May 24,

1994 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLII

No. 47

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the projects announced under the

lead-site phase of the Youth Service Canada program on Friday past. This program

is evidence of the federal government's commitment to provide employment

opportunities for the young people in our Province and throughout the country.

The first group of lead-sites under the programs were selected from a flood of

unsolicited proposals, reflecting a strong public interest in the concept of a

community-based youth service initiative. The majority of funds from the program

will go directly to the participants who will receive a regionally-determined

weekly stipend and a completion bonus of not less than $2000. The bonus will be

in the form of a voucher that participants can redeem to cover costs such as the

cost of going back to school or to help repay student loans.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has been very

successful in this initial phase of the Youth Service Canada program. Of the 623

young people who will gain relevant experience, develop their skills, strengthen

their self-esteem and contribute to their communities across Canada, 37 of these

individuals are from our Province. They will work in one of three lead-sites,

namely: Buchans, at the James Hornell Boys and Girls Club, on the Bonavista

Peninsula in a project sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation

Corps, and in St. John's at the Brother T.I. Murphy Learning Resource Centre.

$370,000 of the $6.23 million for the lead-sites phase will be spent in

Newfoundland. In comparison to other areas of the country our Province has fared

very well.

These projects involve community work which emphasizes

relevant work experience and skills development that will help participants when

they enter the regular workforce. Priority areas for projects are community

development and learning, sustainable development and the environment, positive

attitudes and behaviours and entrepreneurship. For 1994-95, Mr. Speaker, Youth

Services Canada has a budget of $25 million and aims to mobilize 2500 youth in

community service projects throughout the country. The Province will continue to

work with the federal government in setting priority areas for activities and in

selecting future projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We on this side of the House welcome any initiative put

forward that will see the development of young people in terms of social

development, economic development, and personal development. I cannot comment in

any detail because I did not receive a copy of the Ministerial Statement prior

to the House opening, but I can say this, Mr. Speaker. This government has let

youth down in this Province consistently in their mandate. We have seen less and

less each year in terms of student employment programs, graduate employment

programs offered by this government. I have said also, Mr. Speaker, consistently

in this House since being elected, that if there is any segment of our society

that has been let down the most, that the least has been done for, it is the

young people of this Province, so witnessed in the elimination of the grant

portion for student aid, for students attempting to attain a post-secondary

education. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the minister to take

some initiative -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and take the lead and to develop more

programs aimed at the development of youth in this Province.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, over the long weekend I had

occasion to be in my constituency once again, and while there I had a chance to

meet and speak with several groups and individuals representing nurses, health

care workers, doctors and members of the general public, all of whom are very

worried and extremely concerned about the effects of the government's budget

cuts on the delivery of health care services that are supposed to be delivered

in the central region by the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre,

and, Mr. Speaker, in fact, a lot of these individuals are now gathering

petitions, are raising it in the public domain bringing it to the attention of

the media.

Now I am aware, Mr. Speaker, there has been a report done by

the Department of Health suggesting the kind of restructuring and realignment

that could occur or should occur at the Central Newfoundland Health Care Centre

that would deal with these budget cuts and I would like to ask the Minister of

Health, first of all, would he provide the House, or at least the elected MHAs

in that region with a copy, I would certainly like to have one; secondly, is he

aware that because of the government's cuts to health care at this institute

they are now turning to contracting out services such as housekeeping, laundry,

stores and other areas which will cost a number of jobs, there will be a loss of

a number of jobs at that hospital, is he aware of that, and can he provide some

precise information to the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, that's quite a number of

questions there but I will do my best to answer them.

One of the developments in health care in the Province is a

change from in-bed to out-patient services, same day surgery and things of that

nature and most hospitals in the Province are well along in that area. We had

some of our officials look at the Central Newfoundland Hospital and it was felt

that more in that area could be done than is presently done, so when the budget

was designed that objective was incorporated in the budget for discussion with

the hospital board, because sometimes the board can come up with alternative

savings, or make a response, and things of that nature.

I am not sure if we have had our final response, or if the

board has come up with other ways or anything, but there is - I must be honest -

a problem with respect to the stays and that type of thing in that central

hospital, and we want to make sure that everybody is as efficient as possible,

and that is the whole reason for our operation there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the

minister said he would table that report, or check into it. I would like for him

to table the report, if he could, but let me get on to the supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, because of the government's policies and budget

cuts over the past number of years, as he knows, acute care services are no

longer available at places like Baie Verte and Springdale, and other outlying

areas, because the government's policy was that they wanted to centralize acute

care services at the Central Regional Health Care Centre.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a hospital that has 204 beds, not

counting the nursery bassinets. Five years ago a unit wasn't opened containing

twenty beds. Last year the gynaecology unit was closed, which was supposed to

have been closed temporarily; that contained eighteen beds. Now, because of the

cuts this year in their budget, I think it is somewhere in the order of

three-quarters of a million dollars, there is going to be another unit closed,

meaning a closure of another twenty-two beds. That is a total of sixty beds out

of a 204 bed institution, so I would like to ask the minister, as a result of

their policies to centralize all that, and send all that kind of acute care work

and so on into the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre, in the name

of providing good quality health care, how can he stand by and allow that to

happen, those number of beds to be shut down. Effective July 1, more than

one-quarter of the beds at the regional centre there will be closed down. How

can he let that happen?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we can't measure health care entirely by the

number of beds that happen to be open in a particular institution. I might add

that this centralization has been occurring in other areas as well, but it is

not the only trend in health care. The member may be overlooking the fact that

we do have same day surgery, shorter stays; we are developing home care so that

people can be discharged earlier. That is what we are about.

I don't think anybody in that area, where we have had

centralization, have had, apart from the initial fear at the beginning when some

of these services were centralized, we haven't had any recent complaints about

that. People were a bit nervous and we had these discussions in the House

several years ago but I have since been complimented - not me because I wasn't

involved at that time - but the government has since been complimented on taking

these manoeuvres. Because now, when a person is sick, he can be sure that when

he gets to the hospital the treatment will be there

whereas before, the range of

services weren't there.

