, with their minds made up as to how they were going to vote on Hydro if they had an opportunity at any point in time; if they were polled how they would react to that poll.

Certainly, I think it would have been beneficial to have all sides of the issue presented to the people who were present that evening. I have also advised the councils and anybody else who wants to meet with me that we would set up meetings to meet with them. So far, we haven't had any calls to do so. It was interesting too, that I found out that it was actually the former Member for Terra Nova district who called up to the deputy mayor of Musgravetown asking him to set up the meeting. I found that a little bit interesting.

MR. TOBIN: What have you got against him doing that?

MS. YOUNG: Oh, I'm just pointing out a fact. You must have a problem with it then to point –

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Oh, I raised it; I just said it was interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be nice now.

MS. YOUNG: Yes, be nice.

A few minutes ago I went up to my office and returned a couple of calls, and one of the callers said to me that she had not had her mind made up about which way she was feeling toward Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: She heard you on Bas last night.

MS. YOUNG: She heard me on Bas last night four times; four times. She said: When you hear something often enough, you agree with it.

Now quite seriously she said she was not sure how she could accept privatization of Hydro or weather she could not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MS. YOUNG: In fact, she did say, after hearing the debate last week, that she was certainly in favour of privatization; she had gotten the facts and she was quite prepared, that she could accept the privatization of Hydro. So that was interesting.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. YOUNG: Pardon?

I think, Mr. Chairman, I will close off with a couple of remarks. Again that certainly I am pleased that we have support for a provincial construction committee from the opposite side and that I will be brushing up on my skills again to phone in to the open line show.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I want to get involved this evening in the debate on Interim Supply for a lot of reasons. One, I think there is a lot that has to be said. We are still waiting for the Minister of Mines and Energy to supply us with answers as to how much money government has spent on advertising the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, how much money government has spent on financial advisors and how much money it has cost the lawyer friends of the Premier and other people involved in this. I also want to know how much money it has cost Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro for advertising?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: You've spent a hundred and another hundred and fifty planned, I would say, not counting lawyers. That is probably $10 million spent already.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader might as well settle in right now because this will not be passed by this Legislature under normal rules. We'll be here debating it on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, whatever the case may be, unless the Minister of Mines and Energy tells us how much money this campaign is costing.

The day is over in this Province when you can buy people with their own money, I say to members opposite. The day is over when you can buy people with their own money. This government, Mr. Speaker, must throw that aside. You cannot buy people with their own money, and that is what is happening with this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: We did not win either, by the way. We watched the Labrador 400 but we don't know in what place the Government House Leader finished.

MR. ROBERTS: Ahead of the hon. gentleman.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I think you would be according to what I saw. I think you would be ahead of me, there's no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman. From what I saw taking place in the Labrador 400 you would be ahead of me, there's no doubt about that.

Mr. Chairman, I say that because I understand the minister was down with my colleague for Menihek to the -

MR. ROBERTS: That is not true, the hon. member's colleague was down with me.

MR. TOBIN: Well, if that makes you feel good we'll say that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: If that makes you feel good, Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague was down with the Government House Leader. I understand, from listening to him, that it was quite the event; 350 people involved in it. I must say that it was interesting to watch him this evening and to see some people born on the Island and living in Labrador taking part. I understand my colleague from Menihek is going to take part in it next year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, you wait and see who will cross the line first next year.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, that is what I am saying to members opposite. We are asking questions as it relates to Interim Supply and there hasn't been one answer given in terms of the questions that have been asked regarding Interim Supply. Now they might try to muzzle the House, Mr. Chairman, but they have to provide answers.

MS. VERGE: Ask the questions again, Glen, ask them slowly and simply.

MR. TOBIN: How much money? Well, I have asked the question several times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) make a speech now.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell you one thing, if Hansard records everything you've said, you have been speaking longer in this ten minutes than I have.

Mr. Chairman, that is what has to happen. Government cannot be allowed to continue to go out and get their friends. You cannot buy people with their own money. How often does it have to be said? You cannot buy radio ads themselves? You can phone open line 15,000 times a night, Mr. Chairman, or four times a night, you can disguise your voice as often as you like, but I say to the Member for Terra Nova, when you get into this racket my dear everyone is going to know your voice. You can't disguise it, there's no way, forget about it; you have constituents, you've been around, you're in public life. Mr. Chairman, it's something like the Member for St. George's trying to disguise himself. As a matter of fact, I thought I saw him on television tonight. Then we discovered it wasn't him because he was too far away.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Member for Harbour Main?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Harbour Main, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's a credit to the hon. gentleman and I hope his speech was interesting because I haven't heard either one he made in here yet. I've heard him up a few times, Mr. Chairman, I've seen him standing up and saying a few things.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not what you told me before.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, it's not.

AN HON. MEMBER: You couldn't wait until I got up (inaudible) because you always enjoyed my speeches.

MR. TOBIN: That's right, Mr. Chairman. Who wouldn't enjoy the hon. gentleman! The only person who doesn't enjoy the hon. gentleman is the Member for Windsor - Buchans, Mr. Chairman, because he's frightened to death of him. He thinks he has the knife in his back every time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Minister of Mines and Energy will stand up when I sit down and tell us how much money has been spent to privatize our birthright. How often have I got to call it our birthright, Mr. Chairman? When is he going to stand up, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) birth certificate?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I tell you, I was born since Confederation unlike the hon. gentleman who was born -

DR. HULAN: Long before they made birth certificates.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there was no recording of births when he was born.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, it's hard for me to get going here and I believe most of it's coming from this side.

Anyway, that's a fair question to the Minister of Mines and Energy, to tell us - and I'll say it again - how much money has the ratepayers or the taxpayers paid to privatize Newfoundland Hydro? How much has been spent in publicity PR campaigns, Mr. Chairman? How much money has been spent -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you spend?

MR. TOBIN: Not as much as you spent chasing Brian Tobin around in the last two months. How much, Mr. Chairman, -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There's no doubt about that, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman spent it it's money well spent, and if it keeps you out of the House continue to spend it. If it keeps you out of this Province continue to spend it, I say to the hon. gentleman.

Now, Mr. Chairman, how much money was paid to the lawyers, to the legal people? How much money was paid to the financial advisors? How much money was paid to the various news outlets in this campaign? I don't think that that is a lot to ask in terms of debating interim supply. I believe it's a very fair question, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MURPHY: Ask Cyril.

MR. TOBIN: You all should start asking Cyril, I say to the Member for St. John's South, because he has more to offer and more knowledge, Mr. Chairman, of Newfoundland Hydro than everyone over there combined including the Premier. Mr. Chairman, there is more integrity in that man than is in the rest of you, I say, as it relates to the Hydro issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I can say Cyril has been very honest and upfront, Mr. Chairman. It takes courage for a man to go out, to have that (inaudible) or whatever it's called, to go out there and fight for the rest of the Newfoundlanders; not to see Newfoundlanders exploited and used by a group over here, not to see the electricity, the hydro power of this Province, being divvied out to a few billionaires in Quebec. That takes courage and determination, Mr. Chairman. There is an inner strength in that man, who is -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I would say to the Member for St. John's South, he has more loyalty to Newfoundland in his little finger than the Member for St. John's South has in his whole body.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. TOBIN: Are you sure?

AN HON. MEMBER: Alright, go ahead.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, a chance to conclude, Mr. Chairman? I have leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Make up your mind.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, just to conclude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go on, you have leave, go ahead.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, the Member for St. John's South should realize that this is an issue that people have the right to speak on, no matter what side. Do the members opposite have to support the privatization? We have made the decision to oppose it because we are listening to our constituents, and I doubt very much that what my constituents are telling me is a whole lot different from what your constituents are telling you; I doubt that. We have opinion polls, the M5 poll that was released today, we have that. That is a fairly strong guide I would think. I understand they are a very reputable company.

We have the M5 poll; we have the Open Line shows, Bas' Open Line Show last night, Bill Rowe's Open Line yesterday morning; polls having been done by this party. I would think that the M5 people –

MR. MURPHY: What was the last poll you did?

MR. TOBIN: The last poll we did was during the weekend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Friday and Saturday, eighty-nine (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that was the one you did and falsified it.

MR. TOBIN: To be honest with you, I don't think the Member for St. John's South had very much to do with that poll. He was out riding in a campaign and no one knew who he was and he didn't know who anyone else was at that point in time.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, but in terms of being involved in the inner circle, he didn't know.

Probably the best poll, Mr. Chairman, is the one like the Member for St. John's North did. He phoned up and said: Hello, this is your MHA. I support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and I hope you agree with me. That was his poll, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: He is withdrawing your leave.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I suppose with an Opposition that is just overflowing with enthusiasm for the activity that they undertake on behalf of the people of the Province, I am one who certainly has to interject. As opposed to one who has to wait his turn to be heard, I suppose I had to interrupt, and I apologize to the hon. member because he is just bubbling over with eloquence and letting the House know his reasons for opposing privatization. He is always there to offer his opinions and certainly a colourful member, one of the more colourful members to grace the House over the last number of years.

Now, to the bill before the House currently, the bill on Interim Supply, where we borrow or use money that we have for government expenditure over the next quarter, I suppose, is the normal case. Mr. Chairman, it is a matter like this that gives hon. members opposite the opportunity to speak about many different things; to speak about their districts, to speak about the desires and wishes of their constituents and to put forward their ideas of an alternative to the government's proposition as far as finances go. With respect to the budgetary matters before us, we haven't really heard much in the way of constructive alternatives from the Opposition as to how they would to it differently. One would be led to believe that their intent in keeping us here at length in dealing with the interim supply debate is certainly just part of the political process where the Opposition is justified in opposing government's position for the sake of opposition.

There are some specific aspects there that they have highlighted, such as the request for savings of $50 million from the public service as being something that they deem that they wouldn't do. I don't know how they would balance the books of the Province. They would probably entertain further borrowing, maybe much to the chagrin of the financial agencies that monitor the Province's credit rating. It is one thing that's not really looked at, as to whether we can borrow constantly and in higher amounts each year.

This Province has made it clear that we are the only province in the country that has succeeded in coming up with a lower borrowing requirement each of the last three years and have come within a very small percentage of its budget projections each of the last three years with respect to total expenditures. That, as a matter of fact, is the kind of situation which allows the financial markets to have confidence that this Province is being managed very astutely. The managers of the public purse are being very careful with respect to the expenditures that they are making.

Mr. Chairman, we want the people of the Province to know that we plan to continue to be very prudent with the expenditure of public funds and we plan and intend fully to make sure that we don't borrow beyond the capacity of future generations to repay the debt. In spite of the fact that it was politically astute in the past for members of government to go and spend, as has been said in the past, like drunken sailors, but I would say just spending with the idea that we will pay for it later, this government was the first that undertook to avoid that kind of expenditure. They were the first government in recent memory to go ahead with an election campaign without trying to buy the electorate.

We all remember when this government was brought to power in 1989, when the Opposition, as it currently sits, was under the auspicious leadership of the hon. Tom Rideout, the hon. Premier from Baie Verte - White Bay, it was a matter of us putting forward our propositions and the Opposition putting forward whatever propositions seemed to suit them in whatever location they arrived at on the campaign trail. If there was a stadium to be built it would be built; if there was a water system to be installed it would be installed; if there was a specific request of a specific area it was going to be met. Eventually the people of the Province saw through that and they brought the Liberal Party to power at that point in time.

Again in 1993 the government, in seeking a mandate, made it as a bench mark of its offering to the people that we would manage the affairs of the Province from a financial perspective in a very prudent manner, and making sure that we held as paramount in our view that we look after the books of the Province and public expenditures as being something that we could not go and spend freely. We had to make sure that borrowing requirements would be less and less each year as we try to get rid of our current account deficit and then, with the economic recovery that we hope will arrive in the near future, get to a point where we can start having current account surplus and start paying down some of our capital debt, prevent us from borrowing, and using current expenditures instead for capital purposes. Once we've met the capital requirements at a certain point in time - say if there are $200 million worth of capital requirements in a given year - then we would then be able to avoid borrowing for capital purposes.

Financial markets would see borrowing for capital purposes to be that much better in that you are investing in assets and you are investing in the infrastructure that is needed to provide the public services that the society here in this Province demands, that they deserve, and that government is there to provide. The government is not there, as was evidenced by the recent debate, to provide for the public services as well as government providing corporations that could be run by the private sector.

In general, the people of the Province have supported this principle of the private sector looking after business and the government providing public services that they expect. Really, it is within this vein that privatization was brought forward as an issue that the government of the Province would deal with.

We have acknowledged that we haven't really gotten as much information as we would have liked to get out in the public domain for the dissemination of the people of the Province. We are undertaking to do that and we are undertaking also to gage public opinion at some point in the future. Hopefully, Mr. Chairman, when all of the facts are out the people of the Province will be encouraged and will see through some of the facade that is out there and possibly will be intend on us proceeding with privatization. It is a bridge we will cross when we come to it.

We on this side, who are in favour of privatizing Newfoundland Hydro, are in favour of it mainly because of the fact that the fiscal responsibility of government is to provide public services, and a utility can be well regulated by a public utilities board and thereby supply the public with power, the electrical power of the Province, under a very strong regime of regulation supported by the Public Utilities Board. From that, Mr. Chairman, then realize on the disposition of the equity that the Province has built up in Newfoundland Hydro for the purposes of providing public services.

As well, as I spoke about a little earlier in what I was saying, where we intend to use the monies we have gained from improving the fiscal position of the Province for further investment in public service assets, meaning assets for the provision of public services through the sale of Hydro, if in fact monies were realized from the sale of the Hydro assets, we could certainly take those and from there we would be able to invest in further public service assets out of that sale. So, the money would not be something where the Opposition, as they put it, would be able to continue to say that: Yes, we would -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. RAMSAY: Anyway, I just wanted to say that to the argument that is used, that the asset itself would be sold, it would be gone, and there would be nothing left, the fact of the matter is that the money would be then invested into the infrastructure here in the Province. So it would allow us to increase our overall infrastructure of assets and also allow the Province to provide what the government of the people is there to provide, and that in itself is public service.

Mr. Chairman, if an hon. member opposite, certainly, can put forward the proposition that it is our birthright, I would suggest, based on that, that the Sprung greenhouse was our birthright as well. I think we paid enough for them and we certainly should have kept those glowing greenhouses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to revert back to some comments I made earlier today with respect to Hydro privatization, following on the heels of the Member for LaPoile and some of the comments he was making. What I really find strange after watching the six o'clock CBC news tonight again -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: No, I don't get it all but I get some, like the hon. member use to do when he was in Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, what I find quite startling is that last week the Premier himself was the one who asked for Province-wide television time, who asked for all the time on the radio stations to appear on all the open line programs. He is the one who created a flurry of activity, and now, when the results of all the polling and so on show massive opposition to the privatization issue, he says tonight on the news that he wasn't sure that he would take them as meaning too much because of all the hysteria, that the polls were taken in the midst of all the hysteria. Well, for God's sakes, he is the one who created the hysteria. He asked for the time on Province-wide television; he asked for the time on all the Open Line programs; he is the one who ordered Hydro to spend $100,000 on a massive advertising campaign for three or four weeks. Then he says Thursday night in the debate, carried on television tonight, a clip from him where he says: If the people of the Province aren't supporting us on this privatization, then we will not proceed.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you: Is it any wonder why people are confused and don't trust what the Premier says anymore? Every single day he changes his point of view, Mr. Chairman. That's the reason we are persisting in our position on this particular point, because it is so obvious to the rest of the Province what's going on, that the government itself has no defence at all for its position, and the only thing they can see now to justify it is to do another advertising campaign. That is what the Premier said tonight; it looks like they may do another massive advertising campaign. I mean, that is absolutely disgraceful if that is what they are up to.

So, if I could get the Minister of Mines and Energy's attention for a moment I would like to ask him a question in the hope that during Interim Supply he will answer the question in debate; he can get up for a few minutes and answer the question. In view of the Premier's public statement tonight on television, I say to the minister, where the government now is considering undertaking a further, larger advertising campaign, can he tell me two things: 1) Can he tell me how much in excess of the $100,000 he reported to this House two weeks ago would be spent on the advertising campaign? How much in excess of that $100,000 has Hydro or the government or whoever spent? Can he tell me that, because I am sure it is much more than $100,000? Radio ads have been on left, right and centre for the last several weeks; and can he tell me, 2) how much they plan now to spend on the next advertising campaign, the next leg that the Premier told us about tonight on Province-wide TV. Would he answer those two questions when he gets up? We would really appreciate getting the information.

They are always saying the information is out there, but every time we ask questions it is like pulling teeth from a hen; you can't get the answers, Mr. Chairman. They talk all around it, they use all kinds of rhetoric and they talk about us over here spreading confusion and all that kind of stuff but they never give us any answers. So I hope the Minister of Mines and Energy will participate in the debate and take the opportunity available to him to answer those couple of questions. If we can get him on his feet, maybe we will flick a few more back at him as the evening progresses and maybe we will do the people of the Province a great benefit, a great service, by getting some information out there, answers to some of the questions people have been asking and that we have been asking on behalf of the people, Mr. Chairman. I would hope the minister will take the opportunity to do just that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I also want to touch on another point with respect to the Hydro debate, and that is the issue that is raised everywhere you go on the streets, the issue of why it is the Premier doesn't seem to believe, doesn't seem to understand, doesn't seem to recognize or acknowledge that the people of the Province are not in support?

Now, what is his next step? I suspect what the next step is, and I dare say they went through it yesterday - I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at the caucus meeting yesterday afternoon, until 7:30, when the voices were being raised, when the arms were being thrown up in the air. I can see it now, the weeping and gnashing - I am sure he told the members opposite not to say anything about it, that's for sure. I am almost positive of that. I suspect the next plan - look he wants to get privatization through so badly he can taste it. It's his own personal little pet project. That is what it is all about, that is the reason he got back into politics in 1989, and that's -

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. SIMMS: The Premier. That's the reason he got back into politics because he wants to see this little pet project of his carried through, and he is going to do everything in his power to get it through, come hell or high water, no matter what the people of the Province have to say about it. So how is he going to accomplish that now in view of the fact that there is so much public sentiment opposed to it?

Well, here is what we do. What we do is, we close the House for a couple weeks, take our Easter break. Hopefully things will die down because there is no media focused on the House of Assembly in Question Period, in the debates and things of that nature. Not a bad little idea, let it smooth down, let it quieten down just a little bit; give people a chance to think and flick out things like the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation flicked out, flick out the student aid thing. Let those things take up the public agenda so that people start to forget and in the meantime, in the meantime hope for a strike by the public service, anything to take the heat off.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I have it. I know I have it, I say to the Minister of Health.

Then in the meantime, during the next couple of weeks, let's pour on the advertising, let's sock it to the people, let's pour it on. I hope they do by the way, because the more those ads go on the less people like privatization I tell the minister. You are turning them off. Then he will do his public opinion poll. Now we will see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, we will see.

I want to ask, while the Minister of Mines and Energy is getting ready to get up and respond to my -

AN HON. MEMBER: I have to (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh no, you don't have to run out. No, no! That's a favourite trick of the minister. Come back and answer the question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Is he going to get the information? Ask him if he is going to get the information.

MR. SIMMS: Well, maybe somebody else, maybe the Government House Leader can tell me. I tried to get at it yesterday when I was asking the Premier questions about a public opinion poll he may recall. I was having some difficulty getting straight answers from him: No, we are not doing any polling. We may. We are not doing any polling. From time to time we do tag-ons and things of that nature.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. SIMMS: So, the question I want him to answer directly is: Has the government asked anybody or added on to somebody else's poll, or did their own poll or, in any way, shape or form, sought to get an answer through some kind of a public opinion poll, either by tagging on or by doing their own? Can he answer that question? Is he aware of any polling being done by any other government department? For example: Is the Department of Education doing any polling on -

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not aware of anything being done by anyone.

MR. SIMMS: By anybody.

AN HON. MEMBER: I am not aware of it.

MR. SIMMS: Not aware of it. Well I mean, you are not aware but I suppose that doesn't mean it is not being done.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So that doesn't mean it is not being done?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well Monday I asked the minister and he said he couldn't answer the question either because he has been away for two days - remember, about the same stuff.

AN HON. MEMBER: As far as I know (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: As far as you know it is not being done. Okay, so there is none being by any government department?

AN HON. MEMBER: As far as I know.

MR. SIMMS: As far as you know. Would he seek to find out, would he ask his Ministerial colleagues to see if anybody else in the other departments is doing a poll on any issue, education, fisheries or anything else, and if there is anything tagged on dealing with Hydro. Is there any kind of a public opinion being sought through the add-on on somebody else's poll or anything else with respect to Hydro?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, okay; so he can answer that when he stands in his place.

Hopefully the Minister of Mines and Energy has gone to get the answers to the questions I just asked because I think it would be helpful to know how much more the government plans to spend, how many tens of thousands of dollars because, as all members know, under the legislation those expenses, every hundred thousand dollars spent by Hydro, dealing with this privatization issue, under the legislation is charged to the rate payers. The rate payers will pay the cost.

