May 27,

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

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 hi