May 27, 1994              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                Vol. XLII  No. 50


The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. For the past several years the government has been pursuing a policy of bed closures and lay offs at hospitals around the Province. I ask the minister, does he have any formal program to evaluate the effects these changes are having, and bed closures, on health care service in the Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the question is totally inappropriate. What the member is doing is trying to cast what is happening in health care to some antiquated notion that emerged from the past. The number of beds is totally unrelated to the appropriateness of health care. What we are trying to do now is to bring forward a new system by which hospitals are of the appropriate size, but also that we have things like day surgery and out-patient services. We are developing these areas. We are reducing the number of beds in hospitals. This is providing the savings that we need to operate the system effectively and efficiently. We have a better system now, Mr. Speaker, than we had when these people opposite were running the system.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The most inappropriate thing about the health care system in this Province is the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: An official from outside this Province who addressed the Newfoundland hospital and nursing home association stated that this Province has the highest readmission rate of any province in this country. You are kicking people out on the street before they are cured. That is what is wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I continue to get numerous complaints and letters, and some of these with tragic consequences. The people who write these letters feel -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: What about your question? Do you have any questions?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: The people who write these letters to me feel they are due to cutbacks in our health care system. Last February a man from Calvert collapsed while working in the woods. Specialists at the Health Science Complex back in February booked that person for an MRI in May of this year, three months after he collapsed. Now, that man died in April of a massive brain haemorrhage, a month before the MRI scan was scheduled. Now, if he had received the scan back in February that life may have been saved.

I ask the minister if the department investigated that death? Was it in any way related to the shortage of specialists and resources in our health care system?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, any complaint that the hon. member has about the health care system should really be addressed to me and I will look into it, investigate it, and see what happened, or what might have happened, and then we can correct all these cries. Many of the member's cries are wolf cries, as I mentioned yesterday, and continue to mention. Almost everything I have investigated on his part has resulted in nothing, but if he were to send that enquiry over to me I will certainly investigate it and see what happened, and if anything went wrong we will correct it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The next thing we know they will be naming cemeteries after this minister the way things are going in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: When a person collapses that is a critical event and that to me is an emergency. It is unlikely that an MRI would be in such constant use that time could not be allowed to do an MRI for an emergency case back in February. I ask him what was the problem? Why would it take three months to schedule an MRI in an emergency situation for a patient who had collapsed?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to comment on that particular point until I see the details. If the hon. medical doctor opposite were to practice medicine I fear he would not get very far.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the President of Treasury Board. There was great optimism last afternoon when both the minister and the Premier indicated the basis had been found to settle the teachers'strike, yet the news media carried comments about 10:00 o'clock last evening that the optimism was premature. Can the minister update the House on the current status of the negotiations, and can parents be reasonably assured that their children will be back in school within a week?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. Yesterday a letter was circulated, I believe, to all MHAs, but certainly given to the Premier. The Premier read it, I read it, and I was encouraged. The Premier read it and said: there should be a settlement here and he jotted down what he could see as a basis of a settlement. I would like to table that, so all members can see what his response was. It is a bit damp on the edges. Also, Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged because I thought it represented significant changes in position, especially on two points.

The first point in the letter said: `An agreement on item 2'- which is the 2 per cent clause - `acceptable to both the NLTA and government negotiators has been available both before and during the strike,' so I was encouraged by that and wanted to find out what that was. We had meetings and what I have discovered is that at this point in time, there is not a position that is acceptable to both NLTA and government available.

The second point, Mr. Speaker, that I was encouraged by, is the statement that it is NLTA's position that the balance of money be allocated against government's outstanding liabilities to the teachers' pension plan. Now that, Mr. Speaker, was acceptable to us, that particular part of it, and I was very encouraged by it, however, I have now been informed that that is not correct and that what they really meant to say was that it had to be put into the special early retirement fund; so, Mr. Speaker, I have been told that this letter didn't really mean anything and what we should go by was a memorandum of understanding, instead, that was also sent to my office yesterday. So, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of that letter, there certainly was grounds for being very optimistic, that a settlement was there, but now we have discovered that the letter contains - how shall I describe it - inaccuracies, errors that were very disappointing to me.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, there has been much comment about the 2 per cent savings clause and the three-year protection letter and the minister has indicated earlier that some of the 363 teaching positions identified as protected under the current contract with the NLTA would be reassigned on a needs basis to rural schools, and I know I am crossing the territory between the two ministers here now, but there is great concern out there and I wonder if the minister could confirm that 200 or thereabouts of the 363 teaching positions will be reassigned to rural schools?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, our position in that issue is that for over ten years we have had the 2 per cent rule in existence and that seriously limited our ability to manage the system, and if the 2 per cent rule is gone, then we will assign teachers in a way that is educationally sound and be able to move positions and reduce positions in some areas perhaps where the need is not there anymore, and add positions to other areas. So that essentially has been our position, that when management control is obtained over the teacher allocation, these allocations will be done in a manner that is educationally sound.

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

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

One of the concerns expressed to me yesterday afternoon by teachers who were here for their protest relates to the hold-back pay - that's pay accumulated by teachers between September and May 16. Can the minister assure teachers that if the strike continues beyond the end of the current school year, the government will not interfere in any way with the normal disbursement of hold-back compensation due teachers during July and August?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of red herrings in this whole discussion and round of negotiations. I should add to the hon. member that for the first time today, for the very first time, our negotiating teams are getting together to examine a lot of the items that were presented to us in this memorandum of understanding yesterday. So our negotiating teams are working today.

There have been a lot of red herrings, Mr. Speaker. One was the obvious one about the severance pay and so on. A lot was made of that and my statements about the fact that it was simply an opening position and government had no intention to legislate it were ignored. There's another red herring the hon. member brings up. All I can say to the hon. member is that the best way to have a resolution to this problem is for the teachers to go back to the classroom, finish the year, finish off the exams and bring things back to normal. Mr. Speaker, we're not going to break any laws, we're not going to do anything extraordinary, we will deal with this in a sensible way and hope that the teachers get back to the classroom.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This morning I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Minister, I'd like to ask if the government plans to proceed this year on widening and upgrading the Trans-Canada Highway?

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

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SHELLEY: That's a long answer for you.

MR. CAREEN: We are at least one-and-a-half months into the construction season and there is still no evidence of construction taking place on the highway, especially on the Avalon. We have a very short construction season in this Province. When does the minister expect work to begin?

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

MR. EFFORD: Immediately, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The construction industry in this Province, Mr. Minister, has been in a severe depression, as we all know, these three or four years. Construction companies and construction workers depend more than ever on public works projects for their survival. You would think the government would do everything in its power to get those projects up and running as quickly as possible, and money isn't a problem since most of the money is coming from the Roads for Rail Agreement. Can the minister explain why things are moving so slowly?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. minister.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. members opposite that we are not slow at all in doing what needs to be done in this Province. Let me give you a quick briefing on what happened.

This year there is going to be -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the minister.

MR. EFFORD: - $79 million spent on highway construction and road construction in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. EFFORD: Seventy-nine million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Supposed to be spent.

MR. EFFORD: Will be spent.

Tenders have been called, and most of the tenders have been let on all the Trans-Canada work and the secondary roads, and what we are responsible for federally and provincially, under both agreements -the provincial monies and the federal agreement.

So we are not slow in getting out the tenders. What we have to understand here in this Province is that the conditions of weather don't permit the calling of tenders back in January, February and March.

MS. VERGE: Why not?

MR. EFFORD: We have to wait until conditions permit, and frost goes out of the ground.

Tenders have been awarded. Construction will be starting, I suspect, in most areas this coming week.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, we are not going to start Saturday and Sunday. Most construction companies don't work on the weekends unless they have a reason to. It will be a five-day week. They will be starting this week. But we have met with the construction association. We know that the construction association -

MS. VERGE: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: All the equipment is moved on Roaches Line, by the way, in my district. It started out there in Conception Bay North, the Trans-Canada. Out on the West Coast, construction equipment is moved on the Trans-Canada.

MS. VERGE: No, it hasn't.

MR. EFFORD: What I am saying to you is that the government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: If you want an answer, I will give it to you. If you don't, then keep jabbering back and forth.

We understand that the construction association and all the construction companies have a major problem, but the government cannot answer all of the problems that they do have. We cannot provide enough work for all construction companies in this Province. We are spending approximately $79 million in road construction this year throughout the Province and it is going to be done and completed by the end of the year.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands and it is concerning the ATV regulations. During the government estimates committee hearings the Department of Environment and Lands budgeted for staff reinforcement in their ATV regulations. Can the minister tell me how many people were hired, when they were hired, and what offices they are actually working from?

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

MS. COWAN: I would have to get all that information for the hon. member. I would imagine they are working in the Lands office, if indeed they are in that position as yet. The last I heard they were just finishing up the interviews but that was two or three weeks ago when I heard that. I shall double-check and let the hon. member know.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Just for the minister's information, at this point in time I don't believe that there have been any people hired. There have been no people hired and the ATV regulations were in place since April 1.

With respect to the forestry and equipment such as skidders, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment and Lands told me that the ATV regulations applied to all equipment that travelled the wetlands. Can the minister now tell if the regulations do apply to forestry equipment? If not, why not?

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

MR. COWAN: First of all, Mr. Speaker, there has been a delay that I do not like, I must say, in hiring people for that department, for the Lands division, to look into the ATV regulations. However, we have been certifying trails and considering all the applications that have come in. It has caused a slow down but we are still proceeding with the work. Skidders are not part of the ATV legislation. Skidders come under the Department of Forestry and Agriculture's legislation, and if the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture were here he could speak to it. However, they do not come under the ATV legislation.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, that was something that has been changed in midstream. Another question with respect to the ATV regulations versus the highway traffic act. Two months ago the Assistant Deputy Minister told me that the ATV regulations overruled the highway traffic act. Can the Minister tell me now if that is the case? I am waiting on a letter from the Minister of Justice for two weeks - not the minister, but from.... The Assistant Deputy Minister of Lands told me that she is waiting on a letter from Justice stating that the ATV regulations overrule the highway traffic act. Is that the case?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to respond to one of his rhetorical statements before I begin. Yes, there will be changes in midstream in the ATV legislation, and I neither apologize for it or beg his forgiveness or anything. This is new legislation, pioneer legislation, it is legislation that this government should be congratulated for, because we are the first province in this nation to bring this legislation into place. Obviously dealing with these complex environmental situations we are going to have to adapt. From the very beginning I have said this, and have made no bones about it throughout the entire process. The hon. member can probably have lots of questions to ask me for a long time. I'm sure he will be delighted in that particular area.

The other question, regarding the highway traffic act: Again I have not been informed by my Assistant Deputy as to what response she had back from the Department of Justice. When I am I will be certainly willing to discuss the matter with him.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the acting Minister of Education. Every year students who plan on attending post-secondary education can pick up applications for student aid at the local high schools in their community or area. Due to the strike this year this is impossible. I was wondering what the plan is for students who would like to apply for student aid this year.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the offices of the student employment centre have been passing out applications. As a matter of fact, I understand from a news story just yesterday morning, I believe, that they're receiving many, many more applications for work now then they would normally receive. So indications are that the students are going to the centres to get applications. Obviously there will be differences around the Province and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, I know. Student aid, okay.

Obviously there will be differences around the Province. If the schools are reopened obviously then that avenue will still be opened but I'll check with the officials in the Department of Education to see what plans are actually in place to make sure that applications for student aid get out to all students who are graduating.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe the minister took me wrong, I was asking a question on student aid not student employment. Applications for student aid are usually at the high schools in communities around the Province and students pick them up who plan on attending post-secondary education but they can't do that this year because the schools are closed for student aid. I had several calls over the past few days concerning the applications and I was told by a few parents that they called the department and were told that student aid has a list of all high school students in the Province and when the material is available everybody will be mailed an application. Now, Mr. Speaker, I say that it's getting up to the last of May, over the past year most students have in their applications by now. Will the minister see that these applications are sent out to the students across the Province as soon as possible so that the applications can be put in for student aid so people can get prepared for September classes?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker - in a sense I have to be careful how I answer this - if at some point in time when we're still negotiating today, finally - if at some point in time it's obvious that a negotiated settlement can't be reached then I would insist that these things be sent out as quickly as possible but as I indicated to the hon. gentleman, I'll check with the Department of Education to see exactly what mechanism they have in place to make sure that the students get the forms. I want to assure him and the students of the Province that the application forms for student aid, one way or another, will be out to them in lots of time.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, last week the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture announced a number of fee increases for salmon licenses for residents of the Province and amongst the increases was an increase for seniors, who haven't paid anything before for the salmon licenses, now they've gone from no cost to twenty dollars per license. I was wondering, could I ask the acting, acting Minister of Tourism and Culture why seniors were charged a bigger increase then the rest of the residents of the Province who were paying before now - their fees have increased by 50 per cent but for seniors it has gone from no charge to twenty dollars?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In dealing with that issue, in the Department of Tourism and Culture, it was considered to be appropriate and consistent with the same policy that was introduced, as members opposite remember, in the provincial parks in the previous year as well. That where seniors used to get a reduced fee and so on or no fee, that it was felt because of the usage and so on that there was no reason by virtue of age that there should be any difference in the charge.