So, in addition to centralization, we have also changed the

nature of health care in the Province from bringing people in the hospital and

keeping them there for a couple of weeks, now we do and try to get them out of

there as quickly as possible and into their homes, same day surgery and things

of that nature. Out-patient services are expanding in most places and that's

really what we're about in Grand Falls at the present time. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the minister

has been living the last couple of years. He's not in the real world, for sure,

because all of those things he mentions, he leaves out the fact that we have

longer waiting lists, we have emergency room beds meant to hold patients for up

to eight hours being occupied for up to a week while Admitting tries to free up

a bed. People in serious pain spending eight hours on stretchers in emergency,

those are the kinds of things you are hearing about, Mr. Speaker. Now, we know

of the bed closures at the hospital, I just talked to him about that. We also

know about the potential loss of jobs among health care workers. I'm also aware

some nursing staff have been laid off at that facility, but the matter I would

like the minister to respond to and investigate is this: there are reports that

the medical staff at that institution are extremely concerned over what's

happening as a result of the budgetary cutbacks, what it's doing to the delivery

of health care services in that region and they point out that while its

difficult enough to recruit medical doctors - in the best of times, these kinds

of cuts are seriously affecting their opportunities for recruiting new doctors.

So I would like the minister to tell me first of all if he's aware of that

concern, if not, will he investigate it personally and respond or report back to

the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have in the Department of

Health an appropriate procedure where doctors who are concerned work through

their boards and through the Department of Health and that's how the concerns

are raised. They are not normally raised by the member in the House although

that is also an appropriate method.

You mentioned the waiting lists; I might add that the waiting

list for all types of operations and things of that nature in this Province are

better than anywhere else in Canada except perhaps for one or two things, like

plastic surgery. We're well ahead, our waiting lists are lower, we're

complimented across the country for the short waiting list we had. We did have a

little problem with cardiac surgery here, where people were waiting last year.

We put some extra money in the budget and that too is brought down. We in this

Province are further ahead than almost any province in Canada as far as waiting

lists are concerned.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister's job is to

defend what is happening out there, what the government is doing, but I can

assure him that isn't the view shared by the majority of people in this Province

with respect to the waiting lists at hospitals. I'm extremely concerned about it

in my own region, I can tell him. This is not something I'm making up. This is

what I've been told by a number of people.

Let me ask him this final supplementary. Is he aware that in

fact one of the most heartless things that is going to occur at that facility

this year as a result of the budgetary cutbacks is that the palliative care room

is going to be closed at the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SIMMS: The palliative care unit as he knows is the

room provided to cancer patients to spend their few remaining days with family

in dignity. You have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, when this kind of cut is

occurring, what exactly is going on? It is shameful to allow this kind of cut to

occur. On that specific point, can I ask the minister if he will personally

check to make sure the question I'm asking him is accurate, and would he make

representation to the hospital board and administration to try to have that

decision reversed as quickly as possible? Because that would be a heartless

thing to allow to happen.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to

thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for bringing that particular point

to my attention. I will look into it.

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

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to

the President of Treasury Board. Parents are becoming increasingly concerned

with the instructional time lost in their children's education. Many parents are

alarmed that the current labour dispute may drag into more weeks, or indeed, a

worse case scenario would have us believe students may not be back in their

classrooms until the autumn. Parents demand action to end this strike. They want

a return to full collective bargaining and a commitment that both sides will

stay there until a settlement is hammered out. What steps is the minister taking

to address the concerns of parents as expressed to him today in the lobby of the

Confederation Building?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this government has been taking

steps ever since late in January to try to get bargaining teams together to

examine the problems. Mr. Speaker, as a Province, as you know, we have

considerable problems in terms of our financial condition and we must continue

on the general course we have taken. We've been trying since the end of January

to get the professional bargainers together. To date we have not been successful

in that regard. However, there have been meetings, first of all, five or six

meetings, between myself and the president of the teachers' union and some

officials.

Thursday night before last I thought great progress was made

and yet lo and behold Friday the strike was still on. Since that time there have

been further meetings and over the weekend there has been contact between

officials of the NLTA and officials of government. Our desire is to get the

bargaining teams together to try to hammer this out. Today there was a meeting

held in the lobby organized by the home and school associations and they asked

that we once again sit down at the bargaining table. Mr. Speaker, nothing would

make me happier. I have since made contact with the NLTA office and asked for a

meeting tonight.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, many of those parents who were

in the lobby over lunchtime believe the real issues in the teachers' strike

involve proposals to restructure the educational system, changes to teachers'

certification, new roles for administrators and parents, and a complete

restructuring of the manner in which the boards coordinate their academic

programs. In other words, the real problem in the collective bargaining process

is not what is on the table but what is absent from the table. In other words,

the government has a hidden agenda. Will the minister assure the House that the

collective bargaining process and current strike is not a ploy on the part of

government to initiate its restructuring programs in education in this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman refers to a

rather interesting hidden agenda. This hidden agenda he talks about has been the

topic of discussion in this Province for many years. A number of years ago the

teachers' union indicated there was $70 million worth of waste in the system and

we should hurry up and get that waste out. We had a royal commission on

education which brought in a report which had a lot of recommendations that

received discussion all around this Province and particularly within the

Teachers Association. If what he is referring to is the royal commission report

and the suggestions for improving the educational system, if that is a hidden

agenda, I'm telling you, it is not very hidden from the people of the Province.

The hon. member may not know about it but it is not very well hidden from the

people of the Province.

This round of collective bargaining is simply about

government meeting its financial objectives that it must meet. That is what this

round of collective bargaining is about. We have placed positions before all of

our public sector unions. We have placed similar, fair, equitable positions to

all of our public sector unions and we are currently trying to negotiate

contracts on that basis. What we must not do, Mr. Speaker, is treat one group

differently from another.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. BAKER: We are trying to proceed through the process,

Mr. Speaker. It is rather unfortunate that our pleas to get the teams together

in January went unheeded and a public process took place that distorted the

issues tremendously.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on I believe it was January 18

the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association said that they wanted to have

the Minister of Education and the President of Treasury Board at the bargaining

table. It was the President of Treasury Board who said there was no relationship

between fiscal policy and educational policy. Therefore, if these things are on

the agenda now they indeed were denied by the Administration and that is why I

talk about a hidden agenda.