So I want to know, on behalf of the rate payers, will there be another $100,000 spent, for example? Will we be looking at a $250,000 dollars spent? That's what I would like to know and I am sure the people of the Province would like to know. That is only one question of hundreds that we will continue to ask until the government provides the answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: I will be back at it, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) he must have had a good supper.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't have a good supper.

MR. TOBIN: Do you notice how agitated Bill is this evening?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, he is terribly agitated this evening. I don't know what is going on over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: I had a good supper (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We are going to have a better one later on.

I don't know what is the matter with the hon. Opposition House Leader but he is awfully testy today. I don't know what it is but there are little vibes going back and forth over there.

I have to point out the reason why the Leader is back, because he is not normally back in the evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Hold on now. He usually has other speaking engagements or other things to do. I understand that. He has a busy schedule, so if the Leader is not back there is a good reason. But I wonder why. I wonder did somebody make a phone call to him this afternoon after the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay got up and spoke in this House so eloquently about what would happen in the next election. He actually said: Well, you people are there in government now and maybe one more election; maybe one more election. Now I can understand why he came back this evening, because now he is starting to lose the confidence of his back benchers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh, it's very clear. Hansard will clearly show it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No maybe! The fact that the Opposition is conceding this early in the mandate, what's going to happen it is not hard to see now. Now we know why the hon. -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I've no doubt you will. There will be some patting of the back of the hand this evening.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that interested me in the points that the Leader of the Opposition was making was the answers to questions. If anybody in this House should stand up on their feet and talk about answering questions and getting answers - let me take you back to 1985 when we became the Opposition. For four years when we purposely orchestrated questions in this House of Assembly, good questions, well orchestrated, one, two, three, four, or five members, pick out a minister and go question after question; very well structured. No CBC questions, no Telegram questions, but a lot of research, knowing the answers before.

You would get the then-premier on the (inaudible) and he would turn back on in Question Period. One question, two questions, and the premier of the day, the hon. Brian Peckford, would fold his arms and turn around; he wouldn't even get up from his seat. We all know about getting answers from the then government. That's where we learned how to deal with the Opposition, from what the government of that day taught us.

Then you would pick out a minister, and boy, that was fun, to get the answers out of a minister. You would ask a question on fish and he was talking about roads out in Western Newfoundland.

MR. TOBIN: I always answered the questions.

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. Because you never had one to answer. There were certain capabilities that were put forward over there when the ministers stood up, but most of the time they didn't even bother answering the question. A more important factor was that the House was very seldom open.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes he did. The hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay can't deny what he said. Yes, he did say it. He conceded. Now he is getting a scolding as we watch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Simms is putting it to him.

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes. He is getting a scolding over there now.

MR. TOBIN: I would say (inaudible)!

MR. EFFORD: Oh, I have no doubt about it! No thinking, I don't think, I have no doubt about it whatsoever.

MR. TOBIN: I think (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I think so too, after listening to you people debating the Interim Supply Bill in the House of Assembly.

Another thing the hon. leader just spoke about was the concern on the streets about the Hydro deal. That's what is being talked about everywhere you go on the streets, anywhere in the Province. You're being stopped and confronted by the people of the Province about the Hydro deal. Where's all the concern? Where's all the concern? When this House of Assembly was designed I believe that was called a press gallery. Where's all the concern? Where's the wailing in the streets, where's the gnashing of teeth in the streets about the Hydro deal? Just look at it; three people in the gallery and 260,000 people in St. John's and surrounding areas. Yes there is a great concern about the privatization of Hydro! There's no question about it! There is so much public sentiment about this, so much concern, that the doors of the houses are being locked, the curtains are being drawn and they're all racing out to Confederation Building to hear about the concerns.

CBC showed one of the concerns tonight when they showed Greg Malone giving this speech in front of news media contacts, and I think there were maybe four or five people sitting around. Of course we can't forget the hon. Member for St. John's East; he was there. He was there, no question about it, supporting Greg Malone. Can you imagine the people of this Province - no, you have better sense than that. I have better respect for the hon. Member for Menihek than that. No, you were not there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell you, I would be talking about the most important thing to the people of this Province, the survival of Newfoundland and Labrador, and making the best decisions, what the future of Newfoundland and Labrador depends on. Privatization of Hydro would be one of them.

My past experience in business tells me that government should not be operating any businesses; setting policy, setting direction, setting support mechanisms in place but not operating businesses. That's not how I operated my business out in Bay Roberts or in the District of Port de Grave.

MR. TOBIN: Tell us how you operated (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Very skilfully, very skilfully, make no doubt about it; very skilfully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: And the money is in the bank.

MR. EFFORD: And the money is in the bank. Well, not all of it, a lot of it is in Japan, a lot of it is in England in Rolls Royce and other places like that. Nevertheless it's all secured.

AN HON. MEMBER: Swiss banks?

MR. EFFORD: No, no Swiss banks.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes a few (inaudible), twice over.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, it's important to realize the importance of the people in the Province. When I watch CBC - I too, like the hon. members opposite, watched CBC this evening. One of the things that really got my interest was Greg Malone. I mean leading the charge to make a decision based on the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, Greg Malone is providing the Opposition members with the energy to go forth in the House of Assembly and to ask questions. Now I ask the question: I have a great deal of respect for most members, most people opposite, but surely goodness they're not going to depend on Andy Wells and Greg Malone to make a decision, and if they made a decision that you'd just -

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with Greg Malone?

MR. EFFORD: I didn't say there was anything wrong with Greg Malone. I just don't have any confidence in him making decisions on the future of this Province.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I will clue off by saying this: When I witness the same thing that the Opposition Leader just spoke about, being confronted every time I walk through the Confederation Building or every time I walk through the streets, whether it be St. John's, my own district or anybody else's district, to see the masses of people out saying, `don't privatize Hydro,' then probably I will have to sit down and be more serious about listening to the Leader of the Opposition.

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

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

I really wanted to get into a few words on the estimates of the Department of Fisheries since we are into an interim supply debate here, but I've been provoked, I must say, by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who asks the question, why I was so testy.

I want to tell the minister quite sincerely, after sitting here now for two or three days in a row and listening to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and the Premier of this Province personally attacking Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for expressing an opinion on a very important issue, that it is disgraceful; it is outright disgraceful.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The two people on the block today by the government, by the Premier and the minister and others, are Greg Malone and Cy Abery. Then there are Andy Wells, Bas Jamieson, Wade Locke, Susanne Dwyer, Bill Vetter and CBC. All because, Mr. Chairman, all those people have a different opinion on privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro than the Premier and his administration. They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, they breathe, they think, they eat, they drink, they have feelings, I say to the minister, and why shouldn't they express their opinions on this issue as well as any other one?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, that is why I'm testy today, and for you to continuously stand in your place, which you've done a number of times today, and in every speech that you've made you've personally attacked Greg Malone. You have personally attacked the man.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say this. I sometimes disagree with the tactics of Andy Wells or John Efford or Clyde Wells or Cy Abery or whoever else, but I'm not going to come to the floor of this House and personally attack someone on an issue of importance to this Province just because I have some little difference with them, or I don't like their tactics sometimes. What is wrong with Greg Malone and other individuals of this Province expressing a concern about something that they feel is so important and so devastating to the future of our Province, I ask the minister?

They are completely independent, not politically partisan. They are doing it because they are concerned about this issue. They don't have any axe to grind with the government from a partisan point of view. They are doing it because a vast majority, I say to the Member for St. George's, of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are opposed to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, about 80 per cent. That is pretty vast in my opinion, that is a pretty vast majority, about 80 per cent.

The Leader of the Opposition asked some good questions tonight. The government will probably run off now in the next few weeks and undertake a more extensive advertising campaign which will cost in the vicinity of $250,000 - the Member for St. John's South says maybe more - that the taxpayers and the rate payers of electricity in this Province are going to have to pay for. Now I mean, Mr. Chairman -

MR. BAKER: It is not out of interim supply, though.

MR. SIMMS: No, but who cares? We don't know where it is coming from, you won't tell us.

MR. SULLIVAN: We don't know.

MR. BAKER: It is not coming out of interim supply.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Finance, you are not levelling with the House or the people, because you have not been honest as to how much this has cost us already. You have not been honest as to what -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) personal attack.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is not a personal attack on the minister. I know the minister would like to give us the information because he is a pretty forthcoming minister, but like the rest opposite the muzzle is on, I say to the minister. The minister nods in agreement with most of the figures that are put forward, mostly by the Member for Ferryland. He nods in agreement silently; silent agreement.

MR. ROBERTS: Sure. I don't agree with the way he uses them but he (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, but he is right on his figures, I say to the Minister of Finance.

MR. SULLIVAN: I don't agree with the way you use them.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The problem is, Mr. Chairman, the government is not coming clean. The Premier admitted tonight on television again - now, you have to be careful with the Premier, because last Tuesday night he told us one story. Thursday night when he was in the public debate he said: The story I told you Tuesday is not true. The truth I told you Tuesday is untrue. Now tonight - and CBC did a masterful job on him, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, where they showed the Premier in debate saying: If it is clearly shown that public opinion in this Province is against the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro I will not proceed with the legislation.

The clip ends: Going to proceed, the Premier said. Regardless, the Premier is going to proceed. What he is going to do over the next two, three or four weeks, Mr. Chairman, is he is going to undertake a very extensive advertising campaign again. The Premier will just not accept that the people are not buying his arguments.

MR. SULLIVAN: His self-interest. Not proceeding today, that is the (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, today, today. The point is, all those additional expenses government will incur now in advertising and otherwise, the people of the Province are going to have to pay for them. It's going to show up on their light bills. That's what's wrong with it. The Leader of the Opposition asked the Minister of Mines and Energy to get the information. How much more will it cost?

MS. VERGE: Does the minister have it now? Does the minister have the information?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, and they don't know. I will tell you something -

MR. SULLIVAN: We may never see it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will tell you something, Mr. Chairman - that is right, we will never know how much this whole deal will cost this Province. But the taxpayers of this Province are paying for all this advertising, legal fees, financial advice and so on.

In the final analysis, I say to the Minister of Finance, it is going to show up on their light bills. That's when the day of reckoning is going to come, but your Clyde Wells' and your John Effords and all the others will be long gone then. They will be long gone when it starts to show up on the lights bills of the people of this Province. That is what is going to happen. It is too late then.

I wanted to make a few remarks - and I'm sorry to see the Minister of Fisheries -

MR. SIMMS: Ask the Minister of Mines and Energy to get up and answer the questions.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He doesn't have the information, I don't think. The Minister of Mines and Energy doesn't have the information, I don't believe.

MR. SIMMS: Rex? He hasn't got the energy to get up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Does the Minister of Mines and Energy have the information? Did you go out to get it?

DR. GIBBONS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay. Well, hopefully tomorrow the minister might have the information for us.

I wanted to take a few moments - I guess I don't have much time left, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to have a few words on the Department of Fisheries. I noticed the minister stepped outside for a few minutes. He was there a minute ago. I read with interest the article in, I think it was yesterday's paper, in The Evening Telegram, pertaining to the provincial Department of Fisheries. I want to commend the minister, by the way. I think he handled that situation very well. It's very easy, because our cod stocks are in trouble and a lot of our plants are no longer processing groundfish, to get the impression that the Newfoundland fishing industry is dead. I wanted to compliment the minister on the approach that he took with it, because it is still a very big part of our provincial economy. I think he said some $400-plus million a year that the fishing industry is worth to our Province. That is pretty significant, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go on and say to the minister, as I've advocated any number of times in the last three or four years, that I still think the government is not putting enough emphasis on aquaculture and on value-added processing. I know there are some efforts being made in that particular area, and I looked at the estimates of the department, but it is an area where I think if we are going to get the full bang, the full value, the full benefit for our people from the fish resources that are being landed in our Province and being processed, then we have to put greater emphasis on value-added processing - I really believe that - and on development of aquaculture.

I hope the minister is outside listening, but if not I will get him some other time and run it by him again, because it's a -

MR. SIMMS: Isn't the budget reduced for aquaculture?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is reduced somewhat; I forget the amount. But it is a very important area. I see the Member for St. George's who seems to have a keen interest in this and in aquaculture. It is the way to go, you know, if we are going to really get this Province moving. We know it's going to take a number of years. We hope our groundfish stocks do recover. There are days I have my doubts whether it will but I'm hoping that it will. We have to, I guess, fully utilize the fish resources that we are now harvesting. The way to do that is through value-added processing and of course a greater development of aquaculture.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to hear his views on it, by the way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) per cent.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Down 25 per cent, the aquaculture. No, I don't think it is down that much.

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. George's might have some good views on that in this debate. Maybe he should stand up and tell us what his views are on that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

MR. SIMMS: The Member for St. George's has had some good experiences. I would like to hear his views.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he does, there is no doubt, but it is an area that the government needs to put more emphasis on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I will follow again later, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably the lateness of the hour, or whatever it is, but I tell you it is not hard to feel the testiness coming from the opposite side. Let me clarify what I said in this House of Assembly. I did not attack Greg Malone or Andy Wells because I couldn't care to waste my time attacking Greg Malone or Andy Wells for any reason. I do not have the time, I do not have the interest, and I do not want to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: But I will tell you one thing, the people of my district and the people I know in the Province, which is a good majority of the people of this Province, don't want the future of this Province decided by Andy Wells or Greg Malone either, and that is the key issue. The key issue is that they don't decide, they don't manipulate, and they don't put out false information and mislead the people of this Province. That is not what I am talking about. There is no personal attack. I have never met one of the gentlemen and I do not care to meet either one of them. That's not the issue. They have their life, they have their rights, and they can do what they like.

I said this afternoon, and on a number of occasions in this House of Assembly, Mr. Chairman, that we as a Province, the people of this Province, should not be mislead by people who are putting out false information on any issue, whether it be Hydro or any other issue in this Province. That is what I am talking about. I am not prepared to put the future of this Province into the hands of those people anymore than I was prepared in 1985 to 1989 to allow the members opposite to continue to govern this Province. That is the reason why we worked to get them out of office and we succeeded, and very well I might add, by getting the correct information out. I never ever asked a question in the House of Assembly that I didn't know the answer to. I can tell you those individuals who were on CBC this evening are not (inaudible) with the true interest of this Province in mind, and hon. members opposite know that.

Now, let me take some time and talk about what the taxpayers of this Province are burdened with. Is it $250,000 or $300,000 of advertising put out for any reason, or would it be mismanagement for seventeen years? Is that what the taxpayers are burdened with? Is that the reason why I have to go out to my district and see people out there unemployed and industries closed down, because of mismanagement of two governments, federal and provincial? Is that not right, that we have 500,000 people in this Province and we had a resource that was unequal to any other country in the world? Now, what do we have left because of the mismanagement? There is a burden on taxpayers. We are totally consuming all our time and all our energy on the privatization of Hydro. It has nothing to do with the privatization of Hydro. It has to do with the frustration of people who are being misled by - I will not use the name I would like to put out, but by individuals for their own personal reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rhetoric.

MR. EFFORD: Rhetoric, absolute rhetoric, that is the question.

We talk about paying the price. My grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to be paying a long time for mistakes, mistakes that have been made in the past. You want to talk about campaigning? You want to talk about paying taxes and what taxpayers are paying for? I could have brought a book over here tonight that I use to hold up every now and then jokingly in the House of Assembly, if you want to pay for burdens?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) man of the people.

MR. EFFORD: A man of the people, yes. I have no problem. I will stand second to no one in working for this Province. I will take second place to nobody, and I don't care who he or she may be. What is more important to this Province - and I have said it before and I will say it a thousand times - is getting the people of this Province back to work and paying off the debt that was incurred over the last twenty-five or thirty years. That's where we need to go in the future.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier has you under his wing too.

MR. EFFORD: Never mind under the wing. I know where your ambition lies. Doesn't your Leader sit side on to you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I know where your ambition lies. At least what I say I say upfront. I said it for two years upfront in this Province. I have no problem with having ambitions. Talk about blindfolding and brainwashing and trying to sway people, but I have more confidence in the people of this Province.

There's not a man opposite, if he were to speak the truth, who would agree with government operating a business. Look over the years, Liberal and Tory, look over the years of the experience of government operating businesses and where it should really be taken. You can name them back to the Joey days, the chocolate factory, the rubber factory, the linerboard mill and all the other things, and on and on, up to the present day.

Talk about Newfoundland Farm Products down there. Four million dollars, $5 million of taxpayers' money going every year. The burden of mistakes of governments operating businesses. Don't get on with your nonsense about Hydro being privatized. The best thing that could ever happen to this Province is privatize everything that government is involved in, what the free enterprise could run. What free enterprise can run people should be involved in; government should not be involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is not a private business. That is providing an essential service for the benefit of people who need health care in this Province, the same as our schools. Don't talk so foolish. You can't put up a defensive argument.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing me. I wasn't sure at first who had been recognized but I guess I have been.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: This minister that you just saw there, this energetic, opinionated, vocal, lots of intestinal fortitude minister, is one of those who the Premier admitted on television Tuesday night past he told to keep quiet: You keep quiet, John, you and the rest of them, don't you dare tell the people of this Province what I've been up to. That is one of them right there, that very minister, who just lectured the rest of us about his interest in Newfoundland, the great defender of the people, the great champion of the people's resources. That is the person we just listened to.

I want to say, if there ever was a government on the run, I say to the minister and others, here it is right here; when you are always looking back, when you are always attacking individuals, anyone who has any opposing view whatsoever. Anyone who opposes the government on any issue, big or small, you attack the individual, you attack them. That is another sign; those are the tactics, dismissing very lightly any opposing view regardless of the issue. Those are the sure signs I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation of a government on the run.

The minister should be able to identify with that. It is not that long ago that the minister was over here and he was trying to -

AN HON. MEMBER: The night crawler.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, he was - other names. The minister was effective. I don't want to give him too much credit but he was effective as an Opposition member. He was dealing at the time with a government on the run. I'm sure the minister hasn't forgotten. If you would only look in the mirror and reflect, don't you now remind yourself of what you were facing when you were here in Opposition? Because I'm telling you something: In our worst days as a government, I say to the minister, we never came close to the arrogance that this government is displaying towards the people of this Province. We never came close to it, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the minister went on to say that those individuals are misleading. Those individuals are not misleading, Mr. Chairman, those individuals that the minister attacks are not misleading anyone. They are opposed to government's plans to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and they are expressing that in various forms. They're not misleading; they are opposed to it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. EFFORD: They're being misled.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They're not being misled, I say to the minister, give them more credit. I say to the minister and to others, give the people more credit then you're giving them. The Premier of this Province is not the only intelligent human being that lives in Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the minister. I consider most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to be intelligent, very intelligent. They're so intelligent, I say to the minister, that they have caught the Premier in the biggest sham and the biggest scandal there has ever been since Confederation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That's what has happened, they have caught the Premier.

MR. SULLIVAN: And he is carrying them with him.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course, because the rest of them are muzzled they are caught with him. It's not just the Premier, I say to you all opposite, who has been caught in the scam, the sham and the scandal. It's all of you collectively because you have gone along with his plan, and you stand there now, except for one individual, and defend him. Now I'm sure there are others who want to do the same as that individual has done but for your own individual reasons you're not doing it.

I want to say to members, I just want to remind members opposite of what's really happening. It's like the Member for Kilbride said, if you so readily disagree with the people that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and the Premier have sort of slurred in the last few days here, if you believe that they are misleading, if you believe that they are spreading false information then why don't you do like the Member for Kilbride suggested? Why don't you go out and meet the people face to face and correct the misinformation? Do you know why, Mr. Chairman? Because there is no false information out there. The people know the facts on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is the problem, I say to the minister. You cannot counter the information that's been put out there, I say to the minister.

Now why don't people trust the Premier on this issue, Mr. Chairman? You have to remember this, that it was this Premier, Clyde Wells, who went off to Ottawa with the Income Supplementation proposal, Mr. Chairman, that recommended increasing the work weeks to qualify for UI. It was this Premier.

MR. BAKER: That's not true.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is true, I say to the Minister of Finance. He sold us out on the Income Supplementation Program, he sold us out on UI. Now our people have to work more weeks to qualify for UI and get less weeks of benefits. He's now selling us out on Hydro. What is the news today, Mr. Chairman? Who's selling us out? Who's making the recommendations to Brian Tobin, Lloyd Axworthy and Dingwall if it's not our own Clyde Wells -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - who's now saying, reduce the number of fisherpersons in this Province to 6,700 when just a few weeks ago Mr. Cashin recommended 13,000? I say to the Member for Eagle River, go slowly Danny because this story will be told as the Hydro story has been told. We will find out in due course who really recommended the 6,700, I say to the Member for Eagle River. You'll see where that figure came from. So don't swallow it hook, line and sinker because the Premier read the note today that came from Mr. Tobin's office that said the figures in the telegram were inaccurate. That may well be, the figures in the telegram may be inaccurate but they didn't say what the Premier's recommended figures were then. So don't jump too quickly, I say to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he never told the Minister of Fisheries.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Fisheries didn't have a clue about it, his own Minister of Fisheries, so it is not unusual that this Premier would go, as I said today, fly by the seat of his pants, and announce government policy in a debate on television in front of the people of this Province without his ministers or his caucus knowing. That is what this Premier is doing, I tell members opposite, making policy on the airwaves of this Province, and you all know it over there because you are not very happy about it. You see it on television the same way as I see it and you are supposed to be participating in it and developing policy. You watch your Leader in a public debate, and across this Province announcing policy for your government. Don't tell me you are happy about it, because you are not. Who would be happy about it?