The same reasoning applied to the salmon license fees. That for the seniors the costs of these licenses are not exorbitant in any way, shape or form, that it's a purely recreational type of thing. It's not in any way a necessity that's going to put a hardship on anybody. It's something that someone does as a matter of a choice, a leisure recreation and that the fees would not be imposed if it was something that every senior had to have and was going to add to their cost of living. This is totally a discretionary expense for seniors. It's not an exorbitant charge in itself. There's no basic reason why there shouldn't be any particular fees charged on the basis of age for salmon licenses as for other services.

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

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

MR. TULK: (Inaudible) Friday free for all.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Friday free for all, no, I consider it to be sombre Friday, I say to the Member for Fogo. Like my colleague from Ferryland says, that's how many trillion per cent increase?

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, infinity.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Infinity, forever.

I want to say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, really what you are doing again, you are not going to gain anything by this, I say to the minister, because when people go salmon fishing there are other purchases. They go to camps, they travel, they buy gas, they buy groceries, they buy supplies; so again you are shooting yourself in the foot economically, I say to the minister, but even if I was to buy the minister's -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Will the Member for Fogo go and get a glass of something to settle himself down. He is rubbed awful raw this morning. I don't know if the teachers are after him again.

Would the minister consider, when his colleague comes back, asking him: Would the government at least consider staging the increase? If they were to make it $10 this year, and $20 next year, or $5, $10, $15 and $20, so that they don't go from no charge to $20 this year, would the government consider that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture will consider that, based on the question asked today; however, I can tell hon. members and everybody present that the consideration was given before and, as I answered previously, the fee - all of these other expenditures that these seniors, as well as others, make - the licence fee is probably the very smallest of all of them and, in our estimation, it will not be a deterrent to anybody who, as a matter of personal choice, not of any necessity, decides that salmon fishing is their recreational activity, if they prefer, and that a licence fee for a senior who is going to invest hundreds of dollars in equipment, gasoline, supplies and so on anyway, that the fee itself will not be a deterrent, and that it is consistent now with the Atlantic Provinces.

The one main point in it that convinced government that it was the right idea as well was that the increase in the fees for locals, the seniors, and for the non-residents as well, provides the money for what everybody has wanted in the recreational salmon fishery, which is increased enforcement on the rivers, and that the monies that are going to be generated from this are going to be used so that there is increased enforcement, because that is what the biggest plea has been from everybody involved in the recreational salmon fishery, including the seniors, who use that as their preferred option for recreation every year. They want someone to put some people on the licensed rivers and streams so that there is going to be a recreational salmon fishery in the future, and that is what this money is directed towards.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, a budget or two ago the Minister of Finance announced the elimination of I don't know how many fees it was.

MS. VERGE: Seventy-seven.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Seventy-seven.

All we have heard the last year or so is more fees and more increases on existing fees, I say to the minister, so could the minister undertake, for the House, to determine how many of the announced seventy-seven supposed eliminations - how many really have taken place? How many licences and fees have been eliminated now since that announcement that seventy-seven were to be? Because obviously it hasn't been seventy-seven. And how many fees have been increased since the Minister of Finance's announcement?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two completely different issues again, and I am sure that because of the initiative which was brought forward a couple of years ago of eliminating unnecessary fees where possible, that is and continues to be a policy of the government, and there have been numerous ones that have been eliminated. However, when the debate and discussion deems that a fee should stay in place, this policy is just a matter of putting a consistent fee in place and seeing whether or not there is any reason or justification for having separate fees on the basis of age or of residency, non-residency and so on.

In this instance it was determined that the fee would not be eliminated, that it still makes sense to generate revenue from salmon licence fees, particularly since it can be directed towards increased enforcement on the rivers, the licensed rivers, so that we can preserve the recreational salmon fishery for the future, but in many other areas, and I am sure a list will be provided at the appropriate time, the policy which said nuisance fees and unnecessary fees should be eliminated is still adhered to, and one of the discussions in every decision that the Cabinet makes with respect to licensing permits and so on is: Should there be a fee? Is it necessary to charge, or do we just need to have the permit for regulatory purposes? That initiative is still ongoing, and I am sure a report will be given at the appropriate time.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses in this Province here lately, especially the last few years, have had a very difficult time in trying to survive. I suppose based on the recession, based on the downturn in the economy and so on, and especially as it pertains to tourism, is the minister aware that under the highway sign regulations and highway promotional signs, and under the development control division of his department, that they have lately sent out notices to small businesses around the Province especially as it pertains to the restaurant business in the Province, to have their signs taken down by June 1, or other action will be taken?

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

MR. REID: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the regulation and I am aware of the letter as well.

The letter was sent out basically because there is a proliferation of what I would consider bad signage in areas of this Province and it was a decision that we made I believe last year to be quite honest about it, and it is only now that we have managed to get the letters out. We will do everything possible within our power to help any small businesses that are finding it difficult to put up what we consider proper signage; but I think the hon. member understands why we had to make this regulation, because like he said, the tourism industry and because of proliferation of all these - I don't know how to describe signs all around this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, since the discussion in the House yesterday I have obtained information regarding the role of the Department of Justice and, in particular, the Director of Public Prosecutions, in the investigation of allegations in the wrongdoing at the Grenfell Regional Health Services. I want to tell the House that I am satisfied that the investigation and decision regarding the laying of charges was made by the RCMP alone. Further, I am satisfied that no advice was requested of the department, nor given by the Director of Public Prosecutions, with respect to the matter, and I am aware of no circumstances which would have required such advice.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I did not, nor do I now, cast any aspersions on the role or actions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for whom I have the greatest respect with regard to his integrity, judgement, and ability. I would expect, and hope, that any future decisions by the minister or Cabinet with respect to this individual would be made on the basis of merit alone, and any such decision would be fully supported by me.

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

MR. ROBERTS: If I may in response, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. gentleman and I only wish he had said yesterday what he said today. The record will stand and the matter will go on from there. I would simply say to him that any decision this government makes with respect to any matters of the nature to which he refers, or for that matter any other matters, but I will talk about the ones that are before us now, are made strictly on the basis of their merits and no other, and I will be heard to object here, or anywhere else, any time that any member of this House casts aspersions, unwittingly, as I believe the hon. gentleman did, upon the administration of justice in this Province, Sir.

I thank the hon. gentleman, and I hope - I hope, he has been able to undo the harm that was caused by his remarks yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

MS. VERGE: Where are the Western Memorial Hospital reports?

Petitions

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

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

I rise this morning to present a petition on behalf of eighty-six constituents of the district of Grand Bank, a petition opposing the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. This petition, along with several petitions I have presented in the past, is approaching now, I would say, somewhere in the vicinity of 1,500 petitioners from the district of Grand Bank, who want the government particularly to know that they oppose the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I need to read all the prayer of the petition. They are asking the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador `not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.' That is the prayer of the petition, and I am very pleased to stand this morning and present the petition on behalf of my constituents.

MR. TOBIN: How many people, `Bill'?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Eighty-six I say to my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West. That is now approaching 1,500 people, who have signed petitions opposing Hydro, in the district of Grand Bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the district of Grand Bank, that is, Fortune, Grand Bank, Grand Beach, Point May, Lamaline, Lawn, St. Lawrence, over the period of time that I have presented here.

Mr. Speaker, there is one question that constituents ask me every weekend when I go home, and I am sure I am going to be asked again tonight or tomorrow, especially now, in light of the corporate research poll that was released earlier this week. I get asked this question every week: `Do you really think the Premier is going to proceed with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro?' I get asked that question every weekend on a number of occasions and, of course, I don't know how to answer that. I say, `Well, I don't see how he can, in light of what he told you and me publicly, but he said he will and he said he won't, so I really don't know how to answer you on this question.'

I am sure that since earlier in the week, the Premier now is reconsidering the situation. He said publicly he was supposed to discuss the matter in Cabinet yesterday. I believe he said publicly that Cabinet would be discussing the issue again. So I really don't know what to say this weekend when I get asked, Mr. Speaker. Maybe, early next week, the Premier will stand in his place and announce that government is going to withdraw the privatization bill. I don't know. I'm sure the Cabinet has recommended to the Premier that he do just that. I'm sure they have, because ministers and members opposite know that it is a very, very unpopular situation in this Province, a very unpopular move that government is making to attempt to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. TOBIN: He promised to resign if he did that, so he can't do it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: True. The Premier has gotten himself into a bit of a box on the situation. That is right. He said that if the Hydro privatization didn't proceed because of the way that he has handled it, if the legislation didn't pass or had to be withdrawn, that he would resign. I guess he will have to do both if he withdraws the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do it all in one day.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He will have to do it all - yes, probably all in the same day.

I wanted to stand here, Mr. Speaker, and present this petition on behalf of constituents who are very much opposed, like two-thirds of the people of this Province, some 68 per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who support - whose opposition, really, to Hydro has solidified. If anything has happened in this Province the opposition to it has solidified and hardened. So I wanted to present the petition today on behalf of those constituents in the district of Grand Bank.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wholeheartedly support the petition of the citizens of Grand Bank district, so forcefully presented by the Member for Grand Bank.

Mr. Speaker, those people, the same as the vast majority of people in every part of the Province, are dead set against the government's proposal to privatize Hydro because they realize that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is a well-run, profitable corporation with the profits benefitting the Province, staying in the Province, and boosting the economy of the Province. They see that Crown ownership of Hydro is keeping down electricity rates. They realize that privatizing Hydro will result in much higher light bills, much higher bills than would result if government retains ownership of Hydro.

That has to occur because the same laws governing Newfoundland Light and Power rates would apply to a privatized Hydro, and would ensure to a privately-owned Hydro the same kind of rate of return on equity as Newfoundland Light and Power enjoys; and with a proposal to bring the debt-equity ratio more in line with the normal ratio, there would have to be approximately $50 million a year, each year, every year, added to electricity rates, coming out of the pockets of Newfoundland and Labrador consumers and business people, most of which would result in out-of-the-Province dividends, profits going out of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, people are haunted by the colossal disaster of the Upper Churchill and are very much afraid that privatizing Hydro will have similar consequences for the Lower Churchill, will amount to a handing over to private interests, controlled out of the Province, the means to develop the Lower Churchill.

The Premier has made many false and misleading and inconsistent statements in his unsuccessful attempt to persuade people that privatizing Hydro is necessary for our economic well-being. In fact, it would hurt the economy, not help it. In fact, it would greatly jeopardize opportunities for economic development in the medium- and long-term, not boost those opportunities. Mr. Speaker, the Premier even stooped to the low, the other day, of arguing that sale of Hydro is reversible. Now, on the one hand, he is trying to tell people that the government is desperate, that the government is cash-starved and absolutely has to get the approximately $300 million net estimated proceeds from Hydro privatization, and has to cut down on annual interest costs. He doesn't acknowledge that there are other better alternatives to address government's financial problems. Then, he goes on to say that Hydro privatization would be reversible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one reason people are so mad, angry, agitated almost to the point of getting involved in civil disobedience to try to stop Hydro privatization, is that they know that once Hydro goes we will never get it back, because if the government is desperate for $300 million this year, when the government changes after the next election in three years time or so, how can a government be expected to come up with the means to buy back Hydro? Because private controllers of Hydro surely would never sell it back for the low price that this government is willing to accept. So, Mr. Speaker, Hydro privatization makes no economic sense and people are left thinking that the Premier has an ulterior motive, that there is some skulduggery going on. It simply does not add up. And it is something that will be permanent - it is not something that can be changed with a change of government.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has no mandate from the people. He concealed from the electorate during last spring's election campaign his intention to privatize Hydro. He was asked about it point-blank, because rumours were circulating, and he sidestepped the question; he did not answer the question. He hid from people his agenda about Hydro - he probably hid it from the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we just saw from both hon. members again the kind of misrepresentation on which they founded their entire argument. The hon. member who stood up and presented the petition also misrepresented, again, the suggestion that I said if the Hydro legislation doesn't pass I would resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

PREMIER WELLS: Show me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did.

PREMIER WELLS: Show me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I was talking about the Electrical Power Control Act.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, get the tape.

PREMIER WELLS: Get the tape and listen to it. This is the kind of misrepresentation on which they founded their whole case in respect of Hydro. The hon. the Member for Humber East has expanded it greatly, the misrepresentation, in everything that she said.

Now, let me make clear the government's position on it. I did it the day before yesterday in the media; unfortunately, I am told the CBC television, at least, just took clips of it and didn't present the whole of the position, and this frequently happens, I suppose -it is because they are under time constraint or some other constraints that they do it. But let me state, Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday.