There is a relationship between fiscal policy and educational

policy. Why will the President to Treasury Board and the Minister of Education

not agree to sit down and work cooperatively with the NLTA to reach a resolution

to all those issues and admit that you can't have an agreement to the current

labour dispute until you have the educational restructuring policies married

into and part of the process of collective bargaining and the fiscal policy of

this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of nonsense,

obviously. The restructuring process will take some time. We have been working

on the many aspects of the restructuring process, and to be done sensibly and

reasonably, and to make sure it is put to best effect, must be done over time,

and will take maybe a couple of years to get around to dealing with these

restructuring issues, but in the meantime, we have a budget, we have fiscal

objectives to meet, and we cannot wait two or three years down the road to come

back to these fiscal objectives. They must be met now, and I am not going to

endanger the financial health of this Province simply to wait until the end of

restructuring to get back to meet our fiscal objectives. That cannot be done,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Approximately fourteen months ago, public input was sought in

certain areas of the Province by a group of consultants to devise a master plan

for the 500 Cabot Anniversary Corporation. I would like to ask the minister why

this master plan has not been released for public viewing and opinion.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. We put

in place a board of directors, chaired by Miller Ayre, a local businessman here

in St. John's, and we wanted them to be at arm's length. It is entirely up to

the corporation when they want to release the plan, but I should say, while I am

on my feet, that the government, in the latest Budget, authorized $1.14 million

as our part of what we perceived to be a 70/30 provincial agreement to give

action to some of the items in the master plan.

It is a very comprehensive plan. I have had meetings in

Ottawa recently with the federal minister, and I intend to see Mr. Dingwall this

Friday in Halifax about that same issue. There has been very good response back.

We fully intend a federal/provincial agreement to be put in place over the next

two to three months.

It is a comprehensive plan. It is one that was generated by

the board of directors of the Cabot Corporation. I fully expect that they will

release it publicly in the next little while. It is not something that

government directs them to do. It is something that they, as an arm's length

body, would do themselves.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since this master plan for the 500 celebrations was a direct

result of input from concerned and participating interest groups, such as

historical societies and, in my own particular area, the Discovery Trails

Tourism Association, why are those groups now being deprived of information that

is crucial to their planning for the 1997 celebrations?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing clandestine

here. This is a plan that was generated from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Let me start again, Mr. Speaker.

There is nothing clandestine here about this plan. This is a

plan that was sought by the grass roots of the Province. It is something that

the board of directors of the Cabot Corporation in good time will make public. I

don't see any reason for not making it public immediately. It is at the call of

the board.

It is a terrific piece of work. It is comprehensive. It is

something, as I say, and the hon. member says, public consultations were held

around the Province. I can't see why it couldn't be released. In fact, when we

finish Question Period I will speak with the chairman, and if he wants me to

release it I would be happy to release it.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: One thing about the minister, I think we

might get some results now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that I

attended a meeting in Port Rexton last Wednesday night, and it was a grave

concern for the participants at that particular meeting. Here they were, certain

groups, trying to plan 1997 celebrations, not knowing what existed in the master

plan, so I call upon the minister to release it so that everybody can be pulling

in one direction rather than the mass confusion that is existing out there

today.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, indeed I will. As I said just a

few minutes ago, I would be happy to speak with the chairman of the board and do

that.

As I recall, in fact, I think when I was the Minister of

Tourism under the old Department of Development I think we appointed someone

from the Bonavista Peninsula area to sit on the board - a lady -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Two people from the Bonavista area, so I don't

know if the hon. member has taken it up with the two of his constituents who sit

on that board; perhaps he hasn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, that's okay; it's no problem. I will speak

to the chairman, and if he doesn't have a problem, or the board does not have a

problem, I will be most happy to make it public.

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

West.

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

Minister of Mines and Energy.

In the past couple of weeks there has been a great deal of

concern and uncertainty, I would say, regarding the Come By Chance oil refinery

and the future of that refinery. I ask the minister if he has been in contact

with the owners of the refinery and did they assure him that the refinery will

reopen and continue to operate?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not had personal contact with the owners. My officials

have been in contact with people associated with the refinery and people

associated with VITOL Limited, the company that is negotiating the purchase, and

I hope that purchase is finalized. We are as concerned as you are about Come By

Chance. We want it to continue to operate and we will work with them.

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

West on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: I find it somewhat disheartening that the oil

refinery will be shut down and the minister has not even bothered to contact

anyone to find out what is going on. I find that rather strange, I say to the

minister.

Let me ask the minister if he is satisfied that the owners of

the refinery have made, and are making, the kind of investment and plant

modernization that will ensure its safety and its continued operation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have had personal contact

with the resident senior person here in Newfoundland, Mr. Mifflin, but I have

not talked to the people in the United States personally in the last few days.

My officials are doing that regularly and continuously as there is any need to

do so and we will continue to monitor it. In the meantime I am aware that

considerable money has been spend at that refinery over the last few years, and

many, many millions of dollars in just the last couple of years doing work that

needed to be done at the refinery, and there is work continuing today on the

refinery to make repairs where there was a fire a few weeks ago.

We all hope that all those things do fall in place and that

the refinery sale is concluded and it will operate for many, many years to come.

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

Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is not much encouragement

in what the minister has to say today for the employees who are uncertain about

their future, who have found employment out there for the past number of years.

Let me ask the minister if government has any contingency plan to keep the plant

operating if the present operators decide to pull out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of the

government keeping the plant operating if the present operators pull out.

Government is not going to operate a refinery, and I have no intention of

recommending to government that we operate a refinery. However, if something

does happen at the refinery we will certainly do everything we can to maintain

it and try to get someone else to come in there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier

about Hydro. Will the Premier admit that one of the consequences of privatizing

Hydro would be stripping from the government the means to ever develop the Lower

Churchill? Will the Premier confess that he personally actually wants the

private sector and not the government to develop the Lower Churchill? Will the

Premier explain why in the world the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would

ever want to give away such a fantastic development opportunity for the citizens

of this Province and hand it over to outside non-resident private interests?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer to the first question is, no.

The answer to the second question is, no, and the answer to the third question

is, it is a totally false statement and cannot be answered in the terms in which

the member asked it.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the government, if the Premier, privatizes Hydro surely

the Premier realizes that he would be handing over to the private sector all the

government's expertise, all the government's know-how, and the financial

strength needed to develop the Lower Churchill. Now, is the real reason the

Premier wants to privatize Hydro and hand over to private interests outside the

Province the means to develop the Lower Churchill, that golden opportunity, the

same reason the Premier walked away from a fantastic opportunity two years ago

to enter into an agreement with Hydro Quebec to get additional billions of

dollars for the Upper Churchill, to get a fourteen-billion-dollar development of

the Lower Churchill with a transmission line linking the Island under a

thirty-year contract of sale that would have seen the provincial government

owning both Gull Island and Muskrat Falls lock, stock and barrel, debt free

after the thirty-year term. Is that the reason, the same reason?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro doesn't have the

expertise to develop the Lower Churchill. All of the expertise that Hydro has

will continue to be available in this Province and continue to be available to

the government if we need it. Hydro, if the Lower Churchill were to be

developed, if anything were to be done with the Lower Churchill, we would have

to go outside of Hydro to hire the professional expertise to do it. It's

available, some of it in this Province, some of it in other parts of Canada,

some of it in other parts of the world. It is not resident within Hydro itself.