That's the problem this government has, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know how you are going to deal with it. That's why people don't trust the Premier. That is why people don't trust this government. They have been sold out one too many times by this administration and they are not going to tolerate it anymore.

Mr. Chairman, with those few remarks I will sit down and let someone else speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

After seeing that performance, I would like to say that none are so blind than those who do not want to see. Here we have the hon. House Leader standing up talking about government arrogance. As I said earlier for those members opposite who didn't want to hear, none are so blind than those who do not want to see.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Grand Bank got up and I believe he honestly had himself talked into what he was saying. I believe he really had himself convinced, when he talked about how never in their days of being in government were they ever so arrogant as this government is today. I would like to submit to hon. members opposite, to the people of this Province, and to this House tonight, that it wasn't this government that sat in Cabinet and refused to open the doors of the people's House. It wasn't this government that refused to have the democratic process go its way, and let the people and their representatives come here and debate the issues of the day. You were in the Cabinet of that day, Mr. Member for Grand Bank. You were the member who said: Brian, do not open that door. You were the arrogance personified of that day, Mr. Chairman.

It wasn't our government who said there should be no Legislative Review Committees, that there should be legislation brought to this House, and it was drove through this House whether you liked it or not. It wasn't this government that did that. It wasn't this government that sat at the table and issued Orders in Council for millions of dollars of taxpayers' money that they wouldn't bring to the floor of the House of Assembly and ask the people for support. It wasn't this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: It wasn't this government that sat around the Cabinet table and had the big Peckford house sale up at Mount Scio House. It wasn't this government that said, yes, I'm going to sell the chesterfield now and the pieces of china for fifty pieces of silver. It wasn't this government that sat around and said, how much do you want for this, Mr. Premier, the silver cup? Oh, $2.00. No problem! Take it or leave it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, what about a night table? Mr. Peckford, would you like a night table? Oh, yes. How much for that? Two dollars? Four dollars? Give me fifty cents. Take it away, Mr. Premier. No. problem! Whatever you want. It wasn't this government.

If you do not call that arrogance what do you call it, I submit to the members opposite? What do you call that? You call that good old style politics. Well, it stopped in 1989 and it is never to return I submit to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Never will you have to go around and flick the Bic lighting Cuban cigars for this Premier. I can tell you that, Mr. Chairman. Never will you have a dining room open where you have on the table $25,000 worth of liquor and cigars. Never will that happen again in this Province, Mr. Chairman. Never! Never! And you talk about commitment to this Province!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation touched on it and he hit a chord. Because of all the energy that has been put on the floor of this House and exercised in the public meetings throughout this Province - since this House opened nearly four weeks ago we had two questions on the fishery; two questions, Mr. Chairman. You can count on one hand how many questions we've had in this House on the fishery in the last twelve months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: If that is not a dereliction of responsibility I submit to the people of this Province that there is no Opposition today. They are more concerned about the political salvation of their forlorn Leader. We know what is going on over there, we know that the Leader is looking for a parade to try to get out to try to save himself. We understand the political agenda that is on the go, Mr. Chairman. But the people of the Province want to have the issues debated because the people of the Province know - I tell the hon. members today, and they can come back and tell me in June if I'm right or not, that the date of May 15 is going to be more historic in this Province than any date that we are talking about or any issue as far as the privatization of Hydro.

It is very, very crucial, I would ask all hon. members to make sure that they stand up and be counted on whatever proposal we see endorsed here in this hon. House. I intend to do that as a member of this caucus, and I know that this government is going to insist on the right things being down for rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I can tell the hon. House Leader that this member, or no member of this government, will be running roughshod for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans like he did when he was there for the hon. John Crosbie. I can tell him that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: When the issues of the Province are on the floor and when rural Newfoundland and Labrador is ever in question, there will be no political agenda followed here on a partisan basis. It will be a dedication to preserving rural Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Chairman, and nothing less.

AN HON. MEMBER: Danny, tell us about the furniture (inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, you don't know? Some of the members who just got elected are not fully aware of the giant furniture sale that happened just before the 1989 election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it at Cohen's?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, no! This was when the former Premier moved out of Mount Scio house, and then they moved over to Tiffany Lane somewhere. They all sat around, they brought in the china, they brought in the wine goblets, they brought in the tables for the bedside, and they went around and they said: Shouldn't we go to public tender on this, Mr. Premier? `Oh no, not a public tender on this.' The camera, Mr. Chairman, a very expensive camera, $700 or $800: I suppose if we go to public tender on this we would get five or six hundred and not twenty dollars. Take her, Premier, let her go! Take it away, Premier. Oh yes. Here are four more pieces of film, Mr. Premier, take that too. Yes, no problem! The wine goblets, twelve wine goblets, sterling silver, valued at about $30 each, I suppose. Twenty-two dollars: Take the works, Mr. Premier. No problem. Minister after minister had their favourite item to give him as a going away present. That was it, yes. What a tremendous show of democracy.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Here he comes! Yes, tell us about the welcoming committee, Mr. Premier. `Why do they have the guns though, Mr. Tobin?' `Oh, they are just doing that, it is a normal twenty-two gun salute.' `Yes, but why are they pointing it at me, Mr. Tobin?' `Oh, get back aboard the bus, Premier, get back aboard the bus!'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: It won't be much longer before the Member for Grand Falls is going to turn around and he's going to be looking at the muzzle.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DUMARESQUE: `Loyola, why are you doing that? I gave you a promotion. I demoted the Member for Burin - Placentia West. I put him down to the deputy, deputy, deputy, deputy, deputy chair and I promoted you Loyola. Why are you doing this to me now?' Of course the ambitious - and I would predict that the person who is going to be on the ballot, the last ballot, is the Member for Kilbride. I think he will be on the last ballot of that debate in that leadership. Mark that down, you can mark that down. He is going to be the next leader of the Tory Party. If not, Mr. Chairman, he will be on the last ballot - there'll only be one ballot now because there are only going to be two candidates. They can't get any more than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's more than they had the last time.

MR. DUMARESQUE: More than they had the last time, yes - if it wasn't for the young fellow.

Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no doubt that members opposite, members of this government returned after May of last year, solid members of the Liberal Party, have to put their heads down to nobody. We can go around this Province holding our heads high because we have accepted the mandate to govern this Province, Mr. Chairman. We have exercised our responsibilities and indeed, Mr. Chairman, we will be returned once again, once the Premier wants to issue that writ. We are eager to go and we are eager to say to the people of this Province: Do you want us to govern again like you endorsed us twice before? I have absolutely no worries about the results, Mr. Chairman. There will be two or three leaders gone over there by that time, there will be fire sales -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

There's one thing I must say, that I've certainly livened up the evening.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that's right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I've livened up the evening, there's no doubt about that. I had five on their feet - I wasn't in my seat before there were five of them on their feet, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now I want to say again tonight, I understand more and more why the Premier said he could never consider putting the Member for Eagle River in his Cabinet because he was immature. More and more I understand why the Premier said that because I thought that the member had matured a bit and that he would be seriously considered, but after this display -

MR. SIMMS: Same old speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's wet behind the ears.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Wet behind the ears, that's what he said.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say to the hon. Member for Eagle River that another great defender, another person who no one is going to tell to keep quiet and shut up, to be muzzled - only last Tuesday the Premier told the Province how he told another great defender, Sir Danny Dumaresque, to be quiet, shut up and: Don't open your mouth about what I told you Danny; and he did. I guess it's like the Member for Menihek said, when the member talked about going around the Province with heads held high: Yes and your mouths closed. I think that sums it up very, very well, Mr. Chairman, but again I have to compare - I'd like to welcome the new Premier.

I want to say to the Member for Eagle River, as I said to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, you're making the same fatal mistake. You're looking back all the time. You're looking back, never talking about the future, no vision. In just five or six short years they're behaving like a party that's been in power for thirty years, looking back.

Now, I just want to make a couple of comments to the member. He talked about my behaviour with former fisheries Minister Crosbie. I just want to say to him that there's nothing for you to go to Brian Tobin for anymore. They've taken ACOA away from him and given it to David Dingwall. They have taken ACOA away from Mr. Tobin, so you don't have any reason to go to him about that. They are taking NCARP and giving it to the Department of Human Resources, so there will be no point in going to Mr. Tobin about that. If you soon don't get Mr. Tobin to get the eighty vessels off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, you certainly won't be able to go and talk to them about fish, I say to the member. So the man has, you know, lost his vinegar over there; he is a beaten man. He wants to go to Ottawa of course, he has no interest in provincial politics.

Then he talked about former Premier Peckford and the dining room. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Eagle River failed to mention that Premier Wells gets a $20,000 living allowance for his house in addition to his salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and thirty-nine thousand in salaries.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: One hundred and thirty-nine thousand in salaries, $20,000 for a house allowance and all the dinners he has that are departmentally related he charges to the department. He has Pippy Park do his grass and his flowers. And the Member for Eagle River stood in his place and talked about old time politics, old style politics!

Where else would you ever see in North America today a Premier who would have a trust fund established and go get some of his buddies to administer it for him, I say to the Member for Eagle River, if you want to talk about old time politics? Old time -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: After he was caught, I say to the member, after he was caught, Mr. Chairman. That's what is going on. So the Member for Eagle River should be a little cooler, don't let his temper carry him away, and have him putting his feet into his mouth as he has done again tonight. You know, we can all play that game. You are the government of the day and Mr. Wells is Premier of the day; that's what you are forgetting. You are forgetting that you are the government of the day; you are forgetting that you are responsible for running this Province, you are living in the past. All the things that you say we as a government did bad, we got knocked for. The electorate took care of that, there is no doubt about that, the electorate took care of that. So all the problems they had with former Premier Peckford and all the problems they had with me as minister and so on, they took care of that in '89. They rendered their verdict, I say to the Member for Eagle River and they found us guilty. They weren't satisfied with us and they elected the Liberal Party to be the governing party of the Province, and we are in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Should have thanked you?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, they didn't thank us, not yet.

I say to members opposite: But the electorate want to render another verdict. It is too bad they have to wait three years. They are prepared to render another verdict, I say to the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the Member for Baie Verte was talking about the minister when he said that, but the minister tries to twist things his own way. He was talking about the minister. I mean, he gives the minister more credit than I give him. I think, as my colleague from Burin - Placentia West, that the minister is done. I think the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is finished, because when you get so arrogant, when you think you are unbeatable, that is just the time you get creamed; and that's not only with politics, that is with anything. Any time you get a little too cocky, overconfident and arrogant, that is just the time you get picked.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Health (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am telling the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I know all that but I have heard the same message coming from my own ranks, I have heard the same lines, but once the electorate make up their minds, once they get to that stage which they are now with this government, by the way - they are right there today but they cannot get into the ballot box. If they could, Mr. Chairman, I am sure there would be a swearing in ceremony in a couple of weeks. If they could get to the ballot box now there would be a new administration sworn in in this Province.

MR. MURPHY: Nah!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Of course, the Member for St. John's South has to say, nah, because he is hoping what I am saying is not true. What do you expect him to say? He is up there on the floor with the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: You sit down now, Tom, and sing out, nah.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: `Now Tom, you get down and help the boys out. You are our official cheerleader. When I am not there Tom, you can shout as loud as you want but when I am there you be quiet.' Now, that is what you are told.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He will. That is a point, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The Member for Ferryland is not short on words, and I assure you when he gets through with what he is doing here there will be a few ministers opposite that better be very familiar with their Budget documents. You had better be familiar with every aspect of it, very detail of it, where every nickel is going and why, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You don't know very much I say to the minister. You pretend you do.

I want to go on about the fishery again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He's having another temper tantrum over there.

I want to go back to the Russian cod issue. I noticed in the minister's article in the paper, he talked about the processing of Russian cod and so on. I was hoping he was here because I would have liked to engage him in a bit of what he really thinks of all this, and is there some possibility for more of that to come into the Province. I know in my own district, in the town of Fortune, and I tell the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now, that they are processing Russian cod there. This is a positive story by the way, talking about Budget and the economy. There are more people working at the Fortune plant now than there have been for years. They have hired back all the casuals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Scallops?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, Russian cod, not scallops. In the FPI plant in Fortune I say to the member. He has probably been there once or twice. Safety up there now is fantastic I say to the member. There are no safety problems. All the casuals are back and they have hired on sixty or seventy people above and beyond anyone that was ever on the seniority list. It is a very good story.

I would like to engage the minister to see if government is advancing or promoting purchasing more fish caught by Russians or others?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, my God, I just give up. You can't talk here.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Mr. Chairman, just a point along the lines of the statements of some of the hon. members opposite. This is the best time I find to engage in debate because you, of course, have such a short period of time you can engage the hon. members opposite and take them to task for some of the comments they make.

They talk about the arrogance of this hon. group here on this side of the House. Now, to speak of arrogance is one thing but to prove it to the electorate is another. I would submit that arrogance, of course, is when one is in total disregard of the people of the Province, having no respect for opinions other than their own.

Now, Mr. Chairman, democracy is such that the people of the Province are afforded the opportunity to have the issues of the day debated by the hon. members of this House, debated in a public media, debated to an extent where the people of the Province are able to hear the different sides of the various issues that are being dealt with. Based on that then, people have the ability to make up their minds. This, Mr. Chairman, is democracy.

The hon. members opposite, to look back a little bit, when they were in government - of course they say: Well we shouldn't talk about that. They always want to avoid talking about their history. They have no desire to allow their records to be judged in comparison to ours, in any way, shape or form. It's almost as if they feel embarrassed about the way that they handled things when they were in government. Mr. Chairman, it really makes one wonder if the open discussion, the ability to accept criticism and the opportunity afforded the people of the Province to hear the views of their members in the Chamber where we are elected to debate issues of the day - Mr. Chairman, this is the idea of democracy brought to light for the people of the Province. The fact that we take our knocks and are put in a situation where the unpopularity of some decisions, and certain other aspects of the problems associated with being in government in a parliamentary democracy under the British system, are brought forward so that we at times look bad.

We are afforded the opportunity to expose the views that we have to people's scrutiny. We offer to the people of the Province the opportunity to look at the transparency of our decision-making, to see the rationale behind it and afford them that opportunity to criticize, through the public media and through representations that are made to all of the members of this House.

Now, one would have to compare that I suppose, Mr. Chairman, to the House not being open at all. As the hon. Member for Eagle River said, the opposition, when in power, chose to run the affairs of the Province by their Executive Council, by their Cabinet. They made Cabinet decision upon Cabinet decision on the expenditure of public funds, where they failed to bring the matters forward for the required Legislative authority to spend. What one probably doesn't realize because of the history of the time, is that this government did the honourable thing and decided to pay those obligations, those guarantees as provided by the Executive Council of that day. But, under legal opinions that were garnished at the time by this government, we had little or no obligation other than a moral obligation, to pay on those guarantees. In order to effect for the people of the Province, to make sure that the credit worthiness of the Province was maintained, that our honour as a government was in fact to be maintained, we felt obligated, and the Legislature did afterwards approve the various heads of expenditure as put forward and the loan guarantees were honoured.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members opposite, when they made their decisions, of course didn't bring it forward to public debate. They avoided the issue and, as the hon. Member for Grand Bank did mention, they certainly paid the price for that kind of activity. Well that is one way of looking at it. Maybe another way of looking at it is, that the election was not lost by the opposition, the election was won by the government sitting here; and those are two entirely different things.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: Well one is not always converse with the other. The side that usually puts in a better effort often is the victor, and if you put in a worse effort, you can't always say that you were the loser. You could certainly take exception to that kind of converse commentary.

The Opposition contends that we are overconfident in the way that we do things over here. Well I don't know about overconfident but let's put it this way, the hon. members opposite think that: Oh well, they've got us on the run on this one. The Hydro privatization is a terrible thing. We're so unpopular that in three years time the electorate of this Province is going to turf us out and that's going to be the case.

Now the hon. members opposite remember all to well the situation in 1990 when we brought in a government and there were marches on Confederation Building and we were never ever going to see the light of day in our individual districts again. They did their job, they scared us new members into thinking that we were doing terrible things to the electorate and we were going to be turfed out when the opportunity came three or four years hence. What happened at the time? The issues of the day decide the fate of the elected members, the issues of the day at the time when the election is called, not Hydro three years hence. Granted if we did go ahead with the Hydro privatization and then it was deemed in three years time that it was a terrible thing, people were paying lots more for electricity and all of our calculations and impressions of the issue were wrong and yours were right, then we would deserve to hang our heads in shame and say: Well, we tried. We thought we were doing the right thing but you guys deserve it. Vote against us and put us out of here because this is the way that the electorate should view the issue. I submit to the House of Assembly here today and I submit to the people of the Province, that if the issues of the day decide the election, the issues of the day decide the way that the public will view an issue.

Now this same issue, if it had been brought up in a different manner, maybe a little bit of difference - the Opposition did a very good job on trying to craft a web of opposition to this. They and certain interest groups throughout the Province have done their job and done a very good job. They've won the hearts and minds of a lot of people, people who are easily influenced by fear. Fear is twelve times, and I've said this before, twelve times more likely to take - go ahead.

MS. VERGE: What interest groups are you talking about and what fear are you talking about?

MR. RAMSAY: Well it goes without saying, the fear is one of losing something that we already own, the fear of all of the things that the hon. members opposite say that are emotive. They do a very good job of getting the people to fear for this, fear that we are out to take something away. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government of this Province is intent on doing what they feel is in the best interests of the people who put us here. The people in this -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) don't want it.

MR. RAMSAY: But that isn't always the way that you do things. You see, the people of the Province wanted the hon. members opposite to vote against the Meech Lake Accord.

MS. VERGE: We never had a chance to vote.

MR. RAMSAY: Oh, but that's an easy way out. You all stood and said that you were going to go against the wishes of your constituents then. So how was that any different? It was no different. It's obvious to the people of this Province that the hon. members opposite who all stood in their places and said that regardless of the fact that 80 per cent of our constituents are against what we are going to do, we are going to do it for the benefit of the PC Party and - I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: How would you have voted at that time?

MS. VERGE: I made a speech and voted.

MR. RAMSAY: Well you did, exactly, which is what I said. So the fact of the matter is it's a moot point as to whether or not you had the opportunity to vote or not because you had demonstrated to the electorate that you were willing to go against the wishes of your constituents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The member's time is up.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you very much.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I've listened with some care to the Member for LaPoile speaking on this matter and I'm surprised that he is leaving his seat now because he doesn't seem to address the issues that are before the House. I know the member prides himself on being a follower of business. He reads all these business magazines and sees himself as a bit of an expert on small business and enterprise and things like that. I'm surprised that he didn't deal with the real questions that have been raised concerning the pros and cons of privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

He seems to be convinced, like other members opposite, that the opposition to the Hydro privatization is coming from some individuals who are out there somehow able to manipulate the public into thinking, against their will, that this is a bad thing for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. They think opposite, Mr. Chairperson, and they try to get some comfort from the fact that the people who are opposed to this don't have experience in government, that someone like Greg Malone doesn't have experience in government. They seem to get some comfort from that. They think that they somehow have the power to manipulate all these people, to change people's opinions against their will, to oppose the privatization of Hydro.

The reality is - and I say this to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - that they who are out there phoning the open lines, expressing their opinions, are participating in the democratic process and they are expressing their point of view. Members of the government caucus seem to have the opinion that the only one entitled to express a point of view is the Premier; not even them! In this democratic process, once May 3 came and went, the only person in the Province who is entitled to have a point of view is the Premier. That is the conclusion that these people have come to and that is what they think democracy is: Whatever the Premier says, you do. If the Premier says shut up, we shut up. If the Premier says speak up, we speak up. If the Premier says say this, they say it; if he says say that, they say that. If he says jump, they say: How high, Mr. Premier? In which direction would you wish me to land and how often would you wish me to jump?

The Member for St. John's North knows his drill very well. It hasn't taken him very long to learn it. He has discovered, the same as all the rest of them back there, that you leave a Cabinet post open, you just leave a position vacant, and you have a number of people with the saliva running down their chin who just can't wait to be called into the Cabinet. They follow their point of view, they follow the Premier's direction, they follow his whims, actively trying to find out what it is the Premier is going to do next, and then they go along with it.

When the people, whether it be Greg Malone, Andy Wells or whoever –

MR. EFFORD: Two great leaders.

MR. HARRIS: I've never expressed myself to be a fan of Andy Wells, but you know sometimes Andy Wells is actually right. I suppose that is perhaps why the Premier has refused to debate him, the Member for St. John's South refused to debate him.