The government does not intend to withdraw the Hydro legislation. The government intends to continue to build public support for it because we are convinced -

MS. VERGE: You are not getting public support on it.

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. member would just keep her mouth closed for a moment, maybe the rest of the members would have a chance to hear what I say and they wouldn't be misled into making misrepresentations in the future. She surely has enough decency to allow me to make a statement, having castigated me on a personal basis in the manner in which she has. If she doesn't have that level of decency, she really ought not to be sitting in the House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me state again the position. The government does not intend to withdraw the Hydro privatization legislation. The government is convinced that is the best thing for this Province and its people. We are also convinced that the members opposite have been party to a perpetration of a massive fraud on the people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - have been party to perpetrating -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I heard the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl say something about swallowing lies, and the member has to withdraw that remark, but before I hear the hon. member on a point of order, I will ask the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, certainly, if I said something unparliamentary, I withdraw it, but it doesn't change the facts one bit.

MR. SPEAKER: Withdrawals have to be unconditional. I ask the hon. member to withdraw. Either he withdraws the remark - we can't have language accusing one another of lying.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) over there, the other day when the Minister of (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I didn't hear it, but if I hear it, I have to enforce the rules of the House. We can't have one member accusing another of lying, or of swallowing lies, so I ask the member to withdraw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) unconditional.

MR. SPEAKER: It has to be withdrawn.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I think I did withdraw it. With due respect, I did withdraw unparliamentary remarks. All I said was that that doesn't change the facts. There are many facts that are not changed by it.

MR. SIMMS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: What facts would the hon. member be referring to, the hon. Member for Mount Pearl?

MR. SIMMS: Well, you don't have to explain all that now.

MR. SPEAKER: I just wanted to make a point with hon. members. I expect hon. members to co-operate. We have to preserve some decorum in the House. We can't have aspersions cast on either side of the House, and if I hear them, and I know which hon. member says them, I will bring them to the hon. member's attention.

I will take the hon. member as having withdrawn the remark.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, thank you.

The hon. the Member for Humber East has a point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure Your Honour wants to be consistent in your rulings.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MS. VERGE: I rose to draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that the Premier said, on his feet, clearly and loudly, that members of the Opposition have been perpetrating a fraud. I take that to be unparliamentary language in the same way that Your Honour has ruled that words that I, and other hon. members have uttered, are unparliamentary. I would expect that Your Honour would request that the Premier retract what he said in accusing members of the Opposition of perpetrating a fraud.

MR. SIMMS: A massive fraud.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the statement unconditionally.

Now, let me go on to say - and I would ask for just a little bit of quiet so I can at least make the statement. The hon. members have made their statements. Have the decency to give me -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Does the hon. member have leave to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave? I heard a `no' - no leave given?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Motion carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, please call Order 2.(a), the Estimates of the Consolidated Fund Services.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of Supply to consider the Estimates for Consolidated Fund Services, the Legislature and the Executive Council, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (P.Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the estimates of the Executive Council, as we were yesterday and the day before, I want to ask the Minister of Finance - who was tied up yesterday afternoon, the early part, with the media, dealing with the teachers strike issue - some other questions that he has responsibility for in his capacity as President of Treasury Board, or President of the Executive Council.

One particular question I would like him to comment on or respond to: In the 1990 Estimates, his estimates that he tabled in the House in 1990, Newfoundland Information Services was moved under the Executive Council subhead, he will recall. Now, the revised estimates for NIS in 1989-1990, this government's first year in office, was $168,000 for that year. Four years later, last year, 1993-1994, the amount spent on NIS was $484,000; and the budget for this coming year is $545,000 - more than triple what it was four years ago.

Mr. Chairman, surely that is an alarming increase, particularly in an area when you must ask yourself what benefit NIS is serving. In these days of modern technology, these days of fax machines, for example, where -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is very expensive?

MR. SIMMS: Yes it is extremely expensive, I say to the minister. Over $500,000 budgeted for Newfoundland Information Services which has all kinds of restrictions, as the minister would know. It's basically to send out press releases from the government, various government departments but a government department these days with fax machines that most of us have in our offices could do the same thing for an awful lot less money.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) expensive.

MR. SIMMS: What using a fax machine? No, I don't think the Minister of Finance is right on that one. I think he would need to check that and do an analysis, a thorough analysis of that.

The fact of the matter is, $545,000 budgeted this year in the estimates for the use of the Newfoundland Information Service, up from $168,000 in 1990, four years ago. I mean it is an incredible increase in an area that surely doesn't appear to be a priority when you measure it against all the other priorities that the government has to face and the difficulties that the government has to face financially. Health care, the working group on child sexual abuse, these kinds of small issues - in the minds of many people - small amounts of money, certainly should be seen as priority above quadrupling or more than tripling the expenditure for the use of Newfoundland Information Service. So I would like the minister to defend, to justify that kind of an increase as to whether or not it is justifiable or whether it still is a useful function. What exactly is their function? What role does it play any longer?

While he's on his feet I guess, perhaps he could also tell us - I would like him to tell us if he could give us - I doubt if he has it at his finger tips - the total cost of media information, media coordination, public relations, information dispersal and the like, throughout the entire government.

We all know back in the days when we were the government, we had press secretaries and members and ministers opposite have often talked from time to time about those previous press secretaries and all that. I know that's what the Minister of Finance is getting ready now to get up and jump on because I saw a couple of people on the other side whispering across, don't forget this and that's all fine and dandy. We've heard all that before but you've been there now going on - you're in your sixth year. What we would like to know is, how many of those PR specialists are there throughout the government? How many information specialists are existing in various government departments? We know there are also information specialists, on top of the crew who are down in that centre there across from the travel agency in that area there, whatever they're called, the PR specialists the ones who presumably report to Judy Foote up in the Premier's office I think we were told once before.

In addition to those - which have multiplied by the way - in most government departments there are also these information specialists. You will find them everywhere, information officers. So how much - and you can attack us - I'll take the heat now or all the attacks you want on what we did six years ago. Get that out of your system. Spit that out, get that out of the way and then answer the question as to how much it is costing the government on all of these public relations information specialists and all the rest of it because I suspect it is a huge amount of money.

The question is whether or not this could be better coordinated and maybe there's an area where the government could save some money because certainly it wouldn't be a priority area in comparison to some of the other difficulties that the Province and the government are facing. So if he could tell us that and specifically, I didn't ask him specifically so I want to try to phrase the questions carefully so I get clear answers. What is the size of that PR network that operates downstairs? You know where I'm talking about, I presume. The ones that were told to report directly to Judy Foote.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Doing a superb job the minister says. Well I guess that's in the eyes of the beholder. People have different opinions of that but I just want to know the answers to the questions. The question is, how many are there down there now? What are their salaries? Could you also give that information as well? Are they all paid equal salaries or does it depend on - I know some of them I believe deal with three departments or something, or at least that was their original role. What are their salaries today, individual salaries? I would like that kind of information from the minister as well.

Mr. Chairman, that is one area of questioning that I would like to stick to at this point in time, and not to cloud it with some of the other questions that we have to ask about constitutional spending on constitutional affairs, which are in the Budget, funding that is provided under Military Training in Labrador. We would like to know what that funding is going to - we would like to have an explanation of the additional $120,000, and so on. I will get into those in subsequent exchanges.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the questions raised by the Leader of the Opposition it is clear that we don't have enough public relations people. We need more. Unfortunately when we took over we cut out a lot of the frills that the former government had and these expenses, and we tried to keep expenses down. As a matter of fact we kept them so low that the expenses of my Office are less now than they were in the Premier's Office in 1987-1988. Less now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

PREMIER WELLS: No, no, I'm talking about total. I'm quite prepared to table a list of actual amounts paid out every single year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) last year.

PREMIER WELLS: No, I will do it again. If the member says it is not true it is no problem, I will provide the actual count.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: No, they are not hidden. I will dig out what the former government hid too. The cost of cigars, the cost of alcohol, the private dining room. I will provide all of that too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Then you will get some truth out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: That is right, indeed. Don't hold your breath. Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that we don't have enough public relations people. I want to point to a classic example of it. We made a mistake in allowing the Opposition to take over and misrepresent the facts on the Hydro issue. We ought to have had more people getting the point out very clearly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: There is still - and, Mr. Chairman -

MR. SULLIVAN: You made a mistake on that one.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Chairman, I would like a little order.

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

PREMIER WELLS: When the hon. members don't like what they are hearing they shout like a gaggle of geese, and you might think you are in a barnyard hearing geese cackle around.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That is right.

Mr. Chairman, let me make clear, because obviously we haven't been getting the information out as effectively as we ought to, so we should be spending more money on Information Services, and I've no doubt we will in the future.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

PREMIER WELLS: I've no doubt we will in the future. To make sure that the people are properly informed instead of being misinformed in the way in which they were on Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Just by way of example, let me make very clear, Mr. Chairman, the government's intention is to continue with its policy on privatization. We intend to use the Information Services and to engage whatever other information services are necessary to make sure that we fully and properly inform the people of this Province. We have no intention of withdrawing the Hydro privatization legislation because we are convinced that it is in the best interests of the people of this Province to proceed with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: It is the best thing that we can do for the Province economically, and it is the best thing that we can do for the Province financially. To give us some kind of a future, a future which the members opposite, when they sat in government virtually destroyed and put on the rocks. We've had to salvage the ship, Mr. Chairman!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: I appreciate that the member wants to disassociate himself with his other colleagues. I can understand that, I can well understand why.

Mr. Chairman, let me make it very clear that the government will continue to use all of the public relations facilities at its disposal to make sure that the people of this Province are fully informed as to the real facts on the Hydro issue so that they can make their decision on a fair basis instead of the emotionally charged and totally false basis that has been put forward recently.

Mr. Chairman, the privatization of Hydro results in no harm whatsoever for this Province, no loss whatsoever for this Province - no harm, but all kinds of gain for this Province economically and financially.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: There are all kinds of gains for this Province. I have listed them time and time again, the financial improvement, eliminate $1 billion from our debt burden, save tens of millions of dollars a year in interest payments, and every year hereafter, all of it absolutely correct. The members have misled.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we are going to use all of the public relations facilities that are necessary to make sure that the misinformation that is being spread is corrected and that the people of this Province are fully informed. We intend to continue to build public support for Hydro privatization and we have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing the legislation. We intend to proceed.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen the worst kinds of displays of petty political action from members opposite in trying to thwart the government's objective and policy here. We have seen them in the House. Every time I try to speak you get this barnyard of geese, constantly gabbling so that no coherent statements can be made. If they are going to stop the truth from coming out in this House we will spend whatever public resources are necessary to ensure that the people of this Province are fully and properly informed.

Mr. Chairman, I assure the people of this Province that we are not going to waste a single dollar in the process. It will be spent in the best interest of the people of this Province. It is no wonder the people of this Province are disgusted with the performance of members of the House. It is no wonder they are offended when they sit in the galleries and write letters about performance. When I look at the way members opposite are performing -

AN HON. MEMBER: And you.

PREMIER WELLS: But, Mr. Chairman, in fairness to them, I have to say they performed exactly the same way when they were over here. When I first came into this House and sat on the Opposition side, the most frustrating and difficult thing I had to cope with was the incredible misbehaviour of the members on the government side. There was no way they would allow for any kind of a fair and reasonable debate. They resorted to personal attacks on everything, and now they do the same thing, they continue the same approach.

Well, Mr. Chairman, they are not going to stop the government from getting the information out. We will use whatever resources are necessary to make sure that the people of this Province are fully informed, and I can assure the people of the Province that we intend to continue with our economic and financial policies that will build a sound financial and economic future for our people. I have no intention whatsoever of withdrawing the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, if ever you heard a distasteful presentation in your lives you heard it right then from that Premier - very distasteful. He gets up and says what he wants to say and then runs away, runs away like a scalded cat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: You talk about a screw-up in priorities. The Premier gets up here today and tells this House that the government should, and probably will, spend more money on public relations. Now, there is the priority, spend more money on public relations, including the selling of Hydro.

Meanwhile, they are closing down hospital beds. He won't provide a measly $100,000 for the working group on child sexual abuse for the Minister of Social Services, then he has the gall to stand in his place here today and lecture us, and tell us, that we don't give him a chance to speak when he is up speaking; when the performance of members opposite any time, particularly when he isn't in attendance, is ten times as bad, Mr. Chairman, ten times as bad. All he does is cackle and yackle and caw like the Minister of Health. So, if he can't take the heat, I say to the Premier, he should do what he just did: get out of the kitchen - that's the best place for him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Now, Mr. Chairman, if that's their priority - and believe me, believe me that message will get out, what he just said here today, because I will make sure it gets out. Their priority is to spend more money on public relations. He said that here today, and we will get it out.