Whenever Hydro ever had anything to do with the proposal to

develop the Lower Churchill, they engaged outside expertise, and if the House

wants it, I can provide a list of the people who were engaged and it was not

people within Hydro. They do not have the expertise to develop. This proposal

that this is the only expertise is another one of those utterly false statements

that is used to colour the judgement of people in the Province against Hydro.

Now that answers that first question, and the next question was so convoluted

and mixed up and nonsensical, I really didn't even follow it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure recalling the experience of two years ago is

embarrassing for the Premier, history will judge that decision very harshly.

Mr. Speaker, the expertise of Hydro, the assets of Hydro, the

financial strength of Hydro under privatization obviously will be at the command

of non-resident, outside private interests. I would like to ask the Premier if

he has met with Paul Desmarais in the past year, if he met with Paul Desmarais

and Prime Minister Chrtien in the United States a few months ago and if the

Premier has discussed with Paul Desmarais the undeveloped water resources of

Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, now I recall that convoluted

other question and it was whether or not I had rejected this great deal.

If the hon. member wants to take that deal to the people of

this Province to get their approval, she can take it there; but present the true

deal. Present the true deal that would leave no benefit to this Province and

would secure the position of Hydro Quebec till, 2041.

Mr. Speaker, I will never take that deal to the people of

this Province, would never sign it; I would do no such thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It was the worst disaster that could ever

befall this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: It was the worst disaster that could ever

befall this Province and the hon. member wants to take that deal and accept it?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I know where she is getting her advice and

I have even less confidence in it now, than I had before. The other question

was: Did I meet with Paul Desmarais to discuss the development of the Lower

Churchill?

I didn't meet Paul Desmarais, period, in the last year. I

never met with the Prime Minister on this issue in the last year; I never met

with the Prime Minister and Paul Desmarais in the United States or anywhere else

in the last year. All this, Mr. Speaker, is part of the fabrication and the

tangled web to distort the judgement of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am tabling a report of the Public Tendering exceptions for

March 1994.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce

the following private member's resolution:

`WHEREAS the United States naval facility at Argentia will

formally close in October 1994; and

WHEREAS the compensation benefits offered to the civilian

employees of the Argentia naval facility are much lower than the benefits paid

to civilian employees on Canadian military bases who will lose employment as a

result of base closures;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urge the

compensation benefits to displaced civilian employees of the U.S. naval

facility, Argentia be equivalent to benefits paid in similar circumstances by

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition and I will read the prayer of

the petition;

`WHEREFORE the undersigned your petitioners humbly pray and

call upon Parliament to demand 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.'

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the petitioners in the general St.

John's area, mostly in St. John's Centre - this government has proposed to

privatize Hydro, not based on any economic facts. In fact, they sent out to the

people of this Province this brochure here that has a lot of inaccuracies in it

and half-truths. While they've advocated municipalities will benefit over a

period of time, up to several hundred thousand dollars - they say a million - at

the same time they have failed to establish the fact that the ratepayers in this

Province will pay for that increase, that $700,000, $800,000 or a million

eventually when it gets into full effect, I think, in 1999. So, the ratepayers

of this Province will pay. So it's really an in-and-out item as far as the

ratepayers of this Province are concerned.

He states that we need to privatize Hydro to regulate

electric power. `Electric power rates can be regulated in this Province with a

Crown corporation or with a private Hydro' - that's not true. `Major industries

will benefit' - I can't see how major industries are going to benefit. The only

people who are going to benefit are the shareholders of a privatized Hydro, the

ones who are going to get the profit margin of over 13 per cent back. I can't

see how it would benefit. He said it does not mean a loss of jobs -

privatization. Well, in past experience, privatization did mean a loss of jobs,

in Nova Scotia, 400 jobs, actually, and it's quite possible that there's going

to be a loss of jobs here in this Province. I can't see how they can do that

without any backup information releasing the efficiencies and projections under

a new Hydro - that's basically not true. They've indicated to the people that it

will provide badly needed cash for this Province. Yes, it will provide cash for

this Province and it's a short-term fix to what we need long-term solutions. It

is only going to save us on borrowing over one and part of another fiscal year.

Then, where do we go in two years time when we have no assets, no hydroelectric

assets in this Province?

If you want to just look at the value of assets here in this

Province - when they're proposing and listing a book value on some of those

assets, it is only a fraction of the real value and amount of revenue they can

generate in the future. We've looked at hydroelectric projects that have been

built back since the 1960s, right up to 1989, and we have seen a continuous

increase in the cost of putting hydroelectric facilities here in this Province.

We've gone from $500,000 per megawatt of electricity up to $3 million per

megawatt now to produce electricity in this Province. When you look at the Bay

d'Espoir project with 604 megawatts we are looking at a replacement value of

anywhere from $1.25 million up to $1.75 billion. A facility that is listed on

the books for $150 million - we are going to give it away. Bay d'Espoir, the

bonds, the debt on Bay d'Espoir has been retired since 1992. Built at a cost of

$170 million, and nothing outstanding. We are going to sell that asset. We are

going to sell every other single Hydro asset on this Island out to investors and

going to funnel the money. It is going to drain the money out of the

Newfoundland economy to investors in other parts of the country. That is what a

privatized Hydro is going to do.

We have no sound economic reason why it should be privatized.