In fact, I have a copy of a letter that was sent to the Member for St. John's South by Mr. Wells. He sent me a copy but I don't know, I guess I'm on his mailing list now. He sent him a letter, first of all, because the Member for St. John's South's constituents were complaining because he wouldn't have a meeting. Mr. Wells also sent a letter to the Premier challenging him to have a public debate about the decision to sell Hydro to the private sector, and what he said at the end was: If you turn down this reasonable request I can only assume you are afraid of the truth or that you believe I am unworthy of the effort. Is there anyone in your government who would accept this challenge, assuming you decline?

Well, Mr. Chairman, I haven't seen the Member for St. John's South come forth, as the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, and offer to take the place of the Premier in a debate with Andy Wells at the Arts and Culture Centre. I haven't seen the Member for St. John's South come forward with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could I have a copy of that letter?

MR. HARRIS: Sure you can have a copy.

What happened, Mr. Chairman, is that instead of an individual debate, the Premier decided he wanted to take on the public. He asked and got about two hours of air time on CBC and NTV, altogether two hours of prime time provincial television granted at the Premier's request to debate the pros and the con of the Hydro deal. Now the Premier couldn't have it all his own way, he didn't get the whole two hours himself; he had to share it equally with those who were opposed to it, the political parties opposed to the privatization deal. He had an opportunity to have this matter publicly debated.

During the same period of time, acting upon his instructions, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was spending $100,000 trying to persuade people of the rightness of the deal and of the good things that were supposed to come with it, $100,000, with statements by the Premier, all sorts of positive spins being put on it, trying to convince municipalities that there would be $1 million in tax available to them starting in 1998 as one of the pros of the privatization deal.

All this went on, Chairperson, and in the course of this debate, the Premier made a very sensible statement I thought. I thought it was a concession to democracy. I thought the Premier, having acted in a fairly high-handed manner since the time he was elected in 1989, had given a concession to democracy when he said: If the people of Newfoundland are opposed to this, then I will not bring it forward. Furthermore, he said if it comes to pass that how the Premier has behaved has destroyed the process of approving Hydro's privatization, then he would feel honour bound to resign. So I thought, Chairperson, that, the Premier had recognized the democratic right of the people to have their say and he had made his attempt, along with Hydro, to convince the public of their point of view.

Now that they have had that opportunity and the public mood has been tested by a properly constructed, scientific public opinion poll, I thought that the Premier would come into the House today and tell the members of the House of Assembly that he was prepared to recognize the will of the people, and that he would withdraw the legislation to privatize Hydro, because the people have the right to have their point of view expressed by government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. John's South.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: I just want to comment on some of the falsehoods that have been expressed here tonight. First of all I will deal with the one most recent, that of the Member for St. John' East, in saying that nobody debated or would debate with Mr. Malone and/or Deputy Mayor Andy Wells. Well, let me set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. I say to the Member for St. John's East that I had no problem having a public meeting which Mr. Wells and Mr. Malone attended. I say to the Member for St. John's East, the great leader of democracy, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who can't even get along with his own caucus, that he never had a public meeting and I am waiting to hear when he is going to have one. When is he going to have one? He is five years now a member and has yet to have a public meeting.

At my public meeting one of the people got up and I said: Where is Mr. Harris' meeting? `Oh, you do not need to have a meeting. Jack mixes and mingles among the people.' Jack mixes and `mungles' - that is a good word, and `mungles' among the people. I don't have to sit over here and take any lecture. I say to the Member for St. John's East that I always showed the courage to face anybody who has an opinion.

Now, the Member for Grand Bank got up tonight and chastised the Minister of Work, Services and Transportation, and unjustly, I say to members opposite. Let me remind them, all of them, that when anybody said anything positive about the sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro they got up and chastised them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Oh, the guy down at the Board of Trade, Bill Callahan and The Evening Telegram, the editorials in The Evening Telegram: They are false, they are phoney, they are not correct, they are incorrect.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Miller Ayre.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, everybody had their day. Now, I say to the Member for Grand Bank, he is right, that Mr. Malone, Mr. Wells, and Mr. Vetters, all of these people who have been upfront on this issue have their opinion. I would ask the member this - as far as I am concerned I know the answer, but like the Member for Port de Grave said: Don't ask the question unless you know the answer. Does the Member for Grand Bank actually think that either Mr. Wells, Mr. Vetters - and I am not talking about the Premier, I am talking about the fellow you just can't seem to get to, no matter how - then I'll answer what the hon. Member for Humber East had to say. Do you think that the people of this Province want anyone of those people in charge of this Province at this time? Now, that is the question, and I say to the hon. Member for Grand Bank: No, in capital letters. Nobody is picking on the opinions, I would suggest to the hon. member, of anybody no matter what position they take.

Now, the Member for Grand Bank got on with the muzzle, the great statement of muzzle.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) Jeff Brace.

MR. MURPHY: I am glad the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West brought up Jeff Brace. Well, let me say something to you: If you have the interests of the people of this Province at heart, true heart, and you are concerned about opportunity down the road, if you think you can make a deal and recover something that is worth billions of dollars, then you make a decision.

Now, I say to members opposite, I just want to remind them before they start cat calling, before they start heckling and getting one, I just want to remind them, they made a few mistakes too.

AN HON. MEMBER: A few!

MR. MURPHY: Well, just leave it at that.

I say to the hon. Member for Grand Bank, when the Premier of this Province came on television and openly said: My strategy or I made a mistake, this caucus wasn't muzzled. What the Premier said was simple, simple, simple. It is that the other bill, tied in with the privatization of Hydro, was not to inflame and/or infuriate anybody. What we were trying - now the member can giggle and google and get on. She is not impressing anybody, not even the Member for Mount Pearl who sits next to her. He nearly got up and left again. Listen for a change.

This will be the sell on Hydro, that if we were hopeful to - now, think about the other two governments. They were PC governments: The Moores kick at the cat, which was a mistake - and I don't need to remind the Member for Mount Pearl what happened when he was a minister in the government that tried to bring back the power from the Upper Churchill project. A dastardly mistake! The happenings that took place in this - not this House, the House upstairs - was the very reason that the case was lost; the very, very reason!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Yes, you can bawl and shout. It's no trouble to know when somebody over here is right, you all start cackling, you all start shouting and bawling.

MS. VERGE: Who (inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: Wait now. The member will have her turn. The people of this Province would have had a chance of recovering the 800 megawatts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Once that power came back across - now listen, the reason, I say to the Member for Menihek, that he and his constituents are living on fifteen mils a kilowatt hour and the reason that the Member for Naskaupi and Goose Bay are on thirty mils is because of the Upper Churchill, the recovery of that energy.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. MURPHY: It's not true, is it? Well then the member, when he gets in his turn, can tell me why it is so cheap when the people of St. John's have to pay $0.75. That is why, and he knows it, fifteen cents a kilowatt because it is at his doorstep.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fifteen mils.

MR. MURPHY: Fifteen mils I meant. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. MURPHY: Just a minute now. Let's hear it, if we are going to be fair to everybody in this Province. If we can transmit, if we can recall, if the new PUB board through the new legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: PUB board?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, the new public utilities. The member knows what I'm talking about it, public utilities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: You know who you put on it while he was on the other commission at the cost of $120,000 a year. I will get into that. There is lots of time to get into that stuff.

Last night Jeff Brace told the people of Newfoundland the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it upset members opposite. It upset you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: I will tell you right now, stay upset! Because that is the theme that this government is going to bring forward in the next two or three weeks and you can hang your hat on it. That is what the people of this Province are going to see and realize what this government was trying to do. They will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I say to the hon. member. We will see. They won't be walking in here in four or five weeks, the Member for St. John's East, with some poll, getting on and shouting and bawling, the very member who has never had a public meeting since he has been elected, because he mixes and mingles with his people.

MS. VERGE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MURPHY: Point of foolishness.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East on a point of order.

MS. VERGE: The Member for St. John's South was I think trying to say something very important but he became very emotional and hysterical and I'm afraid we lost his point. I'm wondering if the Member for St. John's South would explain to us just what the government is going to get across and people in the next two or three weeks. What is it? What great secret will be revealed to people in the next two or three weeks?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order.

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

MR. MURPHY: There is no great secret, I say to the Member for Humber East, there is absolutely no great secret. What Jeff Brace said last night is a fact, a reality, a way of life, I say to members opposite, and this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

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

MS. VERGE: What did he say (inaudible)?

MR. MURPHY: I will tell you. I have no problem telling you the result. The result was four to three in favour of Deputy Mayor Wells' motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: Yes, "oh, oh, oh." I will tell you who supported him, the councillor from the Goulds, John Dinn. The other one was the past-president of the NTA, the campaign manager for Waterford - Kenmount, I would say to the hon. member.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) a good man.

MR. MURPHY: Yes. I'm not saying he's not a good man. Don't put words in my mouth. The Member for Ferryland always has that problem. He is jumping over fences all the time trying to put words in people's mouth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: The best thing for the member to do is look after his words. Choose them carefully, now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: Because there is lots of time for us to debate issues, I would say to the Member for Ferryland and the Member for Humber East too.

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

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

I was somewhat interested in the comments (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the floor. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You do.

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Sir. I was somewhat interested in the comments made by the Member for St. John's South. I didn't see the debate in City Council last night but what did Jeff Brace enlighten Newfoundlanders and Labradorians about last night? What did he say?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Can you give it to me in a nutshell?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The people in Humber East don't get it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I can't engage anybody in debate here so I will move on with the discussion on interim supply.

I was interested to hear some of the comments by some of my hon. colleagues here tonight, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the Member for Eagle River and the Member for St. John's South. It is interested to note that the Member for Eagle River stood up and said that this government was the first government that launched so many initiatives, did this and did that, and we are the first government to proceed with this.

Let me tell you some of the things that this government has really done, Mr. Chairman. Noted for its due process and consultation with the people of the Province: Exactly how they did it with amalgamation when they said to communities in this Province: We don't care what you say, what you do, you are going to be amalgamated. That is the type of approach that this government has been noted for.

The income supplementation program: I stood up and asked questions in the House here on the income supplementation program. The government released a fifty-four page document for public disclosure. A week later I get a copy sent to me, not by the government but by somebody in Ottawa, a 125 page document that revealed in much more detail what the plans of the government were. What were the costs of that program? What were the costs really? What did it cost the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

The Economic Recovery Commission: It was announced on CBC last night, $686,000 I believe it cost the Province and the taxpayers of this Province to send up a proposal to Ottawa that was completely rejected, rejected out of hand. No one talks about that. No consultation there. On the chopping block in that program fishermen's UI, UI as we now know it in terms of qualifying weeks. Construction industry workers are under attack, seasonal employment under attack. In short, Mr. Chairman, rural Newfoundland was under attack.

What other sorts of consultative processes on major government decision making have we seen? Let's talk about student aid. The day the Budget came down, student leaders in the Province were invited over to the West Block to see the Budget Speech by the Minister of Finance. They were told in the Budget Speech that student grants would be eliminated; no meeting of the student aid advisory committee, no consultation, a general policy implemented just like that. Nobody, but nobody, was talked to about those changes. This government has a dismal record, Mr. Chairman, in confronting and consulting with stakeholders in this Province. A dismal record, I submit to this House.

Now what about Hydro? People say: What about the privatization of Hydro? The government has failed, I submit to this House, to debate the issue clearly, has failed to put forward the net financial and social benefits of the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I said before and I'll say it again, the Premier has stood up in this House and blamed and accused this side of being fraudulent, of being misrepresentative in the views that we've put forward. If that is the case, if that has happened then I say to members opposite, hold public hearings, expose us for being the frauds that you have accused us of being.

Mr. Chairman, that will not happen and I'll tell you why it will not happen, because what we have been saying has been the truth. We have been representative of the opinions of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on the privatization of Hydro, not this government. Privatization would make sense, Mr. Chairman, and I would support it if certain things could be proven to the people here: if there was going to be an increase in jobs in this Province; if there were going to be lower energy costs as a result of privatization; if there was going to be new technology in this Province as a result of privatization; if there was going to be new investment in this Province as a result of privatization; if there was an effective cost benefit analysis study done that proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that privatization would be good; but not one of those things has been proven by this government. Not one of those things can be proven by this government because there will be no new jobs, there will be no new investment, there will be no new technology transfer, there will be no, and I'll repeat, there will be no lower energy costs. That's the problem with the government, they're feeling the heat.

The problem with the Premier is that he speaks well sitting down, he speaks well standing up and he also speaks when lying, that's the Premier's problem.

MR. MURPHY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

By inference what the hon. member just said is totally (inaudible), "while sitting, while standing and while lying." Now that is nothing short of inference, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask the Member for Kilbride to have the courage to withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You could take it that way, I suppose, but I'm going to let it go as if he said, he speaks well when lying.

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

I did not call the Premier a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. E. BYRNE: I did not. I have never stood in this House and called any member a liar and I will not call anybody a liar.

I say to hon. members opposite, on Hydro privatization as well as on other issues, educational reform, if you truly wish to know what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are truly saying on these issues, talk to the people, hold public meetings in your own districts. I did, other members here have, members opposite have. Why not hold public meetings?

The Member for St. George's indicated here tonight that the only way he would reverse his stand on supporting Hydro is if the vast majority of his constituents, some 80 per cent or more, voiced to him that they were against it. That's not democracy I say to the Member for St. George's. If it took 80 per cent for him to get elected he wouldn't be sitting in the seat he is in today. Fifty percent plus one, a simple majority, that's what rules this Province. Let me tell you that.

MS. VERGE: They didn't get 50 per cent.

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that's right. They didn't get 50 per cent. First past the post. Correct. I apologise.

I say to the Member for St. George's, if it takes 80 per cent of the constituents of your district to voice their concerns for you to change your mind, sir, then there is something drastically wrong with that.

MS. VERGE: He didn't say he would then, he said he would consider it.

MR. E. BYRNE: That's right, he didn't say he would then, he said that he would only consider it. That is nothing short of arrogance, nothing short of being egotistical about an issue and not open to the wishes of the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, I make no personal slight, Mr. Chairman, and no personal slight intended, to the Member for St. George's who is an honourable member. But I say to the member, reconsider your decision, reconsider your decision. Listen to the simple majority; listen to the majority of your constituents, 50 per cent plus one. That is all I ask the member. I have made no attempt at any time to try to dishonour him or the constituents whom he represents.

Mr. Chairman, last weekend I attended the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Students Conference in Stephenville. There were some eighty student leaders at that conference and not one member from government was in attendance; not one member from government, not the Member for Stephenville, not the Member for Port au Port, not the Member for St. George's, not the Minister of Education or his or her designate, had the courtesy to go to that meeting and address the student leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: By leave?

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, I will tell you something: I have no problem - am I recognized, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. AYLWARD: I will tell you something: I like young MHAs in the House of Assembly because I am one of them you know; I like them. I have to tell you, you were in my backyard on Friday night. You are right, you were. Now my friend, I would have been there, but I have had a discussion with the students already and I have already said to them: Come up and meet - I have offered the services of my office to come and help them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: Just hang on now, you just hang on a second now. Listen here, my friend, I am going to tell you something, I have been around here a long time and there is one MHA who works hard for everybody including students of the Province. You are accusing members over here of being like: well, we don't care about this and we are going to nail them to the wall and we are going to this with them and we are not going to worry about the future for them. I mean, you would think we are a bunch of scoundrels over here for God's sake! I mean, you know: Yeah, the way to go; I mean, Jeez, we are really bad cats over here, you know. I mean, really, we are bad cats. We don't care about the future, we don't care about the deficit, we don't care about what our kids are going to have to pay in income taxes, for pension plans; we don't care about none of that. We don't care about whether or not we can get a post-secondary education, no.

I tell you, for the last five years since I have been over here on this side of the House, we have been trying to clean up the mess, the unholy mess that your crowd over there, who were in government, left for us to do. We are not even close to finished yet. You go there and get into issues and you throw it around like there is nothing to it; like you have all the solutions, but I am not hearing one, not a solution am I hearing, not a one am I hearing. You are saying democracy, democracy from a crowd on the Sprung deal, who wouldn't answer a question. Their Cabinet was as silent as you could get. You couldn't get a sound out of them, Mr. Chairman, not a sound.

Charlie Power quit the Cabinet. He's the only fellow who quit the Cabinet because he knew - they came into the House and they closed it as quickly as they could. I mean, you talk about a bad deal. One thing about over here at the end of the day - we have the House open and we have it opened in the fall- we do as much as we can. If we want to go forward in an issue, whatever it is, Mr. Chairman, be it in student aid, be it on Hydro or be it on anything else, you know, the government is not afraid to say: Well, what are the people saying or what are they doing or what are they thinking? We will listen. We are going to listen, Mr. Chairman, all the members are going to listen at the end of the day. You know, to get over there and to talk about the holier-than-thou attitude, that we know what's right and we are the only ones who are listening, we are the only ones who are doing this, and we are the only ones who are doing that.

Mr. Chairman, we are still cleaning it up, and if people think this Province is out of the woods then they had better start thinking again. We have a lot of problems in this Province right now. We still have a big deficit and we have to start worrying about it, instead of throwing it all around as if - well, jeez, government, you are a bad this, you are a bad that and you are no good. Well, I am sorry, folks, but government over here is trying hard. They are trying hard. There are a lot of things that have to be done, there are a lot of things that have to be cleaned up and we will take all suggestions.

Mr. Chairman, I have been here listening for a couple of weeks now, listening to all these wonderful suggestions about how to fix the economy, how to fix student aid, how to fix all of these problems. A lot of students cannot finish university these days because they cannot get enough money, so we have that problem too. Now, that one is getting addressed. We are trying to address that one, but it is a difficult balancing act. I am one member, and I am sure the rest of government is willing to sit down further with students. I am looking forward to doing it and I am going to see if I can get some answers and some suggestions from them.

Maybe the Cabinet was in a rush and they had some suggestions. Maybe they got considered and maybe they didn't, but I don't think they did. When it comes to the student aid side of it, for example, government is open to any suggestions that may improve the situation. We are all trying to do that, Mr. Chairman. So I would like to hear more positive suggestions from the other side instead of this, you know: Beat my chest, I am the big Newfoundlander and Labradorian so I know what is best.

Now, I have never professed that in the House of Assembly since I have been here, Mr. Chairman. I have never professed to know it all, but during the last couple of weeks I have to say I am hearing it from the other side more than I ever have, and I don't understand the reason why. Do I have to get up and remind the people of the Province how it was run before we took it over in 1989? Have I got to get into that again? I gave up doing that because I am trying to be constructive in the debate and in the process.

We have a lot of things to talk about. We are talking about the Budget here, we are talking about all kinds of issues out there, we are talking about the economy and trying to concentrate on getting the economy rolling. We have a lot of things to concentrate on as a people in this Province right now. We have to try and get the agriculture industry going. We have to try all kinds of things. We have to attract new business to this Province. We have a lot of things to concentrate on.

I would like to ask the Opposition to help us do this and not just beating up on everybody, coming in and beating up on the government. Suggest some good things. You can get in here in the House and take as many hours as you want to get at that kind of stuff but I would really like to hear some positive suggestions as to how to fix these problems instead of: You are this, you are that, and you are everything else. Let us hear it right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: Hang on now. People listen. We have a very good democracy in this Province and in this country. So I say in the process let us get back to the basics a little bit or at least give us some suggestions out of the twenty minutes. Give us five minutes of suggestions and fifteen minutes of: You are no good, you are no good, you are no good. Give us five minutes of: Here is what you should do and how you are going to pay for it, where you are going to get the money, which tax you are going to implement and all this kind of stuff. This is what I am saying, five or ten minutes of that and then ten minutes of beating us up. I have no problem with that and then we can get up and do the same, I suppose. I would rather hear some positive suggestions because we have some serious problems, Mr. Chairman.

These are not minor problems in this Province right now. We are facing major social changes in rural Newfoundland when it comes to the fishery. We have forestry workers in this Province who don't get talked about that much but who are in serious jeopardy also, because of technology changes and because of the wood supply problems and so on. There is a difficult issue there. There are older worker adjustment programs. We have problems with the workforce that we have to deal with and we have problems with industry that we have to deal with.

So, we should get into those types of discussions and we should try to do it in a way, I think, that brings out some positive suggestions on how to deal with it. We are trying to do that over here; a lot of us are trying to do that. I believe most everybody in the Opposition believes in the same thing and I think they want the same thing.

We are going through some massive changes, Mr. Chairman, and they are very difficult. Being in public life these days, no matter where you are, if it is Opposition or government, is not easy; you've got a lot of things to deal with, a lot of things to face. I would say to the members of the House of Assembly that we are in probably one of the most challenging times in the history of this Province. I think we should reflect on that a little bit when we are dealing with all of these issues. These are not easy issues to deal with; they are complex issues confusing people, getting people confused out there. With all the information that is floating around on every issue, it is difficult for them to get a reading on anything; it could be the smallest matter in the world, a minor matter in the world.