Is it any wonder why the people of this Province, Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder why the people of this Province have lost all hopes and respect and credibility for this government and the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just merely wish to point out that the hon. member has it wrong. The priority was to build the economic future of this Province by selling Hydro and that message has to get out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, here is the man who agrees with the priority being spending more money on public relations after just closing down hundreds of hospitals beds, I guess, over the last few years in this Province. Now, there is what you get from the Minister of Health, and I wish the Premier was here then when the Minister of Health got up and interrupted me when we are trying to have a debate here. He did exactly what the Premier accused us of doing, so they have double standards, Mr. Chairman, but this government is becoming well-known for that.

Now, the Premier then had the gall to stand in this House and accuse us of misleading the people. That's what he had the gall to do, yet, that is the same man who went on Province-wide television on Tuesday, March 24, or whenever it was, and told everybody in the Province, not just us, all the people in the Province that what he was telling us - he was misleading all the people of the Province because that wasn't his real reason for privatizing Hydro. Here is the real reason - now, who is misleading whom? It isn't us, it was the Premier of this Province, Mr. Chairman, that's the whole problem.

Now, one thing I will say to the Premier, I will agree with him. He said in his comments, I listened very closely: that the government has told all the facts on Hydro and indeed they have spent tens of thousands of dollars, they have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars telling the people of the Province in advertising campaigns on radio, in newspaper ads; the Premier went on Province-wide television and radio, the Premier also sent some of his ministers out around; yes, they have told the facts and still 68 per cent of the people of this Province oppose the plan of the Premier and the government. Now, that is what is most distasteful -

MR. TULK: Tory poll.

MR. SIMMS: - because the people - oh, `Tory poll,' says the Member for Fogo. The Member for Fogo hasn't much now, I tell you, to hang on to. These are Tory polls. Decima Research, the largest public opinion survey company in the country - and they have done work for Liberal governments, too, I say to the Member for Fogo. Market Quest Research Inc., here in Newfoundland is a Tory company, is it, Market Quest is? That is not true and you know better, and Corporate Research who does the polls that you guys have stood up in this House and bragged about in the past, because of where your public opinion was, so, if you would like to dismiss it as Tory polls, then that's just another nail in your coffin, my friend, that's what I say to you.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line in all of this and the sad part, is that members opposite have been led by the collars down that road and you are never going to turn back now because you have walked into the trap. You have been convinced by the Premier, and I am telling you, I am going to say it here today; I am going to tell you here today, you don't know the whole reason behind the privatization of Hydro yet, you don't know the whole reason. The whole reason will come out, Mr. Chairman, in due course, but just like sheep, just like sheep, you are following him right down that road and it will be to your detriment but, worse than that, sadly, regrettably, it will be to the detriment of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because it will be the biggest blunder, the biggest political mistake, the biggest economic mistake, ever to happen to this Province, and by God, that is saying something! That is right up there with Sprung, that is right up there with the Upper Churchill, and all the rest of those major blunders. That is truly how I feel and two-thirds of the people of this Province feel.

What is most distasteful is that despite the fact that the people are against it, the Premier says he is right and everybody else is wrong. I would like to know what gives him the right to say that what he says goes and what the people say doesn't matter one tinker's damn. That is what I would like to know, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate an opportunity to speak on the estimates today. I would like to follow up on - (inaudible) the Member for Grand Bank wanted to say a few words but I guess we will wait until afterwards. It is always good to sit and listen to the Member for Grand Bank - one might learn a thing or two. I suggest to the members opposite that they should listen to him more often.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Speak up.

MR. MANNING: I will speak up now when I'm ready, I say to the Member for Eagle River. I say, you spoke up last night. Who lost the debate last night, I ask you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The Member for Eagle River was finally put in his place last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) across the Province.

MR. MANNING: Yes, right on. The Member for Eagle River was finally put in his place last night, I say, Mr. Chairman.

The problem with Hydro, and it seems as if it becomes more evident as each day passes, is not that the people don't know enough about Hydro, it is that the people know too much about Hydro. That is why the people are convinced. The Premier said a few moments ago, before he hightailed it out of here, that government is convinced and the people are not. The people are convinced, and that is why they've spoken out in polls. Just last week with the CBC poll, 68 per cent of the people spoke out against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. They've sent a loud and clear message once again of their disgust with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. They are speaking out because they know enough about the issue to speak out, because of efforts on our part and efforts of several groups here in the Province, trying to get the message out on what exactly the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro will mean to this Province.

People have spoken out in petitions that we are putting forward here. We got stifled again today just after one petition. I had a petition here of almost fifty people from the Mount Carmel area of my district that I've been three days trying to present now and didn't get the opportunity to present, but I'm sure I will get to do so next week.

The people have sent a loud and clear message through petitions, they've sent a loud and clear message through Open Line shows, letters to the editors, public meetings. They sent a loud and clear message through the two or three polls that have been conducted in this Province. If the government hasn't received the message loud and clear, I have to ask are they deaf, dumb or stupid, because the message is loud and clear from the people of this Province that they are against the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to just get into a few of the estimates now that I stood up to speak on concerning some questions I have. I'm sure the Minister of Finance will try to enlighten me on some of this. It concerns the Executive Council and Government House. When I was going through some parts of the estimates last week I was surprised, as a matter of fact, to find how much money is being spent on Government House. I have to ask myself, is it really necessary?

Government House, itself, in salaries and establishment operations, costs the Province a total of something over $500,000 a year. Budgeted for this year: $513,000; $494,100 estimated for this year for Government House, Mr. Chairman. I have to ask the minister, is it necessary that the Lieutenant-Governor of this Province have two gardeners? - around $55,000 for two gardeners for the Lieutenant-Governor? Is it necessary that the Lieutenant-Governor have a seamstress? Is it necessary that the Lieutenant-Governor have five domestic workers? Mr. Chairman, we have to ask ourselves, is it necessary to have a situation like we have in this Province, a Province that is hurting from one end to the other, is it necessary that we have budgeted in this year's Budget, almost half-a-million dollars for the operation of the Lieutenant-Governor's House? I have to ask, Mr. Chairman, is it necessary? This money is wasted, as far as I'm concerned. I believe that there must be a way of saving dollars. We cut $50,000 grants to organizations in this Province that need them to survive and, Mr. Chairman, you really have to ask yourself, is it necessary that we spend $500,000 on the Lieutenant-Governor's operation in this Province?

I would like to ask the minister, if he gets a chance sometime today, would he answer the question in the debate? Are there any plans afoot to try to save some dollars from this operation? I think there's certainly room for cost-cutting here, if there's room for cost cutting anywhere in the Budget.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Fogo - for a fellow who doesn't get up and speak very often in the House, he has some lip!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Anyway, to get back to the estimates, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I'd like to remind the hon. the Member for Fogo and the hon. the Member for Ferryland that I've recognized the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection.

Mr. Chairman, if we could get back to the estimates and my questions with regard to Government House. I did some investigating last week, Mr. Chairman, and I found out that some other jurisdictions in the country maintain their Lieutenant-Governors at a lot less cost than Newfoundland does. Instead of operating a small mansion downtown, we could look at setting up the Lieutenant-Governor in an apartment somewhere maybe, and try to save $300,000 or $400,000 here. I'm sure it's possible if we put our minds to it. I really am astounded that you could come up with half-a-million dollars to spend on the Lieutenant-Governor's operation here in the Province, in the name of the Queen.

I'm sure the Minister of Finance would like to make a few comments on this. It certainly was unknown to me before I came into the House of Assembly how much money that operation costs this Province, especially, when people out there now are suffering because of the cutbacks that have to be made to health care and education and other parts of the Budget. To see that we still can allow - it's only about a 3 or 4 per cent decrease in what was budgeted last year and what is budgeted this year, Mr. Chairman, while other parts of the Budget are being cut drastically. You have to ask yourself sometimes, is it really necessary? So I'm sure the Minister of Finance would like to say a few words about this.

I see here that the Private Secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor receives a salary of $62,000 and then he or she -whoever it may be - has a secretary at $25,000; and then there's a secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor of almost $34,000, for a total of four secretaries, at a cost of $121,880. Now I really have to ask, is this necessary? Is it necessary that we spend $121,880 on secretaries at Government House? And at the same time we go across this Province and close hospital beds, and have cutbacks in education, et cetera.

We sit down and go down through establishment operations. We have a gardener at the Lieutenant-Governor's house who has a $30,000 salary; a chef, $26,000; housekeeper, $23,000. We have a gardener number two. One gardener is not enough, so they gave him two gardeners. The second gardener gets a salary of $24,750.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) office.

MR. MANNING: The office; okay. Sorry about that. I stand to be corrected.

We have a chauffeur for the Lieutenant-Governor, who gets a salary of $22,367. We have a seamstress down at the Lieutenant-Governor's house who gets $19,201. While us humble people here have to use Rawlins Cross Cleaners, he gets his own seamstress.

We have five domestic workers. The office of the Lieutenant-Governor has five domestic workers, at a total cost of $94,460. The establishment operations -

The total activity of establishment operations costs $240,910 - a quarter of a million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

MR. MANNING: For the establishment operations at the Lieutenant-Governor's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What does that include?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: You weren't listening; I just answered.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, the total (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: No, this is just for the establishment operations, $240,000. The total program for salaries down at the Lieutenant-Governor's House is $362,790. We are talking about half a million dollars to run the Lieutenant-Governor's house. I am sure that if cuts have to be made by this government in services to this Province, I am sure that we could save $300,000 or $400,000 if we put our mind to it, and still hold on to the office of the Lieutenant-Governor. I have no problem with the office of the Lieutenant-Governor as such, but I say that establishment operations were $20,000 over-budgeted in 1993.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance some serious questions in regard to Government House, and I would like to ask him: The establishment operations at Government House were $20,000 over-budget in 1993; I would like to have that explained, please.

I would also like to know how much of the cost of Government House and the Lieutenant-Governor, if any, is picked up by Ottawa? How much of the cost of Government House and the Lieutenant-Governor, if any, is picked up by Ottawa? I would like to know.

The Minister of Finance is tied up with - I asked some questions here, trying to find some places that we can cut where we won't hurt the ordinary Newfoundlanders, I say to the Member for Eagle River. He is all upset about the debate last night, and I understand. You don't hold a candle to the Member for Pleasantville, I say.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: The Minister of Finance, if he had a few moments, could maybe answer a few of the questions I have in regard to Government House, and the possibility of ways that we could cut some money at Government House. I say to the Minister of Finance: Would you be interested in answering a few questions, I wonder?

We sit down and also look at the Premier's Office, under Executive Council, and a budget of $621,000 for the Premier's office. Right here we are talking about somewhere in the area of $1.2 million for the Premier's office and Government House. You have to ask yourself, is it all necessary?

I say to the Minister of Finance, when I look through the Estimates here, and I have a look at what is happening at Government House, and how much money is being spent at Government House, and then I stand up and hear the Premier, or the Minister of Finance, or whoever, asking questions or concerns, and telling us that they have to make cuts in health care, and they have to make cuts in education, because of the amount of money it is costing to operate this Province, et cetera. I have to ask myself, is it necessary that we spend $500,000 on Government House? It really begs an answer, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will have the opportunity to answer some of the questions that I've put forward in regards to Government House.

I have a fair amount of other questions I would like to ask about Government House. Has the government made any representation to Ottawa or to the Crown for additional support in running the operations of Government House? I would like to ask of the Minister of Finance how much assistance comes from Ottawa in regards to Government House, and have they approached Ottawa in regards to assistance, because it really is a federal appointment. I have to ask myself, how much does Ottawa put into it, and how much is put on the backs of taxpayers in Newfoundland?

When we look down through the Budget and the other parts of the Estimates and you see where people have to be cut from duties, as far as I'm concerned, that are worthwhile and necessary to this Province, in regards to nurses and nursing assistants and other people in the public sector, and we look at the government standing up now and proposing....

AN HON. MEMBER: Send over your notes (inaudible).

MR. MANNING: I haven't got anything written down, I say, `Pops,' nothing written down. I say to the Minister of Finance, I would like to ask a few simple questions, a few straightforward questions if I could, to the Minister of Finance, and try to get some answer with regards to Government House. I think it is a waste of money to spend $500,000 on Government House, a waste of money. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance has the government made any representation to Ottawa or to the Crown for additional support in running the operations at Government House?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: Yes, to the Crown for additional support in running the operations of the Government House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. MANNING: What is that, Bill?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say, write a letter to Her Majesty for a few shillings.

MR. MANNING: I would like to ask, how much of the cost of Government House and the Lieutenant-Governor is picked up by Ottawa. A breakdown of how much the Government House costs Newfoundland taxpayers and how much is funded by Ottawa. I would like to know that, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) salary.

MR. MANNING: Yes, I'm asking the questions. I'm sure the Minister of Finance will have the answers. I would like to ask what explanation does the minister have for the $20,000 over budget at the establishment operations last year. $20,000 over budget with the establishment operations of Government House last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. members' time is up.