We've had an independent analysis done. Wade Locke said, if government has

figures to show it is viable on an economic basis, provide them - provide the

figures and let us see them, and we can draw our conclusions. They haven't done

it. Wade Locke provided figures. He estimated it is going to cost anywhere from

$40 million or possibly $70 million per year, not counting the revenues that

this government is going to lose. Those revenues I am referring to are $10

million a year that we get for guaranteeing the debt, that is coming into the

coffers of this Province; not counting the break that is now going to be given

under PUITTA - the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act - that is going to

give back to Newfoundland Power almost $10 million a year that we are now

receiving in this Province. We are losing $20 million in revenues alone.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to

rise and support my colleague as he presented this petition. Day after day now

we've presented these petitions and I guess as the people of the Province watch

the continuing story of the Hydro privatization slip away, I guess we could say,

as it gets into the eleventh hour, people of the Province are still wondering,

although it may be a strategy of the government here today that: We sort of lull

the people asleep and maybe they would forget about the Hydro privatization.

We just saw closure come in on Bill 2, and I don't think

anybody in the Province will be surprised when we see a closure motion called on

Bill 1 now when it is called again. It is just typical of this government -

closure. It is unprecedented in this Province, the amount of closure that has

been brought in on one bill alone. Day after day we hear members from the

opposite side tell us: `Petitions, I'm not really sure about the petitions.' One

of the ministers complained last week that the same name was used on the same

petition twice. Well, big deal. The bottom line is that no matter which way this

government seems to want to look at it, 80 per cent of this Province, upwards of

80 per cent of this Province, do not want Hydro sold. That is a simple clear

statement by the people of this Province.

The question that has to answered - and a constituent of mine

asked me this weekend; it is a simple question asked by a lot of people in this

Province - what does it take for this government, in particular, this Premier,

when it is staring him straight in the face, when people say: `No, we don't want

it sold,' for him to say: `Yes, we're still going ahead with it.' And at the

same time, for him to stand on Province-wide TV and say - and I don't care how

hon. members put it; you can mix the words, change them around as much as you

want - your Premier, the Premier of this government, has said point-blank that

if he does not have the support for the selling of Hydro he will not do it.

Now, we have read out the quote time after time, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know how anybody on the other side of this House can say that the

Premier didn't say it. The Premier says himself, very simply put - we can read

out the quote again or I can just say it to you - the Premier did say - and I'm

sure that anybody in this Province could stand up and say they heard him say

that he would not let the members of this Legislature vote for something that

did not have the support of the majority of the people in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) say that.

MR. SHELLEY: How many times do we have to say it? I agree

with the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. How many times

do we have to say it? They've said to us, Mr. Speaker: Petitions, they don't

really count, people phoning in Open Line , that doesn't really count,

demonstrations out front, they don't really count, Greg Malone, he must be a

certain party partisan person, he doesn't count, Cy Abery, he doesn't count.

Well, who counts, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you that the public opinion polls -

and I say to the hon. members in the back benches again, listen to the people

who elected you, not to your front benches and your illustrious Leader over

there.

Stand up and just say to the Premier: I'm sorry, Premier.

Listen to the Member for Pleasantville. He listened to his constituents. If you

think this is a tough issue, wait until you get the other issues coming over the

next few weeks and into the fall session. Sooner or later, you have to stand up

and speak for the people who elected you. I mean, how much does it take, Mr.

Speaker? a simple question asked time and time again, and my constituents asked

it again this weekend; one constituent, just a plain, simple, question: `What

does it take for the Premier of this Province, on any issue, to listen to the

people?' Does he just have the blinders on, like the horse, straight ahead, the

blinkers on, Mr. Speaker, straight ahead? `I am going to tell you what's right.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can tell all hon. members this, that if

this debate had gone on before the election of May 3, '93, and you did win the

thirty-four seats that you have won, I think, on this side of the House, people

would say: Well, yes, you have the support for Hydro, but the real truth is, Mr.

Speaker, that it was not before May 3, it was after May 3, it was a hidden

agenda, and this Premier knows it. The issue in the last election that I

remember going door-to-door was that he was going to take control of the

teachers. That's what I heard day after day, that's what he got up and said when

he called the election, Mr. Speaker; `I am going to show the teachers who's

boss,' that's what he was saying.

Hydro wasn't brought up at all, not once, Mr. Speaker, that

was the agenda of this Premier and this government, that's what they had a

mandate for on May 3, and it wasn't to sell Hydro and for God's sake, will the

Premier come to his senses as he watches poll after poll, and petition after

petition, and say the people of this Province do not want this and he would turn

around to each member on his side and say, you do what your constituents want

you to do, as the Member for Pleasantville had the guts to stand up and do - and

some of the hon. members over here in the last few days, Mr. Speaker, are

standing up saying they only have one or two calls or a couple of letters.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was all.

MR. SHELLEY: I can tell you why you didn't have any

calls, because people are saying it is no good to talk to you, because you've

been told what to do. You have already been told what to do and you aren't going

to change your mind. That's the truth of it and the truth will come out and, of

course, all hon. members will go around saying: They will forget. Maybe in three

years time when another election is called, people will forget about Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I can tell all hon. members that

people won't forget; they won't forget because they will see their power bill

every month and be reminded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have a petition?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I have a petition on Hydro from residents of

the district the Premier is supposed to be representing, from the south and

north shores of the Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, these citizens are petitioning the Legislature

to `demand 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.'

Mr. Speaker, the Corner Brook area volunteer citizens'

committee called Save Our Hydro, headed by Kevin St. George, has gone

door-to-door on the south shore of the Bay of Islands, the more populous part of

the district the Premier is supposed to be representing, and more than 90 per

cent of the Bay of Islands south shore residents have signed a petition calling

on the government to retain Hydro as a Crown-owned corporation. Mr. Speaker,

people have many reasons for opposing Hydro privatization.

First of all, they want to keep down electricity prices. They

realize that under privatization, electricity rates will go up at a far greater

rate and to a far greater extent than would be the case if the government

retains Hydro. They want to keep Hydro profits in the Province to work for the

benefit of the citizens of the Province and they want Hydro to be the vehicle

for Lower Churchill development. Mr. Speaker, the Save Our Hydro committee have

a fact sheet about Hydro which they have circulated and I would like to read

from the fact sheet:

1. Hydro is a successful, efficient well-managed corporation.

2. Hydro has an asset value of $1.8 billion against a debt of

$1.2 billion; a good ratio.