We are looking at reforming the education system, Mr. Chairman. I've had many calls on kindergarten, people wondering about kindergarten and whether or not it is good, bad or indifferent. It is just that there are a number of very important issues out there to different peoples in this Province. I think it is important that we, in our debating and I suppose in our bringing forward the ideas, concentrate on trying to find ways to make improvements to our system, despite all the rhetoric. Let's get some substance into the rhetoric and make sure that we can make a change and make some things happen.

We all work hard for the Province, Mr. Chairman. Everybody, I believe, in this House of Assembly is here for the right reasons. But we have to face the facts, that these are difficult times and the next couple of years are not going to be that rosy. We have to face the deficit problems and we have to face the economic problems. We have so many levers to work with, we have so many suggestions and solutions that we can attempt, and we are going to do that, but we are going to try to do it as best we can with the consultative process, discussing it with people and trying to get the people of the Province into doing what needs to be done to make the changes. It's never easy. Change is probably the scariest thing to deal with, no matter if you are in a job situation or whatever you are into.

Right now in this Province we are going through some major changes. A lot of people are under a lot of stress in this Province and it is a difficult time. All I say is, we should weigh all that and when we are bringing forward the bad things let's bring forward the few of the things that, you know: Why don't you look at doing this, why don't you look at doing that, or this is not a bad idea, what about this, or whatever.

I just say, in this wide open debate - thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the leeway - that there is a whole list of issues that we should be talking about. Again, we've got a long way to go. We've got a lot of work to do and I look forward to hearing -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. AYLWARD: - look forward to hearing the suggestions from the other side.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to a couple of the comments made by my friend for Stephenville relative to student aid. I'm pleased that he stands and espouses the principles of consultation, because in the resolution coming tomorrow the students of this Province have asked that they be involved in decision making that effects their financial status, by assuring they are consulted on a regular basis when student aid is being revised.

Let me tell the Member for Stephenville that if he has been so active in promoting the causes of students then he is on a different wavelength than his minister. For example, on Budget Day when we were all gathered in here, where were the student representatives from Cabot and Memorial? They were gathered over in the minister's offices and told: Please come over here, we have a meeting at two-thirty and we want you to come over here. We're going to have the Budget on TV for you, everything will be laid on for you and we'll have a meeting after. When the students arrived, as they were supposed to do, they found nobody in the room, the TV wasn't on, the meeting started at two-thirty and the last words they heard from the Minister of Finance were to thank the members of the House for their attention and so on and so forth.

Now, Mr. Chairman, that's what upset students. They were left out of the whole process. In fact they were hook-winked into getting out of this building here and put over in the other building so they could have no access to the press. That evening, when we had the news on radio and television, there was no commentary at all from the student representatives from MUN or any of the other post-secondary schools. The reason for that was because there was either a misdirection at best, at worst they convoluted strategy to muzzle the student representatives of this Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to make matters worse for eighteen months the Minister of Education never even met the student aid advisory committee, never called a single meeting. In fact, to make matters worse, the Minister of Education said to the president of the CSU at MUN, as he was walking in the corridor, that up until two weeks before the Budget he didn't even know that the advisory committee on student aid even existed. Now, Mr. Chairman, we can't be serious about dialogue with students when the minister doesn't meet with the advisory committee for eighteen months and the minister publicly admits to the students of this Province that he didn't even know of the existence of the committee. Now we can't have it two ways. What the students of this Province are saying today on student aid is: Please involve us. We are the people who are being directly affected and we want to be consulted.

Now, Mr. Chairman, on tomorrow we will have a private members' resolution and if the Member for Stephenville is going to be doing what he is saying he's supposed to be doing all the time for students, I will invite him to stand in his place and we will yield to him, let him stand up and support the students of this Province. In fact, if there's not room on the debating schedule I would yield my place to him, so he could stand and say - they've got their terms but if they want to support students I would yield my place, so that he could stand and say tomorrow to the students of this Province what he is supposed to be saying or claims he is saying at all times on their behalf.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I also want to make one other point, to go back to some commentary I made earlier today to my good friend the Member for Hermitage, the commentary on the school system and funding for schools. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am well aware that there is a shortage of funds for school construction. We wish there was a lot more. We understand the Province has serious financial problems and school construction is a need that probably all members would like to address in more adequate ways than the Province's financial conditions permit.

While we admit that the school in English Harbour West, as I believe the hon. member said this afternoon, is in a bad state of repair, be it understood why it got that way. Do not blame the Roman Catholic Educational Committee and do not blame the Pentecostal Educational Committee. The Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics and others were given the same per student allocations for construction as the integrated system. They were given it on the basis of student population. If there is no money for the school in English Harbour West, the member's argument is with the Integrated Education Council, not with any other body other than the people who are responsible. For example, his argument is with Hubert Norman, with Dr. Pope, with Dr. (inaudible). These are the people who decide whether or not the integrated funding will get spent in English Harbour West.

Mr. Chairman, the other thing I want to point out is that while the need may be greatest in English Harbour West we can't go and say that that is the result of purely lack of funding. That is the consequence of decision making made by the Integrated Education Council. We can't look with covetous eyes when the Pentecostals build a new school in Grand Falls or Windsor or where there are extra funds assigned by the Roman Catholic Educational Council to another part of the Province. What the member has to do is he has to say that the Integrated Educational Council has looked at the priorities and they've evaluated them. While he is right to say that in his opinion the need in English Harbour West is greater than some other needs in the Province, the argument has to be made with that particular authority.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that I believe we have to have greater cooperation between the various authorities in deciding priorities for funding of school buildings. However, I do believe that a great deal of cooperation now does go on anyway. In fact, I am aware of many instances when a particular educational council will transfer their funds to another council. That happens all the time. There is a great deal of cooperation already going on. Therefore, if the people in English Harbour West have a great need they should voice their opinions to the Integrated Educational Council. If the money is not there - there is only a token sum of money from the Province - they should first of all argue with the Integrated Educational Council; then if it is not there talk to their colleagues, talk to the other two councils. You might be surprised at the kind of cooperation that you would receive.

Mr. Speaker, saying that we have to totally restructure the way that we allocate funds is not necessarily going to guarantee that the English Harbour West school situation will be addressed. In the next few years we will have to work together with the existing mechanisms. While there will be changes that will occur, the Integrated Education Council has to take complete responsibility for the fact that the school in English Harbour West has not been repaired or rebuilt or whatever. They can't simply say it is because of the structure we have, and if we did away with the structure suddenly there would be a panacea for everything. That is not going to happen unless the Province is willing to put an extra $15 million or $20 million into school construction.

So standing up and saying that if we change the way we do it, have a province-wide system for determining priorities, that would solve the problem, that is not necessarily going to be the answer, and I believe the member understands that completely. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thought before we end to make a few comments, maybe try to calm down a few nerves here as we head on into the night. Really, I just want to make a couple of comments to the Member for Stephenville. I wish he were still here or is listening.

First of all, it is the second time that I have listened to the Member for Stephenville speak that I agree with something that he keeps saying. I would like to see other members repeat the same thing, especially the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I agree with him when he says that you need a new attitude, a new approach as to how you look at things. I must say that -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will straighten you away in a few minutes. I remind the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation now of his wishful thinking. I want to say quite simply to the backbenchers, the new, rookie politicians like myself over there, that you people are going to need to come to another election. Don't worry about those guys in the front. They might run once more, I say, but I doubt if they will sit in opposition for too long because they don't want to sit on the heavy front benches there. They won't be along for much longer, but you people in the back have to keep in mind that if you want to be around for another while - I said the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation might run for one more election.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I will read Hansard back to you tomorrow. I said you might run for one more election and once you do, you won't be long stepping out because you won't like the opposition chairs, I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Anyway, it is wishful thinking but I don't blame you for wishful thinking these days though because you are hanging on to straws now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SHELLEY: You can feel the slide starting, so they are grasping on to every little word anyone says now. I must say they are learning really good from their leader; they take the words and move them around so it sounds good to them. I must say I got your attention, didn't I? I must say it really worked because I have your attention as you have been talking about it ever since. I must say they learned well from their leader, they take the words and turn them around just right. What wishful thinking!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, you will run for one more term, I would say. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will run for one more term and he might even hang on to his majority because he had quite a big one. Now the rest of you who were nip and tuck like the Member for St. John's South - I don't know if he will hang on to his. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation had a big majority so he has a long way to slip. So he might hang on to his seat; he might, he has a chance, a slim chance. But I doubt very much if the minister will hang on very long after he ends up in opposition because he will just slide right out with the rest of them in the heavy benches there.

I remind you, the members in the backbenches, the people who hope to aspire to a long career as I do, go with your constituents, go with your gut feeling, your heart and soul. Don't follow the Pied Piper and twist around the words.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SHELLEY: Boy, it is really interesting how excited they get when they hear something positive, because they have been down in the dumps for so long they couldn't wait to hear one, little positive thing and turn it around. How excited they got when they heard the Freudian slip.

Anyway, getting back to the Member for Stephenville, I wish he would come back to the House but he did say: Add some positive attitude. When I talk to people in my district I talk about positive attitude and we do have it. We talk about tourism -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Harbour Deep.

MR. SHELLEY: Yes, I talk about Harbour Deep. As a matter of fact I am going to Harbour Deep. It is Great Harbour Deep by the way, it is not Harbour Deep.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't know the difference.

MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Eagle River wouldn't know the geography very well but I do, because I have been there quite a bit. It's Great Harbour Deep. Harbour Deep is a small fishing community; they go there in the summer time. Great Harbour Deep is a community. You can ask anybody in Harbour Deep, I am sure. I was at every single door and invited in for a cup of tea at every house; the greatest hospitality on the Island, you can't get any better than in Harbour Deep. So I concur with the minister when he talks about Harbour Deep because I know exactly what I am talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Great Liberals out there.

MR. SHELLEY: Oh, there certainly are but they vote Tory, that is the only difference.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: They did a complete flip-flop, from 82 per cent in a by-election just eighteen months before to 75 per cent or 78 per cent just eighteen months later. They are good Liberals, they told me. They said: We are good Liberals but we are going to vote for you. I said: Well, thank God for that. You are doing alright.

The Member for Stephenville, if I can get a chance to speak to him, if the `Two Ronnies' would be quiet for a couple of minutes. If the `Two Ronnies' would be quiet for a couple of minutes and get back up in the gallery and I will have a few words for the Member for Stephenville. It is the second time I've heard the hon. Member for Stephenville speak, and he said something that makes sense to me. I like to hear him speak. First of all, anybody who runs for political office, these days especially, I've got all the respect in the world for them. As he said, we should be talking about more positive things in this House. I agree with him on that also.

As far as complimenting, we never hear in the media about any time we compliment. Just a few days ago when the Premier came back from his meetings up in Ontario, I complimented him for going there and for encouraging business to come here. I also complimented the Premier when he went to Asia to talk about investment back in this country. I think that is great stuff, and I encourage him to do more of that. People criticized him for being out of the House but I didn't. I think it is a great thing, and I compliment the Premier any time he takes the initiative to do that and to promote Newfoundland. I'm very pleased for him.

There is one thing that I say to the Member for Stephenville, that the criticism I have of this government - and everybody I've talked to has criticism of this government - is that you haven't a clue, not one click, when it comes to consultation with people. You wouldn't know consultation if it hit you in the face, not one of you over there. You sit back and talk about the doom and gloom that we spread, but when the real issues come up you all back off and you don't say anything.

The Member for Eagle River and the - I mean, they are sitting together there now, two peas in a pod, the Member for Eagle River and the big Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the two big junkies who would speak out every time on the great big issues. Since the Hydro debate came in, boy, I tell you, you never hear much out of these fellows, not much out of these two fellows.

They got up today with all their rhetoric and their foolishness. It was so quiet - you know what it took? It took the Opposition House Leader over here on this side to finally spur him to get up today, to get up three times in a row, the Minister of Works Services and Transportation. My God, we finally stirred him up. It was a great thing to see tonight because people in my district have been even asking: Where is the great Mr. Efford, the fellow who used to be speaking out so much, the fellow who speaks with his heart and soul? I've even complimented him in my own district for getting back to me on a couple of things I asked him about. I do, I compliment the minister when it is time to.

I have complimented the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I will do that any time. You have to remember, you are Ministers of the Crown, you serve all the people, and you have to do it justly and fairly. Forget this Port de Grave pavement stuff; you get the pavement out in Baie Verte - White Bay, they need it just as badly. You remember that next time.

Getting back to Hydro just for one quick minute. Let me do a couple of quick things for you now. The Member for Stephenville asked for a couple of suggestions. I will just throw out one philosophical suggestion and then maybe one financial suggestion. They are asking us to give suggestions although they are the government, they are supposed to come up with the ideas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SHELLEY: Five years now, so how long it is going to take? How much more time do you want? Four more years and four more years after that, to clean up this - he keeps talking about the mess. I agree with the mess. I disagree with the things that happened over the last so-called seventeen years of Tory that you keep talking about. My God, am I ever getting sick of hearing you people talk about seventeen years of Tory.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: If it was seventeen years of Tory that were mistakes, well it shouldn't have been.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave?

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, hon. members.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise tonight and I ask if you would give me some protection from the two gentlemen in the front row there.

Mr. Chairman, before I ask for protection from the Member for Port de Grave - the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, Mr. Chairman, what a champion of the people that gentlemen was a few years ago. I will tell you, Mr. Minister, that I had more respect for you than I had for most people on this side. I said: Here is a man, here is a gentleman. I really respected you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: I really had a great lot of respect for the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. You would see him on television; he would be down around the boats, Mr. Chairman. I remember turning on the television one night and seeing the hon. Member for Port de Grave on the news there. He had the microphone up and he was the champion of the people, talking from a boat tied up at the wharf. I said: Well certainly goodness, when I go down on the waterfront this Christmas Eve I'll see the minister there and I'll have a chance to shake his hand, because I thought he'd be there blowing the horn on New Years Eve, Mr. Chairman. What a wonderful man he was but what a difference I have seen here since I've been elected to this House of Assembly. Mr. Chairman, I have never seen a man change so much in all my life. What a change in an individual!

In fact, I have some relatives living out almost next door to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and they had great thoughts for him as well at the time. They had told me what a wonderful fellow he was and I was led to believe that they were right, Mr. Chairman. What a surprise I got when I got elected to this House. I saw the man being put back in Cabinet, the same man who was going overseas, I think it was over to Iceland. The member was going to buy a big pair of scissors, if I recall correctly, going over to buy a big pair of scissors and cut the nets of the trawlers. What a wonderful man you were! But what a change! What a change, Mr. Chairman, a complete metamorphous! I've never been so disappointed.

I saw him in Gander, Mr. Chairman - the Minister of Fisheries was there at the time - and every time somebody spoke this gentleman would get up and he'd walk up to the microphone. I said: Jeez, what a wonderful fellow! Even though he wasn't giving the fishermen a chance to speak, he had all the answers and he had me convinced. I thought that surely goodness this will be the saviour for our fishery, this will be the saviour.

Mr. Chairman, I've never been so let down, I've never been so wrong, I've never judged anybody so wrongly in all my life. I can't look at myself in the mirror today, to think that I had such feelings about this man. The same individual, Mr. Chairman, who was a champion of the people, went out and supported the income support program to take away unemployment insurance from the fishermen that he was there to protect. He went out in secrecy and supported this scheme that would send this book, that Dr. Doug House concocted, up to Ottawa to take away the livelihood of the fishermen whom he was champion for. He stands up here today in this House and continues to lecture us on how deceiving we are and how we're misleading the people, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SULLIVAN: He cost the taxpayers $700,000 in the process.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes he did cost the taxpayers $700,000 and I hope the people out there today, when he goes and offers himself for the leadership of the party opposite, fully realize that. I'm sure, had he taken the stand, as his colleague who sits behind him there from Pleasantville, and stood out and continued to be a champion of the people, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure he would have been held in high esteem by everybody out there today, including myself.

Mr. Chairman, let's get away from that for a moment because that's not the reason why we're here tonight. We're here to debate Interim Supply and I'd like to touch on that for a moment, Mr. Chairman.

The Department of Tourism and Culture, Mr. Chairman: We're gradually leading up to our 500th celebrations and we are told this is going to be the highlight of the century. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of tourists come to our Province, and hopefully they will go to my district, Bonavista South, which I understand is suppose to be the focal point, the great historic town of Bonavista. I sometimes wonder how sincere we are about these 1997 celebrations and this big event that is going to be put forward.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll be over there then.

MR. FITZGERALD: We will be over there then. I think we will, Mr. Speaker, but I hope we are over there in time to be able to save it and to be able to go out and promote our towns, promote our Province, and have the people who come here to visit us either come back or leave as goodwill ambassadors to bring other people back or else to let them know what we have to offer.

When I look at my District of Bonavista South, I see some tourist attractions that were there and needed very little upkeep. One attraction needed a road repaired and another attraction needed some framework put in over a waterfall which was a very scenic sight. People would go there to picnic and they would go there to take pictures. In fact, I noticed that a business had a calendar out one year with a picture of this particular falls on it. The Member for the District of Trinity North knows what I am talking about because I am sure he has been there many times himself. I'm sure he feels a little bit slighted and I'm sure he feels that something should be done in order to put those facilities back there again so that the public might be able to go and enjoy them.

It was also a reason to bring people to the Bonavista Peninsula. They would take their families and go down and access those facilities. They would go out and have a picnic and light a small fire, a little campfire, but because the road washed out after one particular rainfall it was kind of hard to navigate up the hill. There was a sign there that showed a provincial park. We made a few complaints to the minister, but what did they do, Mr. Chairman? Did they go out and repair the road? Did they put the facility back the way it was? No, Mr. Chairman, what they did was take the sign down. They took the sign down and barred off the road. That was the easy way out, Mr. Chairman, instead of showing a little bit of responsibility, a little bit of foresight. You would have thought they would have gone down and repaired the road.

The local Rural Development Association in my district met with the minister at that time and offered to take over those particular facilities. All they asked was to go and have the road upgraded and have a couple of culverts put in.

Mr. Chairman, are we adjourning at 10.00 o'clock?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no. Keep going.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Chairman, they could have very easily went down there and did a small amount of work. The local Rural Development Association was going to take over the facility, going to be responsible for the upkeep and maintenance and provide a couple of summer jobs for students. But the Department of Tourism and Culture said: No, we don't have the money so we are going to close it down.

The other little facility, Mr. Chairman, Rattle Falls, going down Route 230; what a beautiful place to go with your family. It was really picturesque. People would take picture of the big falls. They would go and have their picnics, go for an outing with their children. Campers would come there and park. They would use it on weekends. All summer long people would park their campers there. The structure was allowed to deteriorate to a point where it was no longer safe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like it recorded that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wouldn't grant me leave because of the truth that was told.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I waited till what I thought might be late in the evening but it might not otherwise be the case.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) early in the morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Yes. I think I may be up a little early, Mr. Chairman, because I did want, before the night passed, before parliamentary Tuesday was done, to update the people on the opposite side of the House as to the ongoing results that are coming in from the rolling poll that is being conducted in St. John's North. I will save that bit of information for a little later in my comments.

I was interested in the observation that my hon. colleague for Grand Bank made there when he was speaking just a few minutes ago. The hon. Member for Grand Bank got up and he made this statement, and I think I will quote him accurately. He said: You are forgetting that you were elected to govern on May 3, 1993. I would suggest that is part of the problem with the people and the member from that side of the House who made the statement. The problem is that they are truly forgetting who was elected to govern on May 3, 1993.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I want to remind the hon. Member for Grand Bank that whilst he may have forgotten -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible)!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Fine fellow, good buddy. We need more buddies like him.

MR. TOBIN: He was always a (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I would say to the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West, if he can prove that others are otherwise let him bring forth his evidence. We have no problem with dealing with facts, but the problem is that we live at a point in time when the public generally are being fed fiction as though it were facts and the people are being asked to believe it and to swallow it.

We are in the debate on the estimates and there is a point that I wanted to make two or three weeks ago when the government of this Province made what I thought was a very honourable and smart decision. I want to go on record as being supportive of the decision that the hon. the Minister of Finance made on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland; and it was this: When he made the decision that he would not give in to cowardice, he would not give in to blackmail, he would not give in to the criminal element in our society, he would not give in to those who would circumvent the laws of the land, he would not give in to those who think that we should be subservient to those who want to make a fast buck the wrong way, and he decided that he would not back down and reduce taxes on alcohol, liquor and tobacco that are coming into the Province by means of contraband. I want to be on record in this House as saying that I'm supportive of a minister who will not give in and will not be subservient to that element in our society which will try to do that which is not lawful to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I would go on record as saying that this House should by way of resolution, should have already done by way of resolution, shown their indication and support for the smartness, the honesty and for the just sheer good political common sense, as well as fiscal common sense, to uphold the laws of the land and keep the taxes where they were, and not give in to those who would try and beat the system by other means. I just wanted to say that at this point in the House because we are in the estimates debate.