MR. MANNING: I have some more questions which I will follow up on after but just to touch on a few. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Grand Bank indicated as I was standing up that I don't know very much so I shouldn't be very long. He is probably right about the length. I'm the first to admit that there are gaps in my knowledge that should perhaps be filled.

I've listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member. He seems to be concentrating on the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment. It seems to me that is his major concern. In the budget we have about $494,000 this year for the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment. Last year the budget was $513,000 and we spent $535,000 so there is a drop of $40,000 approximately in our estimated costs for the coming year. I think in the previous two years there were also drops in cost, so the cost of the Lieutenant-Governor's establishment, the costs to us, have been going down. His Honour has cooperated in terms of our fiscal position and recognizes the need for restraint. We appreciate the fact that His Honour has been contributing his share. However, what interests me about this is that there seems to be a feeling being expressed by members opposite that their preferred position is that we abolish that position altogether; that somehow, if they were in government, they would simply abolish that function.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, certainly not!

MR. BAKER: Now, they know that they cannot just unilaterally abolish the function. However, I get the feeling that what they'd do is they'd say: Alright, we'll have the Lieutenant-Governor and we'll put him up in an apartment somewhere in the city. We'll put him up in some kind of an apartment or let him pay his own apartment - just an apartment available somewhere in the city where the Lieutenant-Governor can operate from. Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if that is, in fact, the position of members opposite. I kind of suspect that it is not.

Mr. Chairman, Government House is an historic part of both St. John's and the Province. It is situated in an area that I suppose if members opposite were in government, they could tear down, demolish the building and put up an apartment complex or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

MR. BAKER: but I think, Mr. Chairman, that would be a shame to destroy such an important part of our heritage. I would suggest that hon. members request a tour of Government House, because I'm sure that His Honour would give them a tour of Government House to point out the historic importance of that particular establishment to the Province. As a matter of fact, I could even arrange it for hon. members if they wanted to have a look at the inside of Government House. I suspect, Mr. Chairman, that that's the only way they'll see the inside again, is if I arrange a tour. I'd be glad to do that.

What I'd like to say about it, Mr. Chairman, is that I am very pleased that His Honour has recognized the need for restraint. I'm very pleased that the cost of the operation of Government House has been reduced over the last few years but, Mr. Chairman, I for one, would not have any part of simply eliminating that establishment, of bulldozing it to the ground and perhaps building an apartment complex on the grounds of Government House, of destroying a great historic part of this Province. I for one could never, ever support that. I only hope, if the occasion does occur some time in the next twenty years, that members opposite do form the Government of the Province, that they will reconsider this very ill-conceived position they now have, of what to do with Government House, the grounds of Government House and all that kind of thing. I plead with them to consider the historic importance to the Province, to consider what their position is, to reconsider their position. All I can hope, Mr. Chairman, is that twenty years down the road, by the time they're ready to form the government again, there'll be such a change in members opposite that the new individuals who are there perhaps would not have such a callous attitude towards this very important position in the Province.

I know, Mr. Chairman, that many of the members opposite intend to be here twenty years down the road. I know the Member for Grand Bank intends to be sitting in this House for the next twenty years, would love to. The same thing for the Member for Burin - Placentia West, he would love to be around twenty years from now, sitting in Opposition and waiting for his chance to get back in government, but I really hope that the members that exist in that day and age will not have the same callous attitude as members opposite.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board a few questions. I don't know if there have been any questions raised in this debate on the Consolidated Fund Services, and I'll let the minister get ready to answer them.

The Consolidated Fund Services is a particularly important part of the finances of the Province and it has to do with the servicing of the public debt and other arrangements, that there are sinking funds and that sort of thing. I wonder if I could get the minister's attention to ask a few questions that I hope he would answer.

MR. BAKER: I am listening. I normally can't hear you clearly but (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I thought the minister was listening to the Minister of Social Services.

MR. BAKER: I can do two things at the same time.

MR. HARRIS: Well, I'm glad. I hope he can walk and chew gum as well. I've noticed him walking a number of times but I haven't seen him chew gum at the same time, so I wasn't sure.

On the Consolidated Fund Services, I have a couple of specific questions. The first one is: Would the minister advise where we are in terms of the percentage of our revenues? I notice that our revenues - on the whole, the government revenues are $3.14 billion projected for 1994-1995. Could the minister indicate what percentage of revenue projected for 1994-1995 is going to service the public debt? That figure used a couple of years ago, was down around 12 per cent or 13 per cent. The minister could indicate exactly what that is now, whether there has been any change.

Can he, in dealing with public debt issues, looking at the sinking fund provisions - and it appears that the government makes about $19 million in interest on the sinking fund assets that government is required to keep. There is obviously a cost every year for the sinking funds, putting money into sinking funds and setting it aside. There is also revenue on that. Can the minister indicate the total amount of money that is held in sinking funds by government now to offset the debt payments required?

Can the minister say that in calculating the total government debt, if, for example - would the sinking fund amounts be subtracted from the total amount? In a general situation where you have the debt obligation on the one hand; next to that you have certain assets in sinking funds. Is that subtracted from the debt when government is giving figures on its debt? In other words, are we getting a net figure when government talks about this type of thing?

The other question I would like to ask the minister to answer - and this relates to the proposed privatization of Hydro - can the minister indicate what the potential savings are from an interest on debt projections would be with the privatization of Hydro? And he can give figures. He doesn't have to say: We expect we are going to make $326 million. But, at, say, $300 million, $350 million, $400 million, what would be the projected savings based on the current issue of long-term government bonds? How much would the government expect to save in these revenues in the current year, based on what other capital borrowings might be required, and where do those figures come from?

Of course, against that, where does the government seek to carry out its borrowing program for this year? Can he tell us about the plans? Which debts - certain matters are becoming due that have to be replaced. Where does the minister intend to raise that money? Which bond agencies does he intend to use to raise the funds? Who would be the government's agents in raising this money?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The money that - the government's borrowing program for the year. The government will be borrowing at the very least to replace those issues that have become due. So if the minister could tell us that. I may have a few other questions but I will leave it at that for now.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to deal with a few of the questions asked by the Member for St. John's East.

First of all, the percentage of revenues for debt service is remaining about the same, 13 per cent, 14 per cent, in that range. I could do an exact calculation for him but the numbers in terms of debt are given in CFS. The cost is somewhat below $500 million in terms of debt servicing. Again, the exact figures should be there, $480 million, $470 million, $479 million, in that range, in terms of servicing the debt.

That has gone up a little bit since last year. As the hon. member knows we've gone through a period of changes in the Canadian dollar and changes in interest rates that have had some effect. However, each year there has been an addition to the public debt. In other words, we have not yet reached the point where we are not adding to the public debt. We would like to get to that point but we are not there yet. Each year there has been an increase in the essential basic cost of servicing the public debt.

The total in sinking finds. I think is about $1.4 billion at this point in time in the sinking funds. Depending on which numbers you mean. If you talk in terms of numbers used by the credit rating agencies they talk about total provincial debt, they talk about total direct debt of the Province, and these are two different numbers. In one case it would be about $6.5 billion, in the other case it would be about $5.8 billion, but always they back off the sinking funds. The sinking funds are not included in any of these different measures of the debt of the Province, depending on which number you are referring to. Whether it was total debt or direct debt of the Province. The sinking funds are backed off, is my understanding.

The privatization of Hydro. How much will the numbers change, how much would we expect to save. I can't get into a lot of details on that because that hasn't happened. All I can say is that first of all in our Budget this year we've had nothing. We've simply assumed that the privatization is not occurring, and our Budget is done on that basis. If the privatization does occur this year then the later into the year it goes the less effect it will have. As a matter of fact, I could check it out, but if it is beyond a certain point then it will have no positive effect in terms of our revenues in this current year, but then the effect would roll over into the next year. The net effect would be that for a year and a half, perhaps, we would not have to do any borrowing at all. Or another way of doing it would be to spread out over three years and say: For three years we will do no extra borrowing. There are a number of ways to handle it. Whichever way we handle it would determine the net effect on our finances.

If we were to simply not borrow anything for a year and a half it would mean that our total debt would reduce, that we would save interest payments on whatever amount we received as proceeds from Hydro. These interest savings would be saved. That is the amount we don't know because we have no concept of what the interest rates will be. If we assume 8 per cent we will give you one number, if we assume 10 per cent we will give you another number. The interest savings - I believe the numbers thrown around have been around $25 million, $30 million, in that range, that we would save every year, depending on the proceeds. That is the number that has been used and that is the number I will stick with, with the caveat that that could change, depending on interest rates and depending upon the market circumstances at the time of privatizing Hydro. Whether we get 115 to book, or whether we get 130 to book, or whatever. It depends on the proceeds.

Who would raise the money for the Province. That would depend on where we would go to raise the money. The general set-up is this. That if we go to the United States, if we go to the New York market to raise money, then the lead manager is Merrill Lynch. There is a consortium of investment dealers that is part of that issue. These investment dealers, once we decide to go to issue and they agree to be part of that issue, they in essence themselves guarantee the sale of all of the bonds. They guarantee that. If they can't sell it on the market then they are stuck for it and they have to provide us with our money. That consortium involves I believe ten different investment dealers led by Merrill Lynch. If the money is raised in Europe then there is an entirely different consortium led by ScotiaMcLeod. This would involve some British, French, German investment firms. If we go to Europe to raise our money then that is what happens.

Since I've been minister we've done one issue in Europe and we've done three issues in New York. We have not gone to the Canadian market to do an issue because that market, by and large, has not been available to us when we've needed it and the cost of going to that market was much higher than going to the New York market. As a matter of fact, the last issue we did in New York, it was more favourable to do it in New York than in Canada. To the extent that the Canadian dollar would have to drop below $0.60 cents American and stay there for the term in order to reach a break even point. As long as the Canadian dollar stayed above that then it was much more profitable to go to the United States to do the issue.

We take all these things into account. The quick answer is that it depends on where we go to raise money as to who makes up the group that then goes and tries to sell our paper.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would thank the minister. I take it then that if for example the actual direct debt of the Province was, say, $6.5 billion, and there was $1.5 billion in the sinking funds, that the debt would be regarded as being $5 billion and not $6.5 billion. It is a net figure that is being used.

I am just looking at Appendix II to the Estimates, at pages 318, 319 and 320. That lists out the interest and debt retirement in 1994-1995. I take it that some of these are being paid off this year and some of them are not. I see all of the bonds are listed here. It doesn't indicate which ones are being paid off but it shows a total of $500 million. Perhaps all of them are being paid off this year. Are all of them being paid off and renegotiated this year? What does that appendix refer to? It gives the interest and debt retirement to 1994-1995, lists the sinking fund requirements. Some of them are listed as debt redemptions. I see that some of the older bonds are being redeemed. Sixty-nine million dollars, for example, at 11 and 3/8 percent, on page 318. Another $84 million in Japanese yen that is being repaid this year. Those have interest rates of 5.4 per cent or 6.25 per cent, et cetera. Although I suppose that the rising value of the yen has made these 5 per cent interest rates not very attractive at all.

Can the minister indicate whether or not there is a net gain in paying off some of these issues and refinancing them at the present interest rates? Or are we expecting that the interest costs are going to be higher? Will they be higher or will they be lower? in other words, the new refinancing that has to take place this year, is that advantageous to the Province to refinance some of this at current rates or is it going to be a negative impact on our costs by virtue of the refinancing?

Perhaps, while the minister is on his feet, he can tell us about the news - our hearts went up for a day or two and then they went down again after Premier Klein was reined in by the Liberals in Alberta. Premier Klein wanted to do so a favour but the Liberals would not let him. That is the news I got from the news. He was talking about 22 or 23 per cent bonds. I do not see them listed here. Does the government owe the Alberta Heritage Fund significant amounts of money at 22 per cent interest rates? Can the minister enlighten us on that, and tell us whether he had any chats with Premier Klein about this, and what he might have advised the government about his plans. For the first twenty-four hours or so it sounded pretty good to me, Mr. Chairman. It sounded like a gesture that we would welcome here, and I wonder whether the minister has any thoughts on that, and can enlighten us as to what the obligations are to the government of Alberta or the Alberta Heritage Trust Fund?

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

MR. BAKER: I have a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker. First of all, as the hon. gentleman knows, if he goes through those pages he can pick out the ones that are being redeemed this year, or due this year. A decision on each of them, of course, has to be made. There are a couple of Japanese issues falling due, and I guess a decision has to be made as to whether it is more advantageous at the time for us to simply turn it over in the Japanese market again or to convert to US dollars, or Canadian dollars.

The decision will be made on the basis of conditions at the time. On the surface it looks as if those interest rates are low, that we obtained them at, but then there was a tremendous foreign exchange risk which created problems. I think over the last number of years the foreign exchange risk that this government has taken, and that previous governments have taken, have in the overall worked out positively.