3. The Hydro debt is self-supporting.

4. The Province has never put money into Hydro.

5. Hydro does not cost the Province anything.

6. Hydro pays the Province $10 million each year.

7. Privatized Hydro will send an extra $50 million out of the

Province each year.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MS. VERGE: How do I know? Because the same laws that

govern Newfoundland Light and Power will govern a private Hydro and those laws

will require the Public Utilities Board in setting hydro rates to build into the

price, to build into the rate base, a return on equity equalling roughly 13.5

per cent, and that is against approximately 5 per cent to 7 per cent paid the

Crown-owned Hydro, and secondly because the debt/equity ratio would be much

lower. Debt would be converted to equity, which is much more expensive, and

those two changes will result in higher electricity costs totalling close to $50

million a year. And most of that money will be going out of the Province to

shareholders because, realistically, most of the investors, most of the people

who will buy shares in a privatized Hydro, will reside out of the Province, and

control will rest out of the Province, probably with Paul Desmarais or some

other industrialist, or some conglomerate based somewhere else in the world, and

that private outfit will have the means to develop the Lower Churchill. That

private outfit will get the profit of Hydro, will get the benefit of the higher

prices that you and I and all the business people in the Province will pay each

year, every year, forevermore, so it will be a lose, lose proposition for the

people of the Province.

Privatizing Hydro will saddle householders and business

people with higher electricity costs forevermore, and that cost will be passed

on to consumers of other goods as a cost of doing business. The profit - Hydro

makes a profit now - it will have to make a higher profit, by law, under the law

governing the Public Utilities Board. The profit will mostly go out of the

Province, the same as Newfoundland Light and Power, the same as Nova Scotia

Power. Most of the shareholders will reside out of the Province, that will go

out of the Province, and the expertise and financial strength required for Lower

Churchill development will no longer belong to the government. It will be handed

over on a golden platter to the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier challenges us to go to the people on

the agreement he walked away from two years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: He concealed that from the people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak in support of

the petition presented by my colleague, especially this petition, coming from

the West Coast of the Province, coming really from the Premier's own district,

the Bay of Islands, the north and south shores of the Bay of Islands.

The Premier often says that there are only a few people in

the Province who don't understand the privatization of Hydro; that's why they

are against it. Those are people living in his own district, and yet he is not

going to listen to them.

I talked to people in the district of Bay of Islands, and my

own district, and the districts of Humber East and Humber West, the district

that the Speaker represents, and there are all kinds of people asking me

questions about the privatization of Hydro - all kinds - all kinds of concerns,

and that is one of the arguments that I used in the past, and I say it here

again this evening, that the government should put this to the Resource

Committee and let it go around the Province and give the people a chance to have

a say; that's all. They can bring in legislation; they can do what they like

with regard to the Electrical Resources Act and so on, but let the people have a

say - a simple procedure, but again a procedure that should take place in the

democratic society in which we live. Give them a chance.

We went around the Province on the forestry bill, the changes

in the forestry bill a few years ago. Everybody had their say; there were

amendments brought to the House of Assembly, some changes made to certain

clauses in the legislation, and today it is probably one of the best pieces of

legislation we have. Why? Because the public had some input. Let the people

know. We can't send brochures around this Province. We are here, sitting in the

House of Assembly with a bill - all kinds of legal jargon drawn by lawyers and

officials who have all the time in the world to do so and if anybody ever read a

document that comes from a lawyer, you know, yourself, you want another lawyer

friend with you to try to interpret it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Exactly. And what do lawyers make a living

at? I said it before, they make a living interpreting in a different way - with

all due respect to the lawyers, my colleagues and they're all around me in the

House - they make a living trying to interpret and make sure that the

interpretation of a certain clause, a certain regulation or a certain law is

wrong. It is the way they look at it. I'm a lawyer, I represent a client and I

go into a courtroom, I am representing that client and I'm going to do

everything in my power to try to win that case but do the other fellow next to

me is doing the same thing based on the same regulation. Now, I ask members

opposite, how do they expect the people of the Province to understand such a

document when we, as legislators, are sitting here in the House - and I'm sure

that if this debate went on for another five months, a lot of us sitting in this

House of Assembly would find faults with clauses in those two particular acts,

the Electrical Resources Act and the Hydro Privatization Bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite, just be a bit

flexible, give the people a chance, put it out to committee, go around the

Province and let the people have a say. At the end of the day, if the people in

their own right, after seeing the document, agree with what was said, what was

done, what they read and the explanations they're given, then and only then

should this Administration act and privatize something which the people of the

Province own now. It's not a business, it's a monopoly. We are giving someone in

the private sector a right to operate a monopoly. It's not a business, it's not

competitive. They can do pretty well what they like, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland

Light and Power and Newfoundland Hydro today, they own a monopoly, it's not a

business, and I say to members opposite, that it should be looked at in that

light. We can get back the funds that we're going to get for one year of not

having to borrow $300 or $400 million, Mr. Speaker. This government can get that

back by charging extra fees on floating Hydro's debt. They can get it back by

the increase in revenues of taxes from PUITTA. It comes back through the system

every year. In a matter of four or five years, that money can be gotten from

Newfoundland Hydro in any case and we'd still own the asset.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Cyril Abery (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I don't know about Cyril Abery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with respect to the petition,

particularly because the petition was presented by the hon. the Member for

Humber East. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute or two to explain again

for the record, for the written record of Hansard, why it is that members on

this side of the House have real difficulty taking any of these petitions about

Hydro seriously.

The hon. the Member for Humber East again today was

developing the proposition - asking some questions about whether the Premier had

met with Mr. Desmarais and Mr. Chrtien and so on. It reminded me of two or

three months ago when she put forward the scenario in this House that we're

supposed to believe - and shows how ludicrous some of the Opposition have been

and how ill-founded.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just run through the proposition again: the

hon. the Member for Humber East would have the people of this Province believe -

this is her proposition now, we're supposed to take this seriously, and it is a

reason to be opposed to Hydro - two years ago, before Mr. Chrtien became Prime

Minister, because Mr. Desmarais is married to Mr. Chrtien's sister, this

Premier was to have scuttled a deal with Hydro Quebec which was said to be in

the best interest of the Province, because he knew, even though Mr. Chrtien was

then Leader of the Opposition - he was supposed to know that Mr. Chrtien was

going to become Premier, and that if he then sold Hydro to Mr. Desmarais, the

husband of Mr. Chrtien's sister, Mr. Chrtien was going to take the Premier and

make him a judge of the Supreme Court; therefore, it was supposed to all make

sense as to why this was a big scam and a big scheme. That was the reason put

forward by the Member for Humber East who is raising the same kinds of questions

today: What about the Premier meeting with Mr. Desmarais and Mr. Chrtien, and

all that kind of foolishness.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I heard the petition presented by