Mr. Chairman, the whole focus seems to have been taken from the business of the House and it seems to be centring on, revolving around, one issue primarily, and that is the issue of Hydro privatization. I think it is time that we in this House, Mr. Chairman, begin to understand what is happening.

Contrary to what the Opposition and others on the outside would have us believe, the people of this Province are not going to be unduly, incorrectly or unfairly treated by the legislation that is being proposed. The problem that we have in the Province today, Mr. Chairman, is that we have those who were unwilling, unable, who didn't have the guts, who didn't have whatever it takes to run for elected office, trying to govern the Province by virtue of hijacking the democratically elected people in the House of Assembly.

I believe that we need to realize in this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, that the people who were elected on May 3, all fifty-two of us representing three parties on both sides of the House, have to understand that we are the ones who are charged with the responsibility of dealing with matters of business with respect to the Province. I would suggest that somebody remind those who are trying and who have, to some point, successfully hijacked the agenda, I would ask them that -

MS. VERGE: What is the agenda and what's the hijack?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The economic agenda for the Province. It was spelled out in the Throne Speech that was given a few weeks ago. That is the agenda -

MS. VERGE: Who hijacked it?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - the agenda of building the private sector of the economy so that this Province can have half a chance to provide a decent living for us and for our children who come behind us. That is the agenda, not the alluded to, hidden agenda; there is no hidden agenda. The agenda, vis-à-vis privatization, was spelled out clearly in the Throne Speech debate.

MS. VERGE: And who hijacked it?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Nobody hijacked it, but the Codco crowd think they are the government and they have to be reminded that Codco was not elected to govern the Province of Newfoundland. St. John's Municipal Council down there have to be reminded that they were not elected to govern the Province of Newfoundland. Andy Wells needs to know that if he wants to have a voice in the Province's affairs, he should run for election to this House of Assembly. There is no point in him running for City Hall and not having the guts to run for a seat in the House and then trying to act as though he were the elected representative. So I would suggest that we understand and that we decide as fifty-two civil, elected people, that we are going to make the decision.

I like the way the hon. the House Leader puts it occasionally when he is speaking as House Leader. He says very eloquently: The House will do its business and I want to -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) lay it on thicker than that (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well, the lady of many voices, if she has such a talent I would only expect her to use it for the greater good of the Province. If four voices emanate from one sensible person, then it may be the equivalent of four good statements made. I would commend the lady for listening to Bas. I started to form a bad habit eight days ago and that was listening to Bas Jamieson at night, but I gave it up last night because I can tell you that there are better things to do from 10:30 to 1:00 o'clock in the morning than listening to Bas Jamieson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I could list a number of them; however, I won't get into that.

MS. VERGE: Tell us some more about your House Leader (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Before my time expires, I want the hon. lady on the other side or the hon. woman, or the hon. she, or that person who wears the skirt, I want that person to understand and know that whilst they referred to the M5 poll they had today, I want to refer to the M25 poll that was done a couple of nights ago in St. John's North. That poll was a valid poll and I take great offence to the people over there speaking discouragingly about my talents as a pollster. I think it is degrading.

MS. VERGE: Tell us some more about your talents as a pollster.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: My talents as a pollster are many and varied -

MS. VERGE: Okay, tell us.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - and ten minutes would not suffice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: But suffice it to say that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - that the talents of the pollster from the north brought a true reflection of the feelings of the people of the north.

MS. VERGE: Just tell us about your skill and your charm and your intelligence.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get too much into my charm, I don't want to dwell on that.

MS. VERGE: You don't have to be modest. Just give us an honest assessment.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I'm modest by nature but I'm -

AN HON. MEMBER: But you are intelligent by birth.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I want to be as modest as I can and report to you that the results that came out of the north had nothing to do with my charm. It had more to do, it had all to do, with the common sense of the people in the north.

I want to refer to another person from the north, from St. John's North, who spoke last night in City Hall in eloquent terms, clearly, concisely, factually, laid out succinctly the whole matter of Hydro on Cable 9.

MS. VERGE: Give us a short version of what he said.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The short version was, and the crux of the whole matter in this debate around Hydro, is this: If everybody who engaged themselves in the debate regarding the Hydro privatization would stick to the facts, would stick to the truth and would give an unprejudiced, non-political, non-biased assessment of it, there would be no hysteria, there would be no confusion, but there would be a high level of general acceptance by the population of this Province that we are doing the right thing in the best interests of the people of the Province. I'm telling you, I am telling the people on the other side of the House, that if they will listen to the bright, the smart, the articulate, the intelligent, the well-informed people from St. John's North, as well as the people from this side, then the debate on Hydro would be understood clearly. To that extent our Premier has undertaken to give some more time so that the people will be duly informed.

MS. VERGE: How much more time do you think they need?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The people of the north, the people of Newfoundland, the people of the Province, deserve, Mr. Chairman -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Does he still have leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Leave has been withdrawn.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

I would just like to say to the members opposite that we are certainly prepared to do what is needed to be done in the cause of democracy. If that means sitting all night we are all willing to stay and sit all night, I assure all members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I can assure members opposite that you have no worries about that. We will not be trampled into the ground by threats of being here all night, Mr. Chairman. We will stay here all night.

I would say to the Member for St. John's North, he mentioned Jeff Brace. Let me say one thing and let me get it clear. We on this side have no intentions of lambasting or chastising or doing anything about Jeff Brace. Jeff Brace has a right as an individual to stand and express his views. I don't share his views, but I respect the man for doing it, Mr. Chairperson. I don't know why members opposite decided to attack Andy Wells, I don't know why they are attacking Greg Malone, I don't know why but they are attacking everybody who -

MR. L. MATTHEWS: We are just reminding them that they are not the government! They are not elected to the Legislature.

MR. TOBIN: Is Jeff Brace elected to the Legislature, I ask the Member for St. John's North? Look, Jeff Brace has just as much right to express his views and opinions as I have, and I respect the man for that. I don't agree with it but he has just as much right as I have. Why do you people get up and tear strips off of Andy Wells when he expresses his views? Why do you get up and tear strips off of Greg Malone or Cy Abery or Bill Vetters, Mr. Chairman, why? Because they don't agree with you, that's why.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not dealing with the facts!

MR. TOBIN: Oh, only Jeff Brace deals with the facts. Listen, since this government appointed Jeff Brace first of all to the -

MR. SULLIVAN: Consumer advocate.

MR. TOBIN: Consumer advocate. Jeff Brace was hired and paid by this government as a consumer advocate, and I would think did a good job. I would think he did a good job. When government abolished that position they hired Jeff Brace again and paid him to go down and become a member of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. I think he is still there and probably doing a good job. There is nobody who can anything about Jeff Brace. Obviously this government has confidence in him. They've hired him, they've paid him, they are presently paying him. We are not up saying that, Mr. Chairman. You haven't heard anyone on this side of the House saying: What would you expect Jeff Brace to do when the government is giving him a job and paying him? You haven't heard us saying that, and we don't intend to say it because the man has a right to stand up and express his views.

We don't say he is in a conflict of interest because he is being paid by the government to go down and defend the government's interest. Because we are above that. You people over there can't get above it. You have to assault everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. You were here tonight after Andy Wells the whole night, every time you speak about Andy Wells. You were here tonight going on about Greg Malone.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, I never said (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation did that damage for you.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation (inaudible) damage with that, I didn't say (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I agree with that. But the fact of the matter is, whether it be the City Council in St. John's or whether it be the council in Labrador City or Marystown or the council in St. George's or Exploits, they have a right. These people are entitled to their opinions. I have no problem, Mr. Chairman, in saying that I respect the right to participate in the debate, and I will not stand and go after character assassination on any of them like you people have chosen to do.

The Member for St. John's North again gets up and talks about the people in St. John's North who support his view, it is the articulate and the intellect and all that of St. John's North. There is no doubt that there are articulate people and intellectuals in St. John's North who support your position. I don't doubt that for a minute. I also say to the Member for St. John's North that I think there are people in that district who are just as articulate and just as much intellectuals as anyone else, and who don't support your view. I don't think you should be getting up and leaving the impression that only those who support your views are the intellectuals of St. John's North. I don't think you should be leaving that impression, I say to the member.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) they are supporting.

MR. TOBIN: You said it all night.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: They are supporting the legislative program put forth by this government. It is not my views, it is the views of the government.

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, so you don't agree with it? You are only supporting it because it is the program, but you don't agree personally, do you?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The Throne Speech laid it all out in detail.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, when he is finished I will continue, no problem. I say to the Member for St. John's North, whether someone supports your position or disagrees with it, respect their right to do that. Don't go - see what we are seeing today.

MR. ROBERTS: This is the one who calls `liar' across the House all the time.

MR. TOBIN: This is the fellow who what?

MR. ROBERTS: This is the member who calls `liar' across the House all the time.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the former Member for Placentia was famous for that. It was he who started that in this House.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm talking about the present Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I'm talking about the present Member for Naskaupi. Respect the right - we saw on television tonight where the Premier went in to Mount Pearl today, and what did he do? He did nothing the whole time except to attack an individual who expressed his views, I say to the Minister of Justice. What is wrong with Cy Abery expressing his views? Remember, Cy Abery has not commented on anything until it came in the public domain. When it came in the public domain was when Cy Abery got involved in it. Everyone, Mr. Chairman, has a right to do that. Why did the Premier go in today and attack Cyril Abery? that's what I'd like to know - a man who has served this Province and served it well. And I tell you, it is hard to sit in this House and listen to them attacking, day-in-and-day-out, every single day, someone with the credibility and the character, the knowledge and the interest in Newfoundland, of Cyril Abery.

MR. ROBERTS: This from the hon. gentleman who calls `liar' across the House all the time.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can say to the member that I have never, ever, been expelled from this Legislature.

MR. ROBERTS: No, because you never had the courage to say openly what you mutter across the House.

MR. TOBIN: When it comes to courage, I will match you any day, I say to the Member for Naskaupi. I will match you any day when it comes to courage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Say openly what you say in here.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. I don't say anything behind people's backs. I have never made a living talking behind people's backs, I say to the Member for Naskaupi. I will say whatever I have to say, and I don't go behind anyone's back, unlike the Member for Naskaupi.

MR. ROBERTS: Go on; get on with it now.

MR. TOBIN: I will do what I want to do. I have the floor and you haven't. You might like to have it all the time, but you abide by the rules in this Legislature the same as everyone else. You don't bully people around here anymore. You had your day for being a bully but that day is over, I say to the member. You don't bully people around anymore. We have the courage to stand up to people like you - big bullies. I can tell you right now, we are not going to stand back and take a back seat to you; I can assure the Member for Naskaupi of that.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That won't get you in Cabinet either, `Danny'.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Member for St. John's North that the people of his district have a right to express their views to him as the people of Burin - Placentia West have a right to express them to me. Whether the majority - whatever they do, I don't think we should come in and insinuate that only the intellectuals support our position, because I think that is grossly unfair and unbecoming of anyone who has been given the trust as members to come in here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

MR. TOBIN: Sure they are, and we should respect their opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Why should the Premier today attack Cyril Abery the way he did, I ask the member?

AN HON. MEMBER: What if the opinion is wrong?

MR. TOBIN: Well, attack the opinion, not the person.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't attack the person.

MR. TOBIN: No, he didn't attack the person - he has never done anything else.

MS. VERGE: What about the minister attacking Wade Locke?

MR. TOBIN: That's right.

I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy that we are still waiting for the information, and how much the ratepayers have since then paid to the buddies of the government, the lawyers -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make the record clear as to what I said with respect to the people who supported the proposition of Hydro as per my very scientific poll in St. John's North. I did not say, or I did not intend to say, or to convey the impression, that only the people in St. John's North who are intellectual and who are articulate and who are bright supported the poll. The poll had nothing to do with testing or judging or measuring or assessing the intellectual ability of the people that I talked to. The poll was done; it covered seventeen different streets or areas in the district, and I spoke to men, women and children; but I want, Mr. Chairman, to tell the people on the other side of the House about one person, a very articulate lady - I don't know the lady - who lives on, I will identify the street, down on Whiteway Street. I called this number, and I spoke to this lady, and she was appreciative, of course, of getting a call at 9:00 in the night from her MHA; I think she was - she said, `I appreciate your call.'

I discussed the proposition of Hydro privatization with her.

She said three things to me: Sir, I appreciate your call, and I also want to tell you right now that I am not really fond of your leader. I said: Well, thank you for your observation, I appreciate your candidness. She said: The second thing I want to tell you, Sir, is that I believe that privatization of Hydro is absolutely the way to go and I support it without question as a citizen of the city and as a member of your district. I said: Thank you very much for that. She said: The third thing I want to tell you is that I have never voted Liberal in my life, I've always voted PC, but in this instance your Premier is right. I don't like him but he is right, and what he is doing is in the best interest of the Province. It is the way to go. Thank you very much for your call.

MR. HARRIS: I thought you were in the 500-Club.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Is there is a problem with that, I ask the hon. the Member for St. John's East?

MR. HARRIS: Have you joined the 500-Club?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I am not in the 500-Club, I'm not in any club. Well, I am, I'm in the St. John's Metro Liberal Breakfast Club, so I am in a club but that is the extent of my clubbiness.

MS. VERGE: Tell us about running for the PC nomination in Pleasantville.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: If I thought the hon. member didn't have experience in that area I would be glad to give her some advice as to how to run in a nomination. I've had some experience of running nominations, and I've had some success in running in nominations. I will be glad to share anything I can with her. I really don't think she needs me to in-service her on nominations.

MS. VERGE: How can you compare a PC nomination with a Liberal nomination?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Well, I would compare one with true democracy as opposed to the other being chaotic and very undemocratic. That is a simple description. If you want the gory details I can give you those as well but I don't want to drive you out of the Chamber too early or unnecessarily.

MS. VERGE: You don't need to worry about that.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Getting back to this whole debate on Hydro privatization, I was interested in what the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay said there about two hours ago when he got up. He was referring to the telephone calls that were being made by the Member for Terra Nova, or the alleged telephone calls that were being made to Open Line last night, to Bas' program. I think he gave away and I think he told the whole story of what is happening with respect to the Open Line Shows. Because, when the hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay spoke he said this - and he can correct me, because he's there, if I'm not quoting him accurately, but Hansard has a record of it. He said this: Even though the hon. the Member for Terra Nova called in four times, we still had 79 per cent. You tell me if that is not an admission that they are orchestrating a deliberate campaign of callers to the Open Line show, then what could be more of an admission of a deliberate activity?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: The gentleman, and he can speak for himself, said: After the four calls even we - we, we he said - still had 79 per cent support.

AN HON. MEMBER: `We'(inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: `We' as the orchestrators of a plan to campaign against a proposition that is reasonable.

MR. SHELLEY: When I say `we' I mean the people of the Province, by the way.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I don't know who you meant but you sit with a political party that has an agenda against privatization, so I would assume you are speaking as representing that party.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are grasping at straws, boy. `We' (inaudible). The vast majority of the St. George's (inaudible) privatization (inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I want before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, to refer to just the latest endorsement I received today from a constituent of the north with respect to Hydro privatization. This comes from a constituent on Old Pennywell Road, and it landed on my desk at 3:30 p.m. The constituent ends his letter by saying that: Debt is debt, and debt lessens our ability to have a good future in our Province. He goes on to say in the final paragraph: In any measure to restore true value we, as a province, need to have privatization and you have my support.

I want to reference that in this context, because I take offence when members on the other side stand up and make reference to people having guts with respect to stating what they feel about Hydro. The inference is that the only people who have guts, the only people who have any gumption, the only people who have anything worthwhile to offer to the debate, are people who have a negative view of privatization of Hydro.

I want to say that I consider myself to be a person of guts. The fact that I stand up in the House, or the fact that I issue a news letter to my constituents stating my support of privatization, is just as much a demonstration of guts and just as much a demonstration of somebody doing what they feel is right, as somebody who speaks in the other direction. I agree with the comments of the Member for Burin - Placentia West. Of course, all of the people out there who speak an opinion have the right to speak an opinion; but I want to say also that all of the members who speak an opinion in favour of privatization, all the people who speak and support a position in favour of doing what we are trying to do for the economic good of the Province, is no less gutsy than the people who stand up and oppose it, or the people who rag out on the agenda of the government.

I would submit that the people on the other side show due respect for the people on this side who stand up for the convictions in the positive as well as show their respect and support for those who stand up for what they consider to be their convictions in the negative approach to the privatization issue. I think it is only fair to ask that all those who say yes to privatization be respected just as much as those who say no to privatization, and no to the proposition. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Finally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak, just to say a few words on this very important debate on interim supply, a debate that is discussing the issues of the government and exactly what they are doing.

I listened with quite a bit of pleasure to the hon. the Member for St. John's North who has now become an expert in polling. It is interesting to see. I'm sure that Angus Reid - I'm surprised that they are not down here beating down the door to try to get him to do their polling. Because the scientific method that he used I'm sure is going to be the yardstick that every pollster in the country is going to be using. I'm sure that is exactly how it is going to work.

I'm not sure - what really bothers me about it though is the fact that I can understand the hon. member is a neophyte in politics, but what really bothers me is that he doesn't understand the idea of the intimidation of a member talking to a constituent and asking their opinion. I'm amazed that he doesn't understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: I can tell you with all honesty, Mr. Chairman, that one thing I don't do, is intimidate my constituents. I listen to my constituents. In this particular debate, if anybody speaks up contrary to their views - nobody can argue against them, we saw it here in this House - people get attacked personally. We have the Premier attacking Cyril Abery, one of the former top level civil servants in the Province, one who worked for this Province for about twenty-five years, I am led to understand, and now all of a sudden he knows absolutely nothing and any comment he makes is utter tripe, any comment he makes is doing irreparable damage to the future of this Province.

Mr. Chairman, in my mind, that is sending some tremendous signs to the people of this Province, some tremendous signals. Anybody who speaks up will have to undergo a personal attack from somebody on the opposite side; some housewife who signs a petition will get a phone call at home from the Premier: Did you dare sign a petition that opposes a view that I have? Would you dare do that? Did you really, really do that? Did somebody get you down and force you to sign it? Was that what happened?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Chairman, the Government House Leader is trying to persuade his backbenchers. It is not a good idea because we are going to stay all night. We have had practice.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, we have seen people stand and belittle the arguments of one of our better known entertainers, Greg Malone. We have seen them refer to him in uncomplimentary terms as if he shouldn't have any right to comment on a particular issue, on this particular issue. We have seen people on the opposite side belittle and chastise the new Ombudsmen, the Open Line program hosts who, we are told by the Premier, are going to be the new Ombudsmen for this Province. Instead of calling the Ombudsman, we are going to wipe out that office and save some money, so if people have a problem phone the Open Line host.

Now, of course, they are not the Ombudsman anymore. Now, they are silly fools who happen to have access to a microphone. If you listen to the hon. people on the other side, that is how they are being referred to, Mr. Chairman. These things that are coming out from this government are very, very dangerous signals - the Minister of Mines and Energy attacking an economist, and he doesn't argue against the arguments that the economist presents, he did not argue whatsoever against the arguments presented, an economist who has been teaching at the university for years.

I have had some differences of opinion as to some of the things he has said over the years and I have attempted to discuss them publicly in this Chamber, the differences of opinion I have had with him on some issues, but I did not attack the gentleman personally. You attack the arguments. What happens, and we have seen it time and time again, if your argument doesn't stand up, what you are doing is attacking people personally or threatening them.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I only wish I could.

Mr. Chairman, these are very dangerous things to be doing in a democracy.

MR. EFFORD: What is? What's dangerous?

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for St. John's North Mr. Chairman, talked about, saying - he certainly attacked people, Mr. Chairman, he intimidated his voters, he intimidated them.

MR. EFFORD: (Intimidated) that is your problem.

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, I wasn't intimidated but I am sure that anybody who is doing any polling do not do it in that particular manner. It is very unscientific and is intimidating but, Mr. Chairman, this method of attempting to get the privatization bill through the House by intimidation, is tremendously unfair and I am sure that even with the slick advertising campaign, we have seen what slickness has done to the credibility of the Premier, we have seen what the slickness of his NTV address last week - the Premier who wanted to go on both networks, we saw what that slick presentation on NTV did to his credibility, when he told about how he apologized to his caucus, it was necessary I apologize to my colleagues in Cabinet for telling them to keep their mouths shut and to keep my little scheme secret because my little scheme had to be kept secret because it would be detrimental to this Province, so I can't tell anybody about it, we couldn't tell anybody about it and he wanted to thank you all for keeping your mouths shut for the last several months or the last couple of years; I don't know how long you have had your mouths shut about this particular little scheme that the Premier had to get this power back from the Upper Churchill, but, Mr. Chairman, after telling the people that the reason why you people weren't allowed to speak up, was because it could do damage and cause this Province irreparable harm and the fact that we wouldn't be able to recall any power from the Upper Churchill. That's what he said, but then of course, lo and behold, two nights later on another slick presentation on television, Mr. Chairman, to which he has become very accustomed to giving now, he is becoming very accustomed to presenting this very slick report so he goes on television again and says: you know, the truth that I told you about the deceit that was done in the beginning, was really not true. That's what he said because we don't really have to privatize because of this, we don't really have to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in order for this new scheme of mine to work.