We have had bad experiences, I believe, in some of the Japanese issues and some good experiences with Swiss issues which have more than counterbalanced. The experience in the foreign markets has been largely positive, however. I hasten to add that the full story is not known yet because some of these issues are not yet due, and it may be indeed advantageous for us, at some point in time, to start hedging against currency changes. That is something we now have under active consideration, the idea of perhaps hedging some of this outstanding debt so that we do not have to take a big downside risk in terms of exchange losses.

That is going to cost us some money and the question becomes: is it worthwhile spending a few million dollars to avoid a downside risk that might be a hundred million? That is the type of things we have to decide. We are looking very seriously now at hedging some of that foreign debt so that there is not a big downsiding, and we are not caught by any surprises a few years down the road.

He could go through on those pages he mentioned and pick out the ones that come due in 1994. Some of them have sinking funds that are substantial and others do not have sinking funds. If you were to look back at Exhibit 5, Public Sector Debt, on Page X(i) at the beginning he would get a more exact breakdown of public sector debt, and in each case he will notice that in fact the sinking funds - well, let us go down through it.

In 1994 for this coming year the provincial direct debt is estimated at $5.6 billion, made up of debentures and treasury bills that are outstanding. The direct provincial debt, $5.6 million, if we include Crown corporations and other debt, then it would go up by $2.3 billion, but then you would have to back off the $1.4 billion that is in the sinking funds and that would then, instead of increasing from $5.6 to $7.9, or $8 billion, would in fact end up being $6.5 billion.

That is sort of a complete explanation. The hon. member can see how it has gone since 1990, and he can see that there have been large increases in public debt over that time. That is something that is very alarming. From 1990 our direct provincial debt was $4.5 billion and now it is up to $5.6 billion. It has increased by $1.1 billion in five years.

That is very alarming. That is an average of over $200 million a year. But still the accumulation of debt in numbers has been over $200 million a year and we feel that we cannot continue on that way, and that we must somehow, first of all, slow down that increase and then eliminate the increase altogether in terms of public sector debt, and we feel that the only true way to bring employment to this Province; that's the only true way that people of the Province will start to see the benefits of increased disposable income, that's the only way the people of the Province will see very much of an improvement in public service and so on, if we simply stop going further and further into debt, control that and then the increases in revenue can be put to good use because right now the increases in revenue have to be put into servicing a growing and ever larger public debt, and that is not a good situation so we have some suffering for a while I suppose, if you want to put it that way so that we stop the growth of the public debt and once we accomplish that, then any increases in activity and normal growth and so on, will be able to be put directly back to the people in the Province rather than going to service the public debt and that's the point at which this Province will be perceived by the people in the Province to start to prosper, is at that point when any growth can be put back into the people of the Province and not go to service increasing debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Oh sorry, excuse me, if I could just deal with the other point.

The member also mentioned - sorry, I forgot about that, because the first topic was so dear to my heart that I get carried away with it.

The Alberta situation, I did know the exact numbers - when in the heat of the moment but I can easily get them and I will; but it seems to me that most of that debt in the Heritage fund was not in fact - our government debt was Hydro debt okay, so the effect on this Province was much smaller; I believe people were talking about $250 million or something, well that's not this Province, part of that was Hydro debt.

The other piece of misinformation and I think this was put out by The Globe and Mail , was that this was at a rate of 22 per cent; in actual fact the rate I believe is 12 per cent, 12 or 13 per cent in that range which was reasonable for the time, very reasonable; and I can very quickly do that and get it to the hon. gentleman - an exact breakdown. I have had no contact with Premier Klein, however I have talked to the Alberta Treasurer, Jim Dinning a number of times, and that particular proposal or offer by Premier Klein was done I suppose with all good intentions, with the idea of somehow helping Newfoundland on the basis that during the depression, Newfoundland being a separate country, recognized the plight of Albertans and sent a lot of food to Alberta during the depression and that's a fact that is widely known in Alberta, surprisingly -

MR. HARRIS: Saskatchewan (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes. So that was something that was widely known in Alberta and it really surprised me that people generations since would still remember that and Premier Klein, recognizing that fact wanted to make some kind of an offer and I think that the whole thing was exaggerated in a sense by The Globe and Mail in the interview that was done, he meant his offer and still does with the best of intentions and he has indicated that if there is any way that he can help out he would, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I have no idea what went on internally. I think that all of a sudden people realized that: Maybe this is not the best way to do it, number one. Number two, that it was a much smaller amount than they had thought. Number three, that there were other provinces in financial difficulty as well.

The fact of the matter is that there is a negative in that in Newfoundland. Even though I appreciated the fact that they were thinking of us there was a big negative in that for Newfoundland, because we are not a basket case. We don't need that. We are coming out of the recession. All indications are now that our revenues are improving, that things are starting to turn around, really turning around. That there is good prospect in the next few years for a lot of good things in this Province, and that we in fact, if you look at our medium - to long-term prospects, are probably better off than most other provinces in the country.

That proposal by Premier Klein presented a kind of false impression as to where Newfoundland is and what it`s needs are. We are going to come out of this, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be stronger, our revenues are going to grow, our services are going to get better, and at a certain point in time perhaps we will have the capability of helping some other part of Canada. That is in the medium - to long-term in our future. Make no mistake about it.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Hydro?

MR. BAKER: The doom and gloom, Mr. Chairman, is not justified.

I will respond to the comment shouted out by the Member for Humber East. She said: What about Hydro? Let's talk about it just one minute. I explained a few moments ago - I think the hon. member was here, maybe she wasn't - I explained to the House a few moments ago that there is a very important thing has to happen before we can take advantage of this growth. That is, that we have to stop the growth of the public debt. We must stop the growth of the public debt. Because if we don't stop the growth of the public debt as things turn around and as revenues improve still a greater and greater proportion of that improvement is going to have to be put into paying interest on the ever-increasing debt.

That is the worst place in the world to put it. As our revenues increase we really believe that if these revenues, the increase in revenues, can be put back to the people of the Province that that is when things will happen in the Province. We must get off the treadmill of ever-increasing debt. We see the sale of Hydro as a mechanism to allow us to get off that treadmill. That is the way I look at it. I would like to have a couple of years where there is no borrowing, to give time to adjust expenditures and so on, to make changes necessary, so that we don't have to go to the market and borrow more money each year.

That is a part of the (inaudible). It is not the only thing. That is not the be-all and end-all. I'm the first one to admit that. That is part of the plan, to get off the treadmill of ever-increasing debt so that growth money can be put back to the people of the Province. That is when this economy will turn around. That is when we will see ourselves having less and less dependence on Ottawa for a huge chunk of our revenues. That day will come. I remember another famous quote from a former premier about that.

MS. VERGE: Some day the sun will shine.

MR. BAKER: That is right. It will happen. Perhaps not as quickly as we had once hoped. Imagine what would have happened had the growth continued and the groundfish industry not collapsed, and those things had not happened. We may have been getting there now.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, these are just a few comments on what the Member for St. John's East had to say.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Burin - Placentia West is not used to being here Friday mornings. He is getting a little bit annoyed now because other members get up and speak. I don't know what is the matter with him. He is like a fish out of water this morning. He is used to being home with his family on Fridays, but....

MR. SULLIVAN: He is after trying out every seat in the House this morning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He has been in every seat in the House except the Premier's and I don't know now when he is going over there and try that one out.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I was listening to the Minister of Finance. I say, I appreciate him being so optimistic.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good sign.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is a good sign. At least he is optimistic. If it wasn't Friday morning I would wonder what they are putting in his glass that is different from what they are putting in the rest of our glasses, I say to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What was that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He goes to the positive thinkers club.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he must, but it's amazing to hear him talk about the growth, the improvement. I only wish I could run into some of it, I say to the Minister of Finance. It is so hard to find in this Province today, and it's mainly because this government has done nothing.

If you look back over the record of this government, what have they done? What have they stimulated? What community have they helped in this Province? What industry have they helped in this Province? Not one. They have done nothing except cut, cut, cut, freeze, cut, and freeze some more. Then they wonder why Standard and Poor's, when they downgraded the credit rating a couple of weeks ago, said the reason for it is that there has been no economic growth in Newfoundland and Labrador - no economic growth.

Your fiscal policy, your fiscal direction, hasn't worked, they told the Minister of Finance. He went down to New York and pleaded with them: Please don't downgrade us now - just what he said then, that the growth and the things are getting better. He went down to New York and told Standard and Poor's this, and they still downgraded the Province's credit rating. They downgraded the credit rating, knowing that the government is going to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. They knew they were going to privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and they still downgraded the credit rating, which really shoots the Premier's arguments and the minister's arguments, really blows it away, when they talk about the benefits of the cash we are going to get because we privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Standard and Poor's knows that the government is going to use that so they don't have to borrow, or borrow as much, but still they downgraded the credit rating, so it is directly linked to a lack of economic stimulation, of economic growth.

Of course, when you listen to the Premier - I don't mean to attack the Minister of Finance, I really don't, but - when I sat here this morning and listened to the Premier say that his priority now is to spend more money on public relations in this Province - going to spend more money on public relations; that is what he said - that is his number one priority. Of course, here it is again. This morning, now, after a couple of days ago 68 per cent of the people told him they don't agree with the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, here it is, a full page ad -

MS. VERGE: In today's paper.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: In today's paper, costing thousands of dollars. Here it is again today, with a public relations outfit, Newfoundland Information Services, that in 1990, by the way, was budgeted $168,600 - Newfoundland Information Services; last year Newfoundland Information Services, $484,000 - last year. What do you think they are budgeted this year? $545,000 - gone from $168,000 to $545,000 - Newfoundland Information Services, and the Premier stands in his place this morning and says, we are going to spend even more money on public relations.

That is his priority, public relations. It's not getting people to work. It's not getting the dispute settled with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association. It's public relations he's concerned about, and that is all he has done since he became Premier, is wonder and worry about public relations, not about putting people to work in this Province, or stimulating the economy - public relations - and I say it is too late for the Premier now to spend any more money on public relations. He is a cooked goose.

I say to him, with all the public relations people that he has on staff in the various departments, and his office where it is headed up, dozens of them now, public relations specialists, university trained people, degrees, a new person back now who went away to school for a year up there, just back for a year, went away to better himself, dozens and dozens of public relations specialists headed up by highly trained and educated people, and the Premier says: We need more.

We have lost badly on the Hydro privatization because our public relations has not been up to scratch; that's what the Premier said this morning.

Now I say to the Premier, it is not more money that the Premier needs, maybe he should look at replacing the people who are in the public relations team. He says: I give the Opposition credit, they have done a better job on selling their points on Hydro than we have. What an admission for the Premier to make, saying that we have been more effective with the public of the Province than the government with its hundreds of thousands of dollars and with its dozens of public relations specialists, and the Opposition, here we are, we have one person, we have one public relations person in our office, I say to the Minister of Finance and the Government House Leader, one public relations person we have on staff, so what does that tell you about it?

I say they should cut the Budget in public relations, Mr. Chairman, cut the Budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get rid of it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, get rid of it; it is not working; but it just tells you, but you know it has something to do with public relations to a degree, but what it has to do with is that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that the privatization of Hydro is not in their best interests. That's what it is all about. 64 per cent of those polled a few days ago said they had sufficient information, adequate information on this issue to make a decision; 64 per cent of them said they were well-informed; they know it is a bad deal and still the Premier is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more on top of the millions that have already been spent by the way, on this privatization effort, hundreds of thousands more to still try and convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that because he thinks it is best, it is best.

Now I think he should stop the expenditure. He should open a few hospital beds, fifty they announced in the Budget they were going to close; fifty more hospital beds they announced in the Budget they were going to close this year. $100,000 the Minister of Social Services couldn't give the community group on child sexual abuse, $100,000 can you imagine, with the problems that is in child abuse in this Province today, that the government didn't see fit and would not budget $100,000 for that group, and yet we see the full-page ads in The Evening Telegram again today, and the radio ads and the television ads will start again now, trying to convince the people of this Province that something that is bad is good, because the Premier says it is in their best interest; and members opposite sit there like trained seals, like mice, and allow him to get away with it and they go out in their districts and get attacked on a weekly basis on this issue and others and sit there and take it. It is unbelievable.

The Member for Harbour Main is shaking his head over there when yesterday he had to stand in his place and read a letter from people in his district concerned about the teachers' dispute; they want the students back in the classrooms. When it was on the dispute between the government and the NLTA, and yet you are spending thousands and thousands of dollars more today, wasting it on ads to try and convince people that Hydro is good; you are doing that, and the ads, over the last number of weeks on the teachers dispute and on educational reform, I say to the member, millions of dollars this government is spending this fiscal year on advertising and yet, when a group of employees such as the NLTA just says: listen, hold on, we are not asking for anything extra, just leave us as we are.