the Member for Humber East. I heard what the Member for Humber Valley had to say

to the petition and I didn't hear either of them talk about the Premier of this

Province going to get a job as a judge. It was never brought out in this

petition, Mr. Speaker. We all know he wants to be Premier of this Province but

he shouldn't be wishing the Premier were a judge already. The fact of the matter

is, it is the Minister of Mines and Energy who should be standing on this

petition and speaking in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TOBIN: If he wants to speak as Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations then let him get up and tell us his position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once more for the record, so it is in there, and so we know

on this side why it is that we should change our minds and go against the

privatization of Hydro. We should be against the privatization of Hydro because

the Premier of the Province, two years ago, made a deal with Mr. Chrtien, the

then Leader of the Opposition, to sell Hydro to Mr. Chrtien's brother-in-law,

and then as a return for that great favour, Mr. Chrtien, who was to be Prime

Minister, was going to make the Premier a Supreme Court judge. That is the

proposition that the Member for Humber East put forward in this Legislature

before, and it was on that basis, it was said to be a bad deal, the Premier is

no good, it smells, it is crooked, it is an awful deal. That is the proposition

she put forward and that is supposed to give credibility to the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that was raised here again

today, and that they keep bringing up, and they know the exact opposite, there

is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between Bill 1, the privatization of

Hydro, and anything to do with the assets in Labrador. Every member in this

Legislature knows that if they read Bill 1. Every soul in this Legislature knows

there is no connection, but every time they go out publicly to raise the big

fear, they say, `You know what happened to Churchill Falls. Well, it could

happen again, you know, another giveaway, and we won't be able to develop the

Lower Churchill.'

You heard it in this Legislature today. There is absolutely

no connection. Members opposite say they have read Bill 1 and if they have they

should stand and admit publicly that they know for a fact there is absolutely no

connection between the privatization of Hydro and anything to do with any assets

currently in Labrador or those that might be in Labrador in the future. They

know the difference and they refuse to admit it because they would rather for

people to be out there wondering what is going on. That is what the Opposition

have been saying, and it is totally unfounded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are no more

urgent petitions and accordingly, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that

the Orders of the Day now be read.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask if the House would

go into Committee of Supply to deal with the estimates of Consolidated Fund

Services, the Legislature, and Executive Council. In so doing, a number of

members have asked me, and I know others are wondering perhaps, the House will

not sit beyond 5:00 tonight unless members absolutely demand it, and I will be

surprised if members demand it. I know my friend, the Member for Grand Bank is

anxious to sit, perhaps all night, but he will have to restrain himself today.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

We are now dealing with the estimates of the Consolidated

Fund Services.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This rather entertaining

section of the Estimates procedure

focuses around the Executive Council and takes some considerable time. Normally,

there are, I think, seventy-five hours allocated to the total Estimates

procedure, including the committees, where detailed estimates are examined.

Finally, at the end of it all, whatever time is left over out of that

seventy-five hours, is devoted to examining the estimates of Executive Council.

Mr. Chairman, that I guess, puts me on the hot seat for quite some time.

First of all, I would like to explain to members of the House

that Consolidated Fund Services represents the management expenses and service

costs to government of maintaining the public debt of the Province. Also

included in the maintaining of the public debt of the Province, we have the cost

of servicing the pension funds of government. Essentially, that is what the

Consolidated Fund Services are.

The Legislature, the next heading, is pretty obvious. It is

the functioning of this particular body and the cost associated with it.

Executive Council is a much broader heading and includes a

number of subdivisions that, in themselves, are rather significant, some of

them. The Lieutenant-Governor's establishment is included under Executive

Council. The Premier's Office is included under Executive Council. That is

always the subject for a number of speeches and a number of questions about the

comings and goings and the happenings and expenditures in the Premier's Office.

Year after year we are very proud to point out that the expenses in the

Premier's Office have been kept to a bare minimum. We point out always about the

cost of the Premier's Office previous to when we formed the government and the

expenses of the Premier's Office today. I'm looking forward to that entertaining

exchange.

Then comes the Cabinet Secretariat that is largely

responsible for the functioning of Cabinet and what happens to Cabinet papers in

the system. The Treasury Board Secretariat comes under this heading, and I

should imagine under that heading we will again have a rather lively and

interesting exchange because Treasury Board deals with collective bargaining and

we are now into the collective bargaining process with a vengeance. I should

imagine that hon. members will want to deal with the collective bargaining

situation as they discuss the Treasury Board heading.

The heading dealing with Intergovernmental Affairs comes

under Executive Council as well. Intergovernmental Affairs has become

particularly important in recent years simply because of the particular interest

in native land claims. This is perhaps one of the chief topics that may be

raised under Intergovernmental Affairs, in addition to all of the other contacts

with other governments and other branches of the Federal Government.

Another heading that always draws a little bit of comment is

Newfoundland Information Service, the agency that once upon a time was simply a

propaganda agency for Cabinet ministers. When we took over we changed that to be

a true information service for the government and not simply a propaganda

machine for Cabinet ministers. We happily gave up that little benefit that the

previous government enjoyed through NIS.

Finally, there is the Women's Policy Office. Even though the

Minister Responsible for the Status of Women does not directly come under this

heading and is a different person, still the Women's Policy Office, which is a

small

section of the concerns of the Minister responsible for the Status of

Women, actually comes under Executive Council. The function of the Women's

Policy Office, of course, is an interior government function and one that we

find to be very valuable.

Mr. Chairman, that is kind of a

summary of the headings that

we are going to be dealing with over the next three or four days, I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Weeks and months.

MR. BAKER: Weeks, months, ahead. I look forward to

informed questions and comments by members opposite. I will try to deal with the

comments as they come. I will try to answer whatever questions they may have so

that we can have a very productive session, and all learn a lot as we go through

this process.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to touch

on four or five preliminary items, because we will be spending the next number

of hours specifically asking questions.

One thing I would like to do, I had a copy of a letter

hand-delivered to me today from the Conception Bay Centre Branch of the

Newfoundland Teachers Association, and the verbal message sent with it was for

me to raise it in the House of Assembly if the Member for Harbour Main hadn't

raised it, and I guess he didn't have much of a chance before now to raise it -

I don't know if he intended to - but I will do it now anyway, and I will read

the letter into the record.