MR. EFFORD: What scheme?

MR. A. SNOW: The scheme to recall power from the Upper Churchill; that's what the Premier said. He said the truth about the deceit of the scheme wasn't really true; that's what he admitted and that was after our Leader presented the argument - when he was told he our Leader mentioned in the debate that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: By leave?

MR. EFFORD: No leave.

MR. A. SNOW: May I conclude?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation and Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the night must be getting out of hours; it must be starting to wear on the opposition because their thinking must be all twisted around. They are yawning and their energy is starting to falter so much so, Mr. Chairman, that they started to talk about the supplementary supply bill and all of a sudden, the Member for Menihek started to bring in about the privatization of Hydro. Why do you not stop the privatization of Hydro, why are you proceeding? I thought we were on Interim Supply; are we on the privatization of Hydro or are we on Interim Supply? Which is it? Is it ever possible that the hon. members opposite can't even understand, is it the lateness of the hour, is it the energy, no strategy, just don't know how to understand why we are here?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell her, (inaudible) wrong with her.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: I have been here, Mr. Chairman, since two o'clock this afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Keep it down a bit.

MR. EFFORD: The Department of Works, Services and Transportation, with a budget of $250 million, $275 million: Not a question on the estimates, not a question on what's happening to the millions of dollars that I require from Interim Supply on behalf of government, to have this House pass to take care of the work which we need to do to carry out the maintenance, the sanding and salting and building of roads. The hon. member stands up and speaks on for ten minutes and keeps asking government: Why don't you stop now with the privatization of Hydro? I didn't know we were here on the privatization of Hydro, so I have to go in the direction from my colleagues. Are we here on the privatization of Hydro or are we here on Interim Supply?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Now, there's the reason why. Here is a prime example, from 1985 to 1989, why we continually told the people of this Province they were not good managers; they don't even know why they are here. They don't even know what purpose they are serving in the House as an opposition. It is unbelievable! Make no wonder there is nobody in the galleries, make no wonder there is nobody here listening, makes no wonder there is no news media.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Oh yes! Sure! Sure! Promises! Promises! Promises! Then they stand up here for five or ten minutes and tell the Member for St. John's North, or they tell us, that we should not be telling the people of the Province that they shouldn't be allowed to speak on the Hydro bill. They are telling us that we are trying to muzzle the Greg Malones and the Andy Wells, we are trying to tell them how to do their jobs, and they tell us that's wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. EFFORD: That's not true?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. EFFORD: Hold on now. At the same time that they tell us we are wrong in what we are doing, they stand up there and lecture the Member for St. John's North on how he should do his poll. I mean, you can't get it right at all, there is absolutely no consistency over there whatsoever. I am prepared to stay here as long as it takes to convince you people that we are here on Interim Supply, that we are not here debating the Hydro bill. It is Interim Supply based on the Budget of 1994, brought down by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance. So what you have to do is get the book, and if you need to come over and sit down we'll read it to you, we'll tell you all about it, we'll explain how you should ask the questions. In fact, I suspect there are a number of members in the backbenches, and probably the Member for Fogo will write some questions for you to get you through until three or four o'clock in the morning, on how to you get the points across?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: At least the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will stand to his feet and debate any issue that you put on the floor, with full knowledge of how to debate the issues; not sitting down and not even knowing what we are here in the House of Assembly for this evening.

I think it is very clear, Mr. Chairman, what we are saying. We are talking about the Budget that was just put forth by the Minister of Finance. We are talking about an amount of money that this government needs to carry over for a period of time, and we are asking members on the opposite side to agree to vote on the Interim Supply Bill. Yet we have been here in this House of Assembly - and we are only talking about this afternoon and this evening - since two o'clock, and that's now eight hours and thirty minutes, not one question, not one point of concern with any department of government. Not a question have I had asked of me, not a point has been brought up -

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't listen.

MR. EFFORD: I listen. I have been here for eight and a -

AN HON. MEMBER: We asked all kinds of questions.

MR. EFFORD: What questions?

AN HON. MEMBER: They've been asked in public (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh! Well, well, well, well, well, well! Who wrote the questions? Not a question.

What we'll do now is change the tone and we'll get away from the privatization of Hydro. We'll explain to him very clearly that we are not talking about the privatization of Hydro this evening, that we are talking about the estimates, we are talking about the Interim Supply Bill. So as long as the Opposition has that clear in their minds as to where we are going for the next twelve, thirteen or fourteen hours, you will have lots of time now to start asking questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are staying until daylight.

MR. EFFORD: Well, I'm prepared to stay until daylight and a little bit longer. I don't have to take a needle until 7:00 o'clock tomorrow morning and I have it here. No problem! I suspect by that time those great leaders against privatization will be in the gallery. We won't name them. They are interested, Mr. Chairman, in listening and we understand their concerns. They are fighting for the people of the Province, something they believe in.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Come on. Don't stop now.

MR. EFFORD: Now comes the manipulation of the Opposition House Leader, telling members what to say and what not to say. They'll pass him over. Two or three times they got rapped on the fingers today.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to concede the few minutes I have left to members opposite so they can prepare some questions on the department and then we can deal with the questions as they come up.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my friend across the way and tell him that I would be most happy to address some questions to the Minister of Education but I don't have his FAX number and he is in Spain; therefore I have great difficulty. However, every single time I have spoken since this Interim Supply Bill has been here, I have talked about educational matters. Therefore I have certainly been on the topic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible right out of the House.

MR. HODDER: Right out of the House. I drove him away to Spain and not only that but he is leading a Canadian delegation, an all Province committee, who have gone to Spain to spend some time. We scared him away, I suppose.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of comments again on the estimates for the Education Department. This time I want to talk about Student Support Services. For the minister over there, Page 203. You will note that the Student Support Services are an appropriation provided for the development, the implementation and the evaluation of programs for special needs students.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you will note that the estimates here have gone down from $617,300 to $589,300. What we have is a decrease in commitment to special education and special needs students. What this means in the school environment is that we are going to have more difficulty in being able to cope with students who have learning problems. We won't be able to identify them as early in their school life. Consequently, we won't be able to adopt remedial measures to make sure that these students have a good opportunity to complete their high school education.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote from the Department of Education's policy manual. It says on the first page of the policy manual, the purposes of special education are no different from those of regular education in a democratic society. It also says that the purpose of special education is to enlarge the variety of educational programs for all children so that the individualization of programs may be further as a way of fulfilling the fundamental purposes of education for all children, whatever their needs.

What we have seen in the past budget, the one we are now debating, is a decrease in the commitment to the very children who are having the most frustrating, the most difficult, the most challenging time in the school system. Certainly, if there is any place where this government could save money it is not on the backs of the children who each day face the challenges of trying to get a basic education. Yet, in the Budget Estimates you will find that the commitment in dollars to special needs children has gone down, not up. Now what that means is that we are going to have fewer student aids, we are going to have fewer special education teachers, and we are going to make an already difficult situation more problematic in the school system.

I know I can't address the question to the minister, but I know that on tomorrow the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation will get the transcript and he will fax it off to the Minister of Education in Spain. He will be most anxious to get my questions and then he will probably be able to address them when he comes back.

The truth of the matter is, we do an awful lot of talking about integrating special needs students into the regular curriculum. Now, that can only be done if we are going to put the dollars and cents needed into it, and the commitment in terms of training for teachers, in terms of resource materials and in terms of being able to have the proper environment. All too often we pay lip service to integrating special needs students into the classroom and we do very little beyond that.

We know that in comparison to Ontario and other provinces that our commitment to special education does not measure up. I know that we have made tremendous strides in the past six, seven, eight or ten years, but there is still a long way to go, and certainly in terms of our teachers, the help they need, and the way in which we should be fomenting and facilitating a good, positive environment where parents of students can feel that the real needs of the child are being met, where we are, in many cases, failing.

So I say to the government ministers, instead of reducing the amount of money for special education we should be increasing it. Now, coupled with that we have an elimination of the 2 per cent savings clause in the teachers' contracts. We know what that means in terms of rural Newfoundland. We know that there is going to be a coming together, and services that we can now offer with having a small number in the school classroom where special needs students can be helped, that situation is going to get even worse.

Therefore, I call upon the government to look at their commitment to special education students, look at the dollars they have allocated, and make sure that we do not have a reduced number of teachers, make sure we have an improvement in teacher aids and in teacher assistants. Because if we are going to try to save dollars on the backs of the children who find school so difficult every single day is a challenge, when you have children who are at the normal age level for grades IV and V, yet these children are really not functioning at near their own age grade level, then we know at that early age we can identify the children who are potential for drop-outs in junior high school and in senior high school.

MR. EFFORD: You know that the Minister of Education is not here.

MR. HODDER: I know that in the minister's absence the good Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who I know has been taking notes on all these things, is going to make sure that the Minister of Education, when he comes back from Spain and he learns all the wonderful things that he is going to learn over there, is going to get those notes and he is going to make sure that he does the right thing, because we know that the right thing is what we should be doing. In this case this means putting more money in for teachers of special needs students and more money for teacher assistants, and making sure that when we implement the 2 per cent savings clause in rural Newfoundland it is not done on the backs of the children who find schooling the most difficult.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say as well that the policy of integration, integrating children into the regular classroom environment, is a good policy, but it will only work if it is supported with sufficient staff.

MR. EFFORD: Do you agree with the government's policy on the denominational system?

MR. HODDER: I agree with the integrating of special education students into the regular school environment.

Mr. Chairman, in this particular case we want to make sure that when these children are put into the regular classroom environment the integration is done as smoothly as possible and that other students in the school system are not compromised in their educational opportunities because of the integration policy. In other words, integration works best when it is supported by adequate staff, adequate resources, and when the government is committed by both money and words and when it takes action based on its own recommendation. That is, that we should make sure that the special education student is adequately provided for and that we don't try to balance the Budget on the backs of those very special students who often can't speak for themselves and depend on their teachers and us to be their advocates.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, having heard the Member for Port de Grave go on all night - he just challenged me to see if I could beat him to the jump still. Danny was afraid to try so I had to get up and participate in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: It speaks.

MR. TULK: Yes, it speaks.

Mr. Chairman, let me first of all start off my few remarks by saying that the Member for Waterford - Kenmount has finally got the other side on the right track here. After the Member for Port de Grave standing up, and a number of other people all on this side, and telling them what this debate is really about, the Member for Waterford - Kenmount finally discovered that we are on Interim Supply and not on the Hydro bill debate tonight. For that I give him credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: I also notice, Mr. Chairperson, that the Opposition House Leader is over there running around trying to spread the word among his colleagues that what they are really doing here is using up their opportunity to debate billions of dollars that this government is going to spend, and they are really debating another subject - namely, the Hydro bill. What is going to happen in two or three days, or three or four o'clock tomorrow evening when all the time has been used up by those people, ten o'clock tomorrow night or whenever it is?

MR. ROBERTS: Under Bill Marshall's rule.

MR. TULK: Under Bill Marshall's rule, exactly. What is going to happen when that time is all used up? Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman. Let me give -

MR. TOBIN: We'll stay here until three o'clock (inaudible).

MR. TULK: Good! Well I tell you, at three o'clock tomorrow evening or ten o'clock or whatever the time is - the Table has it there - their time will run out to debate $3 billion worth of expenditure that this Province is going to make. They will have spent it all on the Hydro deal. All their time, Mr. Chairman, trying to bring down the government, with the political motive of trying to bring down the government.

Do you know what we are going to see next week, when this House reconvenes after the Easter break? Do you know what we are going to see? We are going to see the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the Opposition standing up on that side of the House and saying: They won't give us any time to debate the money that they are spending. Now that is exactly what we are going to see from them. They are going to look over here and call the House Leader, the most gentle person in Newfoundland -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: - the most gentle, the most kind person in Newfoundland, and the Premier of this Province, they are going to look over here and call them dictators. That is what they are going to do. `The government won't let us debate on it,' and here we are tonight, Mr. Chairman - and I will use a tactic that a good House Leader on that side used to use, the guy who is now a judge, Mr. Marshall. Here we are and what are we debating, what are we supposed to be debating?

AN HON. MEMBER: Interim Supply.

MR. TULK: You finally got it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Do you know how much money we are supposed to be debating here tonight, how many taxpayers dollars we are supposed to be spending? Does the Member for Waterford - Kenmount - now don't look, you should have looked by now. Does anybody over there know how many millions of dollars we are supposed to be debating? Don't look now, don't look.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nine hundred million plus.

MR. TULK: Nine hundred plus? Nine hundred and ninety-nine million, six hundred and ninety-one thousand, eight hundred dollars. The Member for Waterford - Kenmount gets full marks again. Not another person over there knew it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hodder for Leader.

MR. TULK: Hodder for Leader. Not another person over there knew it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, under Interim Supply, on that schedule on the back, we find such things as Works, Services and Transportation. What a ride the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is getting.

MR. EFFORD: The best.

MR. TULK: The best. He is going to go through his estimates and, you know something, he is not going to be asked a question about his department, not a question.

Environment and Lands: Stand Patt, you got her made.

AN HON. MEMBER: Got her made.

MR. TULK: Got her made. Not a question about Environment and Lands.

Fisheries, Mr. Chairman: The biggest crisis that has ever been in this Province today is facing us in fisheries. Since the Interim Supply Bill was called in this House, have we heard one speech from the Opposition on Fisheries? Not a word from them on the most important industry in our Province.

The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay who is not presently in his seat used to have some good questions about Forestry and Agriculture. Somebody over here will answer. Have we heard the hon. gentleman put forward a question? Not one, not a question.

Industry, Trade and Technology: Anything on that? Does anybody have any questions on that? Not a question.

Tourism and Culture: Anything on that? Yes, I think we heard the Member for Bonavista South raise his feeble voice from the back benches on that issue, on something that is not in his own district.

Education: We will give the up and coming leader, if he can get past Ferryland, the Member for Ferryland, some credit.

I was out in my office making a phone call just now when the hon. gentleman was on his feet. I think it was about fifteen, twenty, twenty-five minutes ago. I want to address an issue that he raised, as an educator.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if ever -

AN HON. MEMBER: Time's up.

MR. TULK: Is my time up already?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, if ever I saw a gentleman so misinformed or - and I don't believe this of the Member for Waterford - Kenmount - using something for political purposes, it was the Member for Waterford Kenmount, I don't believe that of him. I think that he was misinformed when he stood in this House and said to members - I think it was the Member for Fortune - Hermitage - if you want a school in your district, it is a problem for the Integrated Education Committee, and we don't need this provincial construction board. Now if ever I heard a bit of garbage, I have to say to him, that was it.

I have had several experiences as an educator and as an MHA with trying to get schools in my district. The latest one that I had was this year in August month when we had to try to do something with an emergency situation in Gander Bay. It was all worked out. I will tell the Member for Waterford - Kenmount what a $3.5 million school in Gander Bay cost the taxpayers of this Province. It cost them $7 million, because in order for the Minister of Finance and the Integrated Education Committee to get that amount of money he had to make the same amount available to the other denominations, regardless of whether they needed it or not. Now if that is not enough to get the hon. gentleman, who is an educator, to support the bill that is eventually going to come forward here, I suppose in denominational education, or the debate, the principles, or whatever it is -

MS. VERGE: When are you going to get around to that, anyway? (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Patience, my dear girl. Patience is a virtue. Have no fear that we will do that regardless of whether your poll says we should or not. Have no fear.

I say to the hon. gentleman that he is totally wrong, and I suspect he knows he's wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is not up; one minutes left.

MR. TULK: Oh, I've got a minute.

Employment and Labour Relations: We are debating the sum of $8,020,000 for Employment and Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Joy creation.

MR. TULK: Job creation. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is up there in his seat looking so healthy and fit, when he should be - if the Opposition were anything they would be down his neck every day; he would be up to his ears.

MR. DUMARESQUE: The best minister we ever had.

MR. TULK: Oh, absolutely! There is no doubt about that.

I understand those people, that they want to stay on the Hydro deal. I understand that perfectly, Mr. Chairman, because there is not a minister on this side that they could attack and score any points. Their feeble attempts at opposition are now founded in one little niche of policy in this Province, and that niche is the Hydro Bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I beg them, on behalf of the taxpayers of this Province, to debate the issues that are now in Interim Supply.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be moved tonight to see that the Member for Fogo was urged off his seat, to get up and talk about Interim Supply.

MR. EFFORD: Don't go reading off your page.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I've read off a page in my life. What I have to say I can say to you without taking much time to prepare myself, I can guarantee you that.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about some appropriations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the minister this: What is the status of the Goulds bypass road? Why has his government sat on that? Why has the environmental preview report taken so much time?

MR. EFFORD: Is that a Liberal or a Tory district?

MR. E. BYRNE: You see, Mr. Chairman, you get into questions about Interim Supply and money statements, especially on an issue that is of such significance to my district, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has the gall to say: Is that a Liberal or a Tory district?

MR. EFFORD: What do you mean, gall?

MR. E. BYRNE: The gall to say that; the absolute gall to say that.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) gall to say that.

MR. E. BYRNE: From the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who says they are trying to treat everybody fairly. What gall I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I will return to the minister in a few moments.

Let me ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - this is the third budget in a row in which the government has not made any allocations or any plans for an emergency employment program. Each year, in the last two years, the government didn't budget any in April but come September or October they have had to find $6 million mid-term to try to alleviate the high unemployment in the Province.

Now the minister is fully aware, as all ministers should be, that the unemployment rate in this Province is going to be higher this year than it was last year, higher than it was the year before.

MR. EFFORD: Why?

MR. E. BYRNE: I will get to you in a few moments.

Let me ask: In terms of the actual debate on Interim Supply, is the minister or the government going to have to find another $6 million? Is it in your plans to offer another emergency response program some time in the fall? If it is, why not think strategically now and allocate the money in the budget? Why not plan for the projects now for the fall so that we are not into an eleventh hour situation whereby non-profit groups and organizations have to get their applications in within a week, the response has to take place within a week, and the time for proper planning has not been given?

I ask the minister, if he can respond: If you are going to offer an employment emergency response program again in the fall, if you are planning to, why not put it in the budget appropriations right now? Why not give the groups and community groups who have taken advantage of such a program in the past two to three years, the opportunity to plan for it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: As I pointed out to the Minister of Finance, this is the third budget in a row where the government has not - and I say to the Minister of Finance - this is the third budget in a row where the government has not budgeted for an emergency employment program, but yet in the last two they have had to provide money mid-term to try to respond to and alleviate some of the hardship and the unemployment problem there.

MR. BAKER: And if we need to this year, we will.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the minister, he has his own projections, he has his own numbers and he knows full well that the situation is going to exist this October as bad or worse as it has ever existed since they became the government. Why not budget now, I say to the minister? Where are the jobs coming from between now and October, minister, where are the jobs coming from?

AN HON. MEMBER: You would be surprised.

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: You would be surprised.

MR. SULLIVAN: This Province would be surprised.

MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, I would be surprised. There is no question of my being surprised about that. This Province will be surprised is right, as my colleague from Ferryland has pointed out.

Now the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - let me get back to the Goulds bypass road. I talked to the minister back in May on this issue and the minister said: Boy, we are for it, all we want to do is get the Goulds bypass road going and get people back to work. What has happened?

MR. EFFORD: Pardon?

MR. E. BYRNE: What has happened to it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: You have no idea what has happened to it, do you?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am only asking you a question.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right? So I ask the minister, why has the environmental assessment taken so long? It has been over a year-and-a-half, it is money that has been allocated by the previous federal government and a commitment by the present federal government, so why isn't the road moving? Why?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No problem. I will give you an opportunity to answer when my ten minutes are up and you will have ten minutes more then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, it's not.

So those are some questions that I pose to the minister. If the road is planned, will he give me some time to discuss it with my constituents? Will he indicate to me as soon as he knows when that road will be going ahead, and will he tell me, as the member for the district, when it is going ahead, how much money is being spent, what the mode of construction will be and how many people will be employed? If he can provide those things for me I would be very, very, very, very happy. I can take that and go to my constituents and people who are concerned, especially the business community who are on the main road in Kilbride and the Goulds right now, who have some serious considerations about what the impact of the Goulds bypass road will have upon their community.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I am saying. All I'm saying, to the minister is that I want the information. I want as much information as possible so that I can bring it to my constituents and let them know what's happening with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: My time is not up.

Now, let me ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations as well: Are there any changes, coming up, financially, in law, to the Workers' Compensation Commission in terms of: What is the Commission planning for injured workers? I noted in the last week of so the Newfoundland and Labrador Nursing Hospital Association made a decision whereby injured workers, nurses in particular, received - I think net pay was being described as workers' compensation, what they described as net pay and not what the collective agreement described as net pay. What has that done to injured workers, specifically injured nurses in the Province? I will give you a case in point.