That is all they are asking for, we are not asking for anything additional, just leave our benefits package as it is and this government says: oh no, no; we can't leave you as you are, you have to take cuts when the money that you are squandering and all this nonsense and public relations which is a priority of this Premier, and closing hospital beds, I say to the Member for Harbour Main, don't go pointing at me and talking about the mess that we made, you made the mess, you and this Premier and this Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and this Minister of Finance, you have made the mess because you haven't created one job in this Province in six years, not one job, it is only what you have eliminated in this Province; thousands and thousands of jobs you have eliminated, and you wonder why Standard and Poor's downgraded the credit rating, it`s because there has been no economic growth, when every year you are taking more disposable income out of people's pockets, more disposable income out of every person's pocket in this Province whether it be a public employee -

You have increased taxes. At least, Mr. Chairman, I must say there are two things I have done this morning -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The two things I have done, I got the Premier to his feet, and I got the Member for Harbour Main to speak. Those are two major accomplishments I have done here this morning.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to deal with a couple of points raised by my good friend from Grand Bank. He has an interesting way of looking at things. First of all, he indicates that the Premier talked today about Newfoundland Information Services and public relations. Then he said that because the Premier talked about that, that is the most important thing on his mind, the only thing he thinks about; he doesn't think about the teachers' strike; he doesn't think about the economic condition of the Province; he doesn't think about all those things, now that is his number one priority.

The actual fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier was simply responding to a question by members opposite. It seems to indicate to me that maybe members opposite think that, perhaps, is the most important thing going on in the Province at the present time. So the Premier was simply responding to a question, as he should. The comment was made, and the request was made for an answer, and he simply gave an answer. That is no indication that is the most important thing he has on his mind, or anything else.

If the Opposition wants to ask a question about the other issues that they consider to be important, then they should ask the questions and they will get the answers, but if the Opposition insists on dealing with frivolities and minor points that really have no impact on the future of this Province, and if they insist on dealing with all those little things, then they have to expect to get a response in the same manner. So I just want to point that out.

In terms of NIS, I just want to make a comment about it that government, and by government I mean government departments and so on, must have a way of disseminating information, and that is the function of NIS now. It is not the propaganda machine for Cabinet that the previous NIS was about seven or eight years ago. It's not that. Cabinet has nothing to do with it.

Once upon a time NIS was used for the dissemination of political information. It was part of the big blue machine in the Province. That has changed. NIS is now servicing government departments, and it is not used at all, that I know of, by Cabinet. I have never used them. So they are simply to get out information. One of the jobs of government is to get out information. If we made no attempt to get out information, members opposite would be saying: What, do you have yourselves in a cocoon in here and you don't care about the people out there because you are not telling them what's available.

Being in government, you can't win. It is easy to be in Opposition when you can criticize without having any responsibility for making decisions, but we feel that is an important part of the process, getting information out to people around the Province.

Also, the Member for Grand Bank, my very good friend, made comments about Standard and Poor's and the rating agencies. Again, he has an interesting way of looking at things. We have released, and it has been released publicly, the comments of the rating agencies, and essentially what they said was this: Over the past four years this government has been doing the right things.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. BAKER: This government has been doing what should be done. This government has had the right fiscal and economic approach to the problems they are facing. All four of the rating agencies made that point. They also made the point that the privatization of Hydro was a positive; they also made that point. So they said there are two things going for it. Newfoundland has a couple of things going for it. One big thing is the approach that government is taking. That is the most important positive that they see in this Province, the approach of government.

As an afterthought they said that part of that approach was a privatization initiative, and they mentioned the privatization of Hydro as being a positive, and a part of that approach, but the big positive was the approach of government.

Then they went on to explain the other factors, that are external, that are not under the control of this Government and the reason for the concern and the downgrading by Standard and Poors.

It's rather interesting that the member, my good friend from Grand Bank can talk about what the rating agency said in a manner that indicates to me that he has not even read what they've said. That really surprises me but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he has not read it. I'll give him that benefit, had he read it he would be saying the exact opposite of what he just said in this House. So I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He's a nice fellow, good fellow, intelligent and so on and had he read the reports from Standard and Poor's, Moody's, DBRS and CBRS, he would have, I'm sure, said the exact opposite of what he was just saying about governments approach.

He did make an interesting comment though about economic stimulation and I find myself in 100 per cent agreement with the Member for Grand Bank on the idea that: Look, the fundamental problem is that there has not been good economic growth in the last few years. I agree 100 per cent, primarily because of the disappearance of the groundfish industry. Mr. Chairman, that's important but I suspect that the way the Member for Grand Bank meant it was - when he talked about: there should be economic stimulation. I wonder what he meant? Did he mean that perhaps we should take measures to ensure that the fish came back? I agree, if we could, that it would be marvellous. Did he mean that we would take measures to improve the business climate and encourage new businesses to start up? If he meant that then I'm 100 per cent with him, great and we've done a lot of those things.

I'd be very, very happy and pleased to support what he's saying but, Mr. Chairman, I suspect what he meant was the approach taken by members opposite, that you take huge blobs of money, that you go out and borrow, and you throw it at a problem. Now I suspect that's what he meant. Mr. Chairman, if that approach would work, if that approach had any chance of success, if that approach could ever work in history, it should have worked for this Province. It should have worked here because for seventeen years they took that approach to stimulate the economy and they did it, not by a reasoned approach to stimulate the economy, not by encouraging new businesses to start, not by creating the conditions for new job creation but by taking huge blobs of money and putting people to work for ten weeks so that they could get UI the rest of the year and throwing huge blobs of money at businesses. That's what they call economic stimulation, putting this Province on the rocks, getting the debt level so high that it becomes an unbearable burden and we have to suffer the downgrading that we suffered from the rating agency.

I suspect that's what he meant because I still suspect he's thinking the same way he was when he was in Cabinet. When the approach was: regardless of whether times are good or bad, boys, let's go out and spend her. Let's go out and spend the money. Borrow $200 million or $300 million, no problem. Let's go out, grab the money and throw it at the problem. We're going to stimulate this economy. Well, Mr. Chairman, it didn't work. If there's any economy that's been stimulated - by stimulating the economy you mean putting more money into it then you're taking out of it -

MR. GRIMES: Make the point that five of them over there who washed their hands and said: Oh, we weren't here and didn't do that but they ran and supported the party that did it and (inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Absolutely and they were part of it. They were part of it simply because they support that attitude.

So, Mr. Chairman, if economic stimulation means simply throwing money at the problem then we have a 100 per cent disagreement, the Member for Grand Bank and myself, who, as I'll repeat, is a fine fellow and a good friend of mine.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just felt I should set the record straight on the reason we were talking about - because in response to a question about the rating agencies reports and the truth of that matter - and I gave my hon. friend the benefit of the doubt that maybe he hadn't read the reports but I can always make them available to him and finally the concept of economic stimulation has been tried for seventeen years in this Province and has been a dismal failure.

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

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make a few comments on some of the things the Minister of Finance has touched on during the debate. I would like to say that I did not get to hear what the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was saying, but you cannot be like Pontius Pilate, you cannot wipe your hands clear of it now, and that goes for your part of it, too.

The minister has to leave but I want to touch on some of the things I have been speaking on earlier, and some questions I had. I want to comment first on the Hydro issue and the concern that has been brought forward by some members on this side this morning with regard to government's plan to continue with the privatization. The Premier must not be in the building.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MANNING: The Premier must not be in the building because you are speaking again.

With regards to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro and the fact that the people are now being bombarded with ads, like the full page ad in The Evening Telegram and radio ads. The government has announced today that they plan to spend more dollars on public relations while people all around this Province are suffering because of the economic situation we find ourselves in, because of the cod moratorium, and everything else. The government now intends to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on public relations with regard to the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, it appals me to say the least, and I have to question the purpose of it. The people spoke, the people spoke last week in a poll taken by CBC. They spoke in a poll earlier, they spoke in several ways. We have presented petitions here on their behalf, on open line shows, and letters to the editor. Whenever the people spoke, I think in last week's poll 69 per cent were against the privatization of Hydro, and some 82 or 83 per cent in the poll before that said they would like to have a vote throughout the Province on Newfoundland Hydro. I think the people have spoken loud and clear, but I think the problem is that the people opposite, especially the Premier, are not listening to what the people are saying.

I say it is not the fact that this Premier needs more dollars, maybe he needs some `cents' I say, Mr. Chairman. I have some concerns which I started talking about in the estimates earlier this morning. Several speakers have spoken in between on the concerns they have with the estimates.

I have some questions that I want to put forward with regards to the Lieutenant-Governors operation here in the Province, and some concerns I have with Government House that come under the Executive Council. Basically, those are the questions I was asking, but then we all got off on tirades about other things. One of the concerns I have: is it necessary in a Province like we are in now where we are trying to cut costs wherever we can, I ask the Minister of Finance if it is necessary to have two gardeners down at the Lieutenant-Governor's house?

I would like to follow up on a couple of the comments before I get into the details again. I jumped ahead of myself that time. I would like to make a few comments on something the Minister of Finance alluded to, the fact that members opposite were interested in having the position of the Lieutenant-Governor abolished, if we were in power we would abolish it, but I say, no, Mr. Chairman, and I want to clarify that for the record. We are not talking about abolishing the office of the Lieutenant-Governor. What we are talking about is having a look at the cost of the operation, of the office of the Lieutenant-Governor and if there is any way possible we can save dollars by having a look at it.

We are not talking about destroying the property down there, as the Minister of Finance alluded to earlier. We are not talking about going down and bulldozing the property of the Lieutenant-Governor. There is great potential for that building. If the Lieutenant-Governor was moved to a suitable quarters, what would be wrong with looking at the building for a Newfoundland museum, for example, that would generate revenue instead of costing this Province money. There are several ways that we can look at saving money at the Lieutenant-Governor's house, but at the house itself, at Government House. I am not talking about the office of the Lieutenant-Governor. I just want to clarify that and make sure that the Minister of Finance is fully aware of what we are saying on this side of the House.

The Minister of Finance also touched on the fact that a visit to Government House - I have been at Government House before, and it hasn't changed my mind. Like I said before, the concern is the cost to the taxpayers of this Province, the cost to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador that I am concerned about, as a member of this House, and the questions I have as they relate to Government House have to do with, as far as I am concerned, too much money in the Budget being allocated for Government House. Is it necessary that we put half a million dollars a year - this year budgeted $494,100 - is it necessary that $494,100 be spent for the office of the Government House?

Has the government ever considered closing down Government House as the official residence of the Lieutenant-Governor, and moving him somewhere more suitable, plus cutting the cost of maybe $300,000 or $400,000 that could be put into organizations such as the committee for child sexual abuse, or whatever the case may be, where we see $100,000 cut this year.

I have a problem in justifying, or the government trying to justify, I should say, under establishment operation at Government House, that we have two gardeners, a chauffeur, a seamstress, five domestic workers, a chef, a housekeeper, all taking down salaries which total around $250,000 - a quarter of a million dollars - for eleven positions. At the same time we see that the Minister of Social Services is forced to withdraw $100,000 from the committee for child sexual abuse. You have to ask yourself: Where are the priorities, and where are the concerns of this government as they relate to the people of the Province?

I am sure that if we took a strong look at Government House, and the office of Government House, that there is a possibility there that we could save $200,000 or $300,000 by just realigning some of the duties and looking at the whole operation as it sits there now.

Under administrative support alone at the Government House, we have a private secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor. We have a secretary to the Lieutenant-Governor, and then we have a secretary to the assistant deputy minister, which gives us three positions for $121,880. I really have to ask: Is it necessary that all these funds be spent to operate Government House at a cost, like I said, around half a million dollars. There have to be some questions answered in regards to this, and I am sure that money could be saved.

Now I also want to say that the Minister of Finance touched on the fact that last year, I believe, funding was dropped by around $40,000 and it has been on the down side, and it is important that we look at trying to save dollars wherever we can, but I am sure that other jurisdictions across this country - we all have Lieutenant-Governors, and I think it would be maybe an idea for the Minister of Finance to look at the other jurisdictions in the country to see what way they operate in regard to their Lieutenant-Governors, and what way any money could be saved. These are questions that beg answers.

In last year's Budget, under property, furnishing and equipment for establishment operations, there was $1,900 budgeted, and there was $6,400 spent - more than 200 per cent over what was budgeted - so I would like the hon. Minister of Finance to find out when we can get some of these answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments in relation to the number of speakers who stood up over there this morning from the opposition, and made some comments about the estimates of the Department of Finance, Treasury Board and some other things that they see wrong in the way in which government is spending its money.

The Leader of the Opposition is one of those who interested me most when he made some comments about the way in which we were governing, and the polls, that the polls are showing a negative against the government of today. If we are going to take four or five minutes and talk about the situation of the problem of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we get an opportunity to look at the financial picture of the Province, it is interesting to know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: - it is interesting to know they get up and they shout and they make a point. We have taken up three hours this morning in this House with questions about the financial situation of the Province and why we are doing something. When we get up to respond to the questions and make some answers, nobody has the interest to listen so I don't know why I am wasting my time trying to give some answers to the questions.