A lady by the name of Stockley, because that difference was made by the Newfoundland and Labrador Nursing Home Association, her net pay as a result of that decision will be less $1,000 per month, $500 -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is another lady we got letters (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: If I could take some time just to read this to the minister:

`Mr. Wells, I'm a registered nurse who was unfortunate enough to sustain a severe work-related back injury in April of 1990. After spending $4,000 on chiropractor treatments and waiting three years for a correct diagnosis, I finally underwent back surgery for two spinal fusions less than a year ago. I suffered many complications from this surgery and I am presently in a body cast, still unfit for any type of work.

`Less than two years ago - and here is the catch - injured nurses were under attack at the Workers' Compensation Commission when it: A) decided to remove retraining program offered to nurses who were unable to return to their pre-injury employment, B) decreased benefits paid to injured nurses from 90 per cent of net earnings to 75 per cent and C) proposed legislation which eliminated top-up payments for injured nurses, thereby stripping injured nurses of as much as 15 per cent to 40 per cent of their net earnings.

`The Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association has now instructed employers to cut benefits to injured nurses effective April 1, 1994 despite a commitment by government - and this is the point that must be made, Mr. Chairman - despite a commitment by government to the union given last year prior to the election and during the election, to amend the legislation to protect the existing incomes of long-term injured nurses, and that has not happened.'

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the government's (inaudible) legislation? Are they going to change it?

MR. E. BYRNE: I haven't gotten to it, but I want to return to the subject a little later.

I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations if he could comment on that? Why are injured workers being caused to bear the brunt of detrimental government decisions, the very least of which, I say to the minister, are these people who have, through no fault of their own, been injured seriously on the job, long-term injuries? They have been made to pay for their injury. They have been made to pay for public service in this Province once again. I ask the minister and urge the minister to have a serious look into that situation.

Now, while the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is up on his feet answering my question on the Goulds bypass road, could he answer my question also: Are there any other plans for the District of Kilbride in terms of road rehabilitation or wharf construction? Are there any tenders going out that would relate to the District of Kilbride and that would, I guess, provide for increased services in terms of road pavement and other situations that are there?

While the minister is up, perhaps he could also answer a question for some of the students who have just arrived in the gallery, as to why we are being made to stay here the entire night to debate Interim Supply so these people will not have the opportunity to come tomorrow and be present in this House when questions are asked about changes to the student aid system, and the private members motion that I put forward dealing with student aid?

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member have leave?

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, no leave.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am really pleased to be able to stand up and take a couple of minutes. I probably will not take all the time allotted to me, the ten minutes.

MS. VERGE: Give us your views on student aid.

MR. EFFORD: I will. Just a second now. Could the hon. member just hold onto her seat and not get too excited? I will deal with all the questions on student aid.

You have to remember this is the fourth week I have sat in this House of Assembly during Question Period. I have been absent some days on government business, but most of the time I have occupied my seat, and there was not one question, not a question. Until we straighten it out with the Opposition tonight, that we are here on Interim Supply and not on the privatization of Hydro - it is only now that they realize what they should be doing.

Let us deal first with the Goulds bypass road. The Goulds bypass road is part of the trunk road agreement, the Road for Rails agreement, in which the federal government of Ottawa, the government of the day, purchased Newfoundland's railway and paid us $800 million. The money is due to expire, it is all to be spent by the year 2003. It is very clear. There is a plan of expenditures each year until 2003 and all of that money is spent, $50 million in total for the Trans-Canada for the trunk road agreement.

One of the things we are trying to do on a year to year basis, on an annual basis, is to try and spend the money in different areas of the Province. In other words, instead of spending all the money on eastern, western, or central Newfoundland, we will spend it in different areas of the Province, reasonable amounts of money that can be handled in the short construction season that we do have in order to spread the monies around to provide jobs in different areas of the Province, and at the same time trying to bring the roads up to a reasonable standard. We are not concentrating on one particular area of the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's in there for Port de Grave?

MR. EFFORD: Oh, Port de Grave will be well looked after. I can assure you of that.

In the case of the Goulds bypass road, we do not yet - and this is the hang-up - we do not yet have the environmental impact study completed. That is not a fault of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. That is a request and a process that we must follow. If we had any choice in the matter, and if it was a responsibility of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, we could not have the capability, the expertise, in our department to do that, so we must depend on the Department of Environment and Lands. They are following the normal practices, the normal process, to go and complete the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes I do, I'm getting to it. I just told you very clearly what we are doing. The hon. member asked: Would he be told in time so he can consult with his constituents. Go consult with your constituents. The Goulds by-pass road will be built. It has to be completed.

AN HON. MEMBER: In this century?

MR. EFFORD: I just told you. You are just not listening. By the year 2003 all of the money is supposed to be spent, all of the roads are supposed to be completed. Now, is that in this century?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, he is asking if (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) EPR report that according to the (inaudible) it takes a year to a year-and-a-half.

MR. EFFORD: Yes. There is a problem, there is a concern out there, and one of the concerns is expressed. One of the things that is taking a lot of time is the agricultural lands, the land freeze. That is a problem that we've had to deal with. All of that should be completed, according to the information from the Department of Environment and Lands, from the people within my department, and into my office no later than July of this year. That is the planned date. The earliest possible start up date, if everything goes okay, the environmental impact study is approved and all of the other things are ironed out with the agricultural land, there is no reason why the Goulds by-pass road will not start in 1995.

MR. SULLIVAN: It announced it in 1992, the deputy minister of the environment (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The Member for Ferryland knows full well that he has opportunity to speak for ten minutes afterwards and ask all of the questions he wants to. I'm dealing with the questions put forward by the Member for Kilbride. I've answered some of the questions there, that it will be started if the environmental impact study and all of those approvals are complete and we have the money to start and to complete the Goulds by-pass road. I agree, the Goulds by-pass road is badly needed, just as badly as any other road in Newfoundland, because of the high volume of traffic that is coming down from the Southern Shore. I have no arguments, I totally agree.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You are right. I totally agree with the necessity of building the Goulds by-pass road. The jobs are going to be completed? I can bring into the House of Assembly the amount of money that it is going to take to build the Goulds by-pass road.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many jobs?

MR. EFFORD: How many jobs will be completed? That is an estimate that you will have to go to a construction company for. Because if we tender out $5 million in any given year to spend the money on the Goulds by-pass road a construction company will make a decision, much work they can do with equipment and how many jobs will be created from that construction job. I can't tell them how many people they should hire on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, $6 million.

So, the road is planned and the road is going to go ahead.

I don't know if I missed another question. Oh, the high unemployment rate: That is the one I wanted to touch on. We do have a high unemployment rate in this Province. If we look at the number of reasons and the reasons why we have a high unemployment rate, there were an awful lot of bad or wrong decisions made in this Province for a number of years.

One of the things is the fishery. I've said it a thousand times in this Province and I will probably say it a thousand times more, that the fishery is the backbone of this Province and with the number of jobs completed directly and the spin-off jobs in this Province it is not hard to figure out why we have such a mess in this Province today, and as a result, why this government has such a difficult time trying to provide enough money to deal with the necessity of the people in this Province, to provide the essential services, whether it be education, whether it be health, whether it be roads or whatever.

All we have to go back to is a government in Ottawa who has allowed our fishery to be taken away from us, so much so now that the experts in the field, the scientists and all those people, say they don't know if it's going to take ten, fifteen or twenty years or whatever for the stocks to rebuild, and they try to tell you that in some species it may never rebuild to a commercial resource again. I'm a positive thinker, I think it will rebuild. But I think there are a couple of major decisions that have to be made in the very near future in order to lessen the amount of time that it will take to rebuild the stocks.

Once that's done you're going to solve a major unemployment problem in this Province. I guarantee you one thing, you will never solve an unemployment problem in this Province by throwing monies at it for make-work programs, and any hon. member in this House of Assembly, on either side of the House, regardless of your politics, will agree with that. Make-work programs will not solve the unemployment problems in this Province. It is not even a band-aid approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's short term.

MR. EFFORD: It's very, very short term, and for a lot of reasons, through a lot of the press and a lot of the media, nationally it has been degrading for Newfoundland. They try to leave the impression in all of Canada that this is the only place that we have make-work programs, that Newfoundlanders are the only recipients of unemployment insurance. I heard last week on television when Lloyd Axworthy went out, I think it was to Saskatchewan, that something like 2,200 people met him at the airport because they were upset over the changes in the unemployment regulations. Still, at the same time, the media will give you the impression that Newfoundland people are the only people who work seasonally, which is a lot of nonsense - a lot of nonsense. It is all over Canada. We are just talked about more and we don't stand up and defend ourselves enough with the news media.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson, this Interim Supply Bill lists large amounts of expenditures for health; in fact, more for health than any other head, almost $300 million for health. Of course, the Department of Health spends more than any other department of the provincial government, and for good reason.

I have serious concerns about what is happening in health.

MR. BAKER: We are bringing in the mammogram program, which (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Well, that's on my list to ask about now. That is one of a couple of good news items in this budget, as far as I am concerned, but I am going to follow my own agenda here.

First, I should ask about the Minister of Health, because what I am planning to say would be more effective if the Minister of Health were here to listen, and if the minister could answer some of my questions.

Western Memorial Regional Hospital, which serves a large part of Western Newfoundland from, I think, Bonne Bay South, including Burgeo and Ramea, Western Memorial Regional Hospital has been struggling for some time. Last year's budget caused serious problems. The fallout from the budget was announced to the public the day after the House of Assembly closed last June. The Department of Health and the hospital board decided, as a result of the allocation in last year's budget, to make a number of changes. The one that gained notoriety was cancelling first-year nursing education for a year. That decision was announced to the public, as well as several other negative budget consequences, the day after the House of Assembly closed last June.

Chairperson, nursing education students, applicants who had been accepted, relatives, and citizens with no direct connection, united in a massive protest and the Premier backed off. I cite that example to people who are against privatizing Hydro, to show people that if they persist the Premier can back down the way he has before. At any rate, that decision was reversed in early July.

Recently, within the past week - here is the Minister of Health, I'm glad to see him - wheels have been set in motion at Western Memorial Regional Hospital to eliminate nine nursing positions. I asked the minister about that last Thursday and he indicated that he didn't really know what was going on. In addition to the elimination of nine nursing positions, fourteen other hospital staff positions are also being cut. That means twenty-three positions at Western Memorial Regional Hospital, just the hospital operations in Corner Brook. Western Memorial Regional Hospital includes operations elsewhere but just in Corner Brook, in the past week, procedures have been started to eliminate twenty-three positions: nine nursing positions and fourteen CUPE positions.

Chairperson, the people affected in the hospital believe that there is some explanation for these cuts in a document that the minister is withholding from the public, a report with a yellow cover which some of them have actually seen but haven't been able to read.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you read all the reports you wanted.

MS. VERGE: No, there is one more report.

Chairperson, last summer, after the Premier reversed the cancellation of first-year nursing education, when he was being asked about that, he was very much on the defensive and he was trying to shift the blame to the hospital administration. He said in a CBC radio interview that he personally had directed an immediate assessment of aspects of management of Western Memorial Regional Hospital. Ever since then people in the Corner Brook area have been asking for that report. Last Thursday when the Minister of Health was speaking, he talked about an operational review of Western Memorial Regional Hospital that was done last year, and he said he would release the report to the public if he feels like it, when he feels like it.

Chairperson, the hospital in Corner Brook is losing twenty-four positions and we need an explanation from the minister. The people deserve to see whatever report the minister has, whether it is an operational review report or a premier's assessment report. The twenty-four positions that are being eliminated I'm told stem from last year's Budget. Whatever bad news in contained in this year's Budget will be held in suspension perhaps until the House of Assembly closes this spring. Although I have to say, at the rate the Government House Leader is going the House may not close in the spring, it may be in the fall.

Chairperson, at Western Memorial Regional Hospital in Corner Brook there have been cutbacks over the past few years, pretty well ever since this Administration took office, despite the fact that among their main campaign promises in 1989 was a commitment to open more hospital beds and provide more resources for hospitals. That was one of the first promises to be broken. The staff who are now at the hospital are seriously overburdened, and how they can be expected to cope with the existing patient numbers and the same workload with nine fewer nurses and fourteen fewer CUPE positions, is hard for people to imagine, and the minister should provide some commentary to people.

Does the minister expect a reduced staff at the hospital in Corner Brook to carry the same workload? Does the minister propose to reduce the workload? Is the minister contemplating closing beds? Is the minister planning on downgrading the level of services and programs at the Corner Brook hospital? How does he explain what's going on? What is the minister's rationale for having twenty-four positions, including nine nursing positions, taken out of the hospital in Corner Brook? So that is my first question to the minister.

My second question to the minister has to do with his department's program of subsidization for patients who have to travel, who have to leave their homes and go to St. John's and go somewhere else in Canada for what is considered non-emergency medical treatment. Chairperson, cancer patients throughout the Province have to come to St. John's for radiation therapy because the only place in our Province for radiation therapy is provided in St. John's. Chairperson, typically, cancer patients have to get six weeks of cancer radiation therapy and when patients live in Western Newfoundland, whether it is in Port au Port district or LaPoile district or Humber East district, staying in St. John's for six weeks, travelling to and from St. John's, is very expensive as well as stressful. It means time away from work, time away from family and it means, in many cases, accommodation either at the hostel -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I hope the Minister of Health will rise and deal with some of the questions I just raised because I assure members that they are extremely important to people in Western Newfoundland.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I won't take up too much time of the House but I just want to - what's wrong with the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation?

I just want to congratulate the Member for Humber East on finally –

AN HON. MEMBER: For sitting down?

MR. TULK: Well that too, but on finally getting back to the real subject at hand here, what we are talking about. She finally got back to talking about it. Earlier I believe she asking the Minister of Health some questions and I hope he will stand up and answer them. They may not be the answers that she wants but I am sure he will stand up and answer them sometime between now and three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. I want to congratulate her on asking those questions about Western Memorial Hospital, I believe it was. I am sure the minister is over there making notes and getting ready to answer them.

I also want to address something else. A few minutes ago there were some students in the gallery. I understand that the opposition, I understand that it might have been the Member for Kilbride - I'm not sure but if it isn't I apologize to him - who went out and took it upon himself to call Bas and say: We were keeping the House open so we wouldn't have to face the students tomorrow afternoon.

Now, Mr. Chairman -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: No! No! No! The Member for Fogo has no confessions to make. I say to the solicitor - oh they did it, they did it. I say to the solicitor from St. John's East that the Member for Fogo is not going to make any confession here tonight. I say to the Opposition that it is not the government side of the House that is keeping this House open tonight, it is not the government side of the House but I think it was the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, who was on his feet at ten o'clock and kept going. So don't - here they come - don't go out and use Bas Jamieson -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: Oh yes, absolutely. Don't go out and use Bas Jamieson, call into Bas Jamieson, your Open Line host, your former Tory candidate, at least twice run and twice defeated.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the government days.

MR. TULK: In the government days, and couldn't even get elected then. Don't go out and make those kinds of calls to cover up for your own incompetence.

The truth of the matter is, you want to keep the House open and we had to get up a few minutes ago and say to you: Get on with the real business at hand. We had to do that a few minutes ago. There were one or two members over there who were recognizing what we are doing here. Now you've lost that issue. Now go out and call the students, try to get them out of bed, for your own political ploy.

Disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful! Because the Member for Humber East knows just as well as I do that the whole fifty-two members in this House are willing to face the students of this Province.

MS. VERGE: Adjourn the debate then (inaudible).

MR. TULK: No, it is not my place to adjourn debate, Mr. Chairman. They started this war, let's keep it open, if they want to.

MR. ROBERTS: That is right, but finish when you are ready.

MR. TULK: I'll finish when I'm ready.

MR. ROBERTS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, the truth of the matter is that they set out in the hopes that they were going to get an all-night session on the Hydro bill, so that tomorrow the newspapers would report that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. TULK: Perfect, but it failed. It failed on you. Because what you've done is used up your time on - really, one of the issues that you should be debating is student aid. There hasn't been a word, not a word, I say to the Opposition, on student aid from that side yet. Not a word!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: Here they are, Mr. Chairman, running out and calling Bas Jamieson and saying: The government is afraid to face the students.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount on a point of order.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that the member is conveying incorrect information. This afternoon in debate I talked of student aid. I talked of it earlier this afternoon, and so did the Members for Baie Verte - White Bay, Kilbride and Mount Pearl. This has occurred in the last several hours. So to give the impression that we weren't doing that is to be tautologically incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, let me say to the hon. gentleman - and with that I'll sit down - that the only person who has debated the issues at hand tonight and today and for the last two or three days since we have been in interim supply, the only person who has debated with any consistency, is the Member for Waterford - Kenmount; and I give him that much credit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TULK: But in regard to showing concern for the students of this Province, and in regard to showing concern for the issues that are contained in this interim supply bill, I say to the Opposition: Shame! Your ploy failed. You tried to use this bill for your own political purposes. Give up. Practice like parliamentarians rather than like politicians out to grease their own palm.

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

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

I have just a few remarks. I have to take issue with the Member for Fogo. It has been this side of the House that has carried the student aid issue, which has raised concerns about the Budget announcement. In a response to the Budget Speech by the Member for Mount Pearl last Monday, I believe it was - last Monday he spoke at great length about the problems the changes in student aid were going to have in increasing the debt on students. The Member for Waterford - Kenmount has consistently asked questions and talked about it, the Member for Kilbride for sure, the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay, and others.

I guess the question I have to ask is: Who took the time to go and meet with the students? Who took the time to consult with the students, to listen to them? Members from this side.

I want to say one other thing before I sit down, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Fogo must know what has been going on here tonight. We were under threat here tonight of having to sit here until three o'clock tomorrow to prevent the Member for Kilbride from introducing his private member's resolution pertaining to student aid, I say to the Member for Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do I have the floor, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but you did walk out when the Member for St. John's East has the floor last week.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He wasn't talking about student aid, he was talking about himself. He spent fifteen minutes talking about himself and his wife, how successful he was; how great I art. That is what he went on with all last winter, how great I art.

Mr. Chairman, you can't let the Member for Fogo go unchallenged because what he said is totally incorrect.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were saying we would have to stay out three o'clock tomorrow.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We would have to stay until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious how concerned they are about changes government is going to make.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible)

AN HON. MEMBER: You had your say and sat down. He had his say.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, will you protect me from the buffoon for Fogo?

AN HON. MEMBER: He had his say and now he wants to say it again. Why didn't he keep standing?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You can tell how sensitive he is to the issue, Mr. Chairman. He wants to just shout over everybody else.

Mr. Chairman, it is 11:50 p.m., it has been a long day and more students are coming from far and wide. I want to say to the Member for Fogo that I look forward to his supporting the resolution tomorrow that will be debated by the Member for Kilbride. I look forward to his support and I hope the students who are here tonight will be back tomorrow and hear what the Member for Fogo has to say as it pertains to the changes to student aid.

We are ready, Mr. Chairman, to put the question, but on condition, I say to the Government House Leader. I want to read into the record of the House that we are ready to put the question on this Interim Supply Bill to grant interim supply to Her Majesty in the sum of close to $1 billion, on condition, and only on this condition, that the Government House Leader give a clear indication and undertaking tonight that we come back here tomorrow at two o'clock for a regular day of business dealing with the resolution put forward by the Member for Kilbride as it pertains to the student aid situation. If the Government House Leader agrees to do that then we will undertake to put the question and put it through; otherwise we won't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the resolution carry?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to the hon. gentleman? He and I, as members know, have spoken behind the Chair and we have come to an arrangement. The condition he has set down we accept. Let me be quite clear so there is no misunderstanding. My understanding is the committee will now proceed to vote on the Interim Supply Bill and it will carry through in a procedure so that in another five or ten minutes it will be done. We shall then adjourn and meet tomorrow, Wednesday, a regular day, at two o'clock, the regular time with a regular Question Period. At not later than three o'clock according to the Standing Orders, but earlier if there are no petitions or what have you, we shall debate the motion that stands in the name of my friend for Kilbride. That is the motion to which I think my friend for Grand Bank is referring. That debate will come to its end at five o'clock, or a little before that, in the usual way. We shall then ask the House to adjourn until Monday, April 18, with the usual proviso, if the Chair is persuaded we should come back earlier for some reason; the usual thing.

With that said, I thank hon. members. It has been a long day. We have had heated debate, and sometimes even some light to go with the heat. With that said, I would ask Your Honour to put the questions to take the matters through.

I think I have answered my friend for Grand Bank fully and completely. He and I have had some chats and we have come to an arrangement which, I think, both of us have stated fully to the House.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1995, the sum of $999,691,800."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has adopted a certain resolution and recommends that the bill be introduced to give effect to the same.

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

On motion, resolution read a first, second and third time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1995 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service" read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No.7)

MR. SPEAKER: We will take it that the bill will consequently become law upon our attending upon the Lieutenant-Governor tomorrow.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. I will see whether His Honour is able to come to the House tomorrow for assent, or if not, Your Honour can attend upon His Honour in due course, but we will deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members for their willing participation in this debate. I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m. and that the House do now adjourn.

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