Anyhow, let's get back on track, Mr. Chairman. The government of this Province is not unlike a business, is not unlike a family situation in any home.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. EFFORD: My God, I can't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: It is not unlike the financial situation of any personal family, small businesses, large businesses or a government, they are all one and the same. You operate on the amounts of money which you take in and according to the amount of money taken in, you have to make decisions on how it is spent. It is simple. If a family takes in $2,000 a month, it can't spend $3,000. If a small business income is $10,000 a month, it can't spend $20,000. Government is no different. You can only operate on that amount of money, that portion of revenues which you take in on the expenses that you have to pay out. Somewhere you have to find a balance on how to properly manage that amount of money which you have at your disposal to take care of the essential services of the people of this Province.

If government had at its disposal enough monies to pay out to all of those people who require and ask for monies, and if we had the money we would do so. Any government would, regardless of your political stripe, you do what you can to provide the services for the people for that amount of money which you have at your disposal, and if we require $3 billion to properly manage this Province and we only have $2.5 billion, what are we supposed to do? We have to cut back and we have to make some major decisions that are going to have a negative impact on some of the people of the Province. No matter how you do it, that is the result. You cannot please all of the people all of the time, and I mention that, in fact, because the Leader of the Opposition talked about polls. He is quite right, that the polls now are against the privatization of Hydro, it's 64, 65, 68 per cent depending on who is taking the poll.

Let's use the number 68 per cent, let's go to 75 - the percentage doesn't matter. The fact is that the people, most of the people - there has been so much publicity, so much negative talk about it, the obvious comment of the people is: `Well, I don't understand it so I had better say no to it.' That's reasonable, but I don't want to get tied up with Hydro any more than I want to get tied up with the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), `John', you want to (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: The point I am trying to make here is that, you cannot govern and make the decisions necessary to protect the financial interests of the government, and that's the people of the Province, we are only the administrators. Every person in this Province is the government, we are only the administrators for this particular time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: You see, Mr. Chairman -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) the shop!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. EFFORD: I say to the Member for Humber East, the seventeen years that they were in power, it was they who sold the shop, Mr. Chairman.

MS. VERGE: What about Churchill Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to make is not necessarily to talk about Hydro or to talk about the teacher situation or the NAPE situation or CUPE. The point I'm trying to make is that with the revenue we have coming into the Province, we have more demands than there is money to supply them. We have to make the right decisions. We can keep on borrowing like governments of the past - and I will say `governments'; I won't point the finger at the Opposition - you keep on borrowing until it comes to a point where there is just no capability for borrowing any further. There comes a point in time when you cannot even pay the interest on your debt.

Like I said, I referred to government the same as any small or large business, or a family situation. If you take in a certain amount of money and every month you have a deficit, and you go and borrow from somebody, there comes a point in time, well then, you just can't borrow. It's no good running to your neighbour or to a family relative, saying: I need another $100 - I'm short this month because I bought something that I couldn't afford. The situation comes when the neighbour or the family relative says: Look, it is useless giving you any more money because you can't manage the amount of money you have got coming in on a weekly or monthly basis. That is the simplistic way of explaining it, but it is the sensible way.

If you can't manage the amount of money you are receiving in providing services for the people of the Province, then you have no business being there. That is the situation we are in today. We can be irresponsible, and if we want to keep all of the people happy, and we want to keep all the polls in our favour, go over and borrow another $200 million, $300 million, $400 million, $500 million, and provide everybody that asks for something, give them what we want. Then we are going to be the greatest guys in the world. The polls are going to go up and we are going to be the best politicians. We are going to be guaranteed re-election. Is that what the people in this Province want? Do they want us to go out and borrow foolishly and drive their children into bankruptcy, that our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren have to pay off that debt?

Well, I'm going to be honest. I like politics as much as any member in this House of Assembly, or anybody in this Province, but I'm going to tell you something. I didn't operate my businesses, when I was in private business, that way. I knew at the end of the year I had better be able to balance the books or the banks were going to close me. Government is no different. I'm not going to sign my name or be a part of any government that is going to make decisions that are going to bankrupt this Province and that my children and grandchildren, or any young children in this Province, are going to have to pay it off. Anybody who is going to operate in that manner, I don't want to be any part of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You would have to resign.

MR. EFFORD: Well, then, that is what I would do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: We saw, Mr. Chairman, after seventeen years - when they took over government we owed $800 million, and when they finished, we owed over $7 billion. Now, I have confidence in the people of this Province that they do not want this government to keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. You cannot maintain a financial situation that way. When you owe the amount of debt that this Province has - we have borrowed the minimum amount of money possible to keep this Province going. The minimum amount of money possible. It's come to the point now, Mr. Chairman, that you say, enough is enough. We are all going to have to change our expectations. Each and every one of us are going to have to change our lifestyle, change our expectations - there's not going to be the free giving of money in the future. And I don't think, except for playing politics -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) the Premier's private elevator if we all have to change our lifestyles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing and the hon. member, the former Minister of Justice -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Yes, I might have to get expelled again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Now, let me explain this, Mr. Chairman, this is silly. There is absolutely no such thing in this Province as a private elevator for the Premier. That is an absolute untruth. Let me say to you very clearly, the elevators -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: When you start telling the truth, then it cuts, you see.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Is the minister suggesting that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair hasn't recognized the hon. member yet. Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member, I want to say that there's too much conversation going on in the Chamber right now. If members find it necessary then I think they should move outside, otherwise they should pay attention, listen to and give an hon. member an opportunity to be heard in this Chamber.

The hon. the Member for Humber East on a point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. Chairperson, if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is correct in saying that there's no Premier's private elevator, I'd like the minister to give me the key so I might use it. I might find it more convenient when I come in the front door and get off on the fifth floor -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There's no point of order.

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the issue of Hydro that was talked about earlier today. The Premier had some words and then I had some words before the Premier left. Subsequent to that, it has come to my attention that the Premier has said outside the House that it's governments intention to now increase spending on advertising and public relations, to try to convince the public once again that they are wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now he was very tricky in the House, I say to my colleague from Mount Pearl. What he said in the House in response to my question was: I don't think we are spending enough on public relations. Maybe we will spend even more. Perhaps we will spend even more.

That is the way he did it. Outside the House he has now admitted - not that we needed him to admit it, because all you have to do is look at today's Evening Telegram and see another $2,500 coloured ad on the back page of The Evening Telegram.

Mr. Chairman, let me also say to you that this ad is full of misleading statements again, even though he continues to accuse us of misleading the public. Let me just go through a few. By the way, I say to the members opposite, when they see this expenditure kind of money being wasted and spent, the arguments are precisely the same old arguments that you have been getting on with for the last two months, and people don't buy it.

I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who just implied that the public don't understand it, that he doesn't know what he is talking about. The public do understand it. That is precisely the point, and that was evidenced in the corporate research poll, CBC's the other night, when they asked the people not only what your position was, but they also asked them: Do you understand the issue?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I have it all here.

They said, `yes'. Sixty-four per cent understood the issue enough to make their own determination, and their determination was not to proceed; we do not want Hydro sold.

So the question that still lingers in people's minds is: Why, in the name of heavens, are you going to proceed? Because the Premier told us today he is going to proceed with privatization, even though - I say to my colleagues, by the way, even though - I have since heard today as well, members on the back bench over there have been telling people now that the Hydro privatization initiative is on the back burner. Now that is what we are hearing this morning.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, you had better tell your own colleagues; don't tell me. That's where it came from.

The Minister of Finance is smiling because he knows I struck a nerve, and he knows that I am getting close.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with the Member for Fogo today? What is wrong with him?

AN HON. MEMBER: He is uptight, boy; he's not allowed to speak.

MR. SIMMS: Uptight? Take a valium or something, or go out and lie down and have a nap on the couch in the common room or something.

Anyway, I am not convinced of that, because I think it is trickery again. The Premier is probably convinced -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I say to my colleague, I have seen the two ads.

The Premier has used trickery once again, verbal trickery, to convince the members in the back bench in particular, now. What he is saying to them is that we will not proceed with privatization immediately, you see. That is one issue, but the issue that we are facing today in the House of Assembly is whether or not the bill to allow them to privatize whenever they want to gets through. That is the key question. I say to members opposite, that bill will proceed. The Premier has indicated to us the bill will proceed. He has managed to talk the back bench into settling down a bit because he will say now: We won't proceed to privatize until we are absolutely sure we've got good, solid support. We are going to spend tens of thousands of more dollars to try to convince the people and the public that they are wrong, that I am right, says he. That is what is going on.

Just look. You talk about misleading. I mean, that galls me when he gets up there and accuses us of misleading the people. Here is their first big $2,500 ad, the first line: The facts about privatization, Mr. Chairman. Here is the first line in the ad.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first facts!

MR. SIMMS: The first fact. The legislation relating to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro Corporation is now being debated in the House of Assembly. That is some fact, Mr. Chairman. The legislation hasn't been debated in the House of Assembly for two months. It hasn't been in the House for two months! Since March. After the Province-wide debate and the public turned on the Premier the bill was withdrawn off the agenda. It hasn't been debated. Bill No. 1 has not been debated in this House since late March, over two months. There is the first big lie, the first big lie in the ad.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I can accuse the ad of lying as much as I wish. Not unparliamentary. His colleague the Government House Leader will tell him. Of course, he should know it as a former House Leader.

There is the first big lie. The legislation is now being debated in the House. You talk about misleading. Fact one: The Province is not losing a resource. I mean to tell you, after all the last two months of them spending $100,000 in advertizing they are saying the same old stuff again. They are certainly losing an asset, no doubt about that, and in the minds of the public and the people of Newfoundland that is a resource. Labrador power developments are not affected. We've debated and argued that for two months, we know that is not true. But the people, the public, have understood those arguments for two months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: I said the bill hasn't been debated in the House for two months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with the Member for Fogo? Is he trying to score some points with his colleagues over there? Look! He has been there for two hours this morning yapping and cackling and cawing and kee-cawing and hee-hawing and everything else, yet he has not had the intestinal fortitude to stand on his two feet and speak in the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: All he does is sit there, yaw, yaw, yaw. I say to the Government House Leader and to the Minister of Finance that you had better tell the Premier that he better not come into this House again and point his finger over at us and lecture us for interrupting or interjecting when he is speaking. Do not ever again lecture to us when you have people like that over there from Fogo doing exactly the same kind of nonsense. You had better tell the Premier that.

Fact three, all rates will be regulated. That is fact number three. Well, whoever said the rates would not be regulated? That is not even an issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it true?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, the rates are going to be regulated, but that is not the issue, but they are also going to be increased. That is not even an argument I say to the Minister of Finance. Why is he wasting $2500 to put forward such a stupid argument? All rates will be regulated. There will be no layoffs, no Hydro employees will be laid off. Now, the Premier told us two or three months ago that he could not tell if there would be any job losses, but here is the trick again, then they go on to say that any reductions in staff would be achieved through retirement, voluntary severance, and normal attrition. Now, you talk about trickery. There will be no layoffs but job losses. Now, all we have argued is that there will be job losses, so it is a weak attempt to try to cover up the real point, which is, that there will be jobs lost and there is nobody going to deny that.

Hydro remains a Newfoundland company. Mr. Chairman, the new Hydro will be a Newfoundland company with the majority of its board of directors in this Province. Now, what is interesting about that is that until last week when the Government House Leader gave a notice of amendment to the legislation, I think, it said there was going to be 60 per cent members on the board, but now for some strange reason they have an amendment saying it is going to be reduced down to a majority to give more opportunities for somebody outside to sit on the board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, having listened to that diatribe -

AN HON. MEMBER: That was an excellent speech.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may think it is an excellent speech, and I agree, compared to most of his speeches, it certainly is an excellent one.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the report be received?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee sit again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I'll move the adjournment in a second but before I do perhaps I could say three things to members. First of all, we have now seven hours and seven minutes - 7:07 - left I am told in this ongoing examination of the estimates.

Secondly, I would anticipate that on Monday we shall be carrying on with part of these seven hours and seven minutes. If there's any change, I'll either let my friend from Grand Bank or the Leader of the Opposition know but at this stage the House will anticipate we'll be back on this Monday afternoon.

Thirdly, I want to thank all those who congratulated me. This happens to be the 30th Anniversary today that I first came to work with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, a long time ago. If only I were a teacher, somebody said to me, I could draw my pension tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many years?

MR. ROBERTS: Thirty years, May 27, 1964. Anyway on that happy note -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: - I will say to my friend the Minister of Finance, I've been drawing a check by one means or another from the government over those thirty years because when I left the House I got a pension, which of course I gave up when I came back into the Cabinet, into the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move the House adjourn until Monday, at 2:00 p.m.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until Monday, at 2:00 p.m.