I tried to explain to them - I don't know if any of them are

left here in the gallery now, but perhaps some of their colleagues could pass on

to them - that it wouldn't be possible to read the letter in the House of

Assembly during Question Period, which is what they asked for. That isn't quite

the way things work, but this is the first opportunity, so I will read the

letter into the record for the benefit of the President of Treasury Board, who

is the chief negotiator of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on all its

dealings with public servants, including the present dispute with the teachers.

The letter is addressed to the Member for Harbour Main, Mr.

Whelan: Would you please read this letter to the House of Assembly during

Question Period on May 25, 1994 - that is tomorrow. He wouldn't be able to do

it.

Conception Bay Centre Branch of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers Association asks the hon. Members of the House of Assembly to place the

education of our youth number one on their list of priorities. While teachers

are on strike government is saving millions of dollars, but at what price to the

children of this Province? If this strike continues, all levels from

Kindergarten to Level III will be adversely affected. Teachers understand the

economic difficulties of government, and in the past ten years we have done our

part by accepting five years of wage freezes and cuts to our pensions.

Have we learned from our past? Governments, ignoring the many

warnings of people in the fishery, have allowed it to be destroyed. We look back

and ask why nobody listened to the people who were closest to the industry, the

fishermen. Yet, government talks about restructuring the education system

without listening to the teachers. Again, we ask, have we learned nothing? The

education system cannot be changed without directly affecting the teacher and

students in the classroom. Therefore, teachers and government must work

together.

We, the teachers of Conception Bay Centre, implore the hon.

Members of the House of Assembly to help us get back to what we do best - teach.

Give us back the trust we had in the collective bargaining process. Allow both

sides to maintain their dignity. Treat us like the professionals we are. Let us

maintain the rights we have earned over more than 100 years as a professional

organization. Allow negotiations, not confrontation, to prevail.

That is signed by the president, Doreen Noseworthy, of the

Conception Bay Centre Branch, Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to read that while

there were still some teachers in the gallery so they can explain to their

colleagues in Conception Bay Centre, if they are not in the gallery themselves,

that it is not possible to stand up and read the letter during Question Period.

Those of you who have seen Question Period, how it works, would understand that,

but in debate there is an opportunity to do that, so I have done it now, because

the message I got was that if the Member for Harbour Main didn't raise it in

Question Period, would I raise it.

I now see that maybe I misunderstood, because they asked him

to raise it tomorrow in Question Period, and I apologize to the Member for

Harbour Main. I am sure he intended to ask a question tomorrow in Question

Period.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can still do it.

MR. SIMMS: Of course, he can still do that, so we look

forward to the question being asked by him tomorrow in Question Period -

whatever the question is that he wants to raise with the President of Treasury

Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) call Doug Adams, the Member for

Eagle River says. He adds a tremendous amount to this discussion, I am sure,

whatever that means.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't know what's wrong with the hon. Member

for Eagle River. Is he finished now building up the economy of Quebec by renting

his cars in Quebec and going back to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, why don't you go outside and have a

coffee?

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to address the estimates of the

Executive Council and ask some questions. I notice the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations tried to intervene there briefly on some of the debate

earlier, or at least the presentation of the petition. I heard it on the

speaker, some of the comments he made. This is a finance debate we are having

now so you can talk about just about anything, I guess. I might touch on that

over the course of the next few hours or days or weeks.

One thing I did notice is I believe he has his moustache

shaved off. I guess he is trying to look like his hero Brian Tobin, I suppose.

Brian Tobin shaved his. Or hoping that nobody would recognize him, maybe that is

the real reason. One thing I remember is Jacques Demiers tried that not too long

ago in the playoffs. It didn't help him very much, and I suggest the same thing

is going to happen to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

To the President of Treasury Board. We asked a question in

the House the other day about the cost to renovate the Premier's private

elevator. The question was asked of the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. No answers were provided of course yet. The minister said he

would check to find out. As far as we understand it, $680,000 has been set aside

for the contract to do renovations to all four of those elevators: The three in

the main lobby and the Premier's personal, private elevator. Which members

opposite say is not a private elevator at all because other ministers use it

from time to time, but you know the elevator we are referring to.

I'm hoping that the President of Treasury Board might have

some answers to that question because it is relevant to the whole discussion of

expenditure, and whether or not those kinds of expenditures are pertinent and

appropriate in a time of restraint. At a time when you can't find $100,000 to

help the working group on child sexual abuse but you can find $100,000 or

$50,000 or $75,000 to do some renovations to the Premier's private, personal

elevator, when he could easily use one of the other three elevators like the

rest of, as the Member for Placentia said, us normal mere mortals. I would like

the President of Treasury Board to tell us if he has the answer to that question

because we would like to know it.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) the answer but you don't listen.

MR. SIMMS: No, he didn't give the answer.

MR. BAKER: Yes he did.

MR. SIMMS: What was the answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, he said he would take it as notice and

find out the answer, that is what he said.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So if I didn't - pardon me? I see the Minister

of Forestry and Agriculture has a little question.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) from seventy-two to eighty-nine.

MR. SIMMS: Yes it was.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, I see.

MR. SIMMS: Was there another pertinent question? That was

it, was it? Fine. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I'm very impressed with the

questions asked by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. They get better

every day. After twenty years in the House I must say he is coming along pretty

good.

May I ask the President of Treasury Board, beginning with the

Office of the Premier, Transportation and Communications vote, page 14 in the

Estimates. The Transportation and Communications vote last year spent $40,000;

this year the new estimates are $49,500. That is the Premier's Office itself.

Then you have Executive Support where you have the Transportation and

Communications vote at $71,000. Then you have under Administration another

$17,000 being spent for Transportation and Communications. What I want to ask

the minister is: Do these numbers differ dramatically from last year? If not,

why not? Because we all know that the Premier has done a considerable amount of

travel during the past year and no doubt will continue to do a considerable

amount of travel in the coming year.

Second question, it is under 2.1.02.01, Salaries for

Executive Support. Last year it was $610,000 in total, he will see, this year

you are budgeting $636,000, an increase of approximately $26,000. Can he tell us

what that increase is provided for? Are there new positions, new staff members

being added to the Premier's Office or to the Executive Support division of the

Premier's Office? These are the obvious question I'm going to run through here

first of all.

MR. BAKER: It is obvious you don't have any questions.

MR. SIMMS: I say to the minister that is not quite true.

If he would like I will get right into a lot of the other questions that I have

here, if he would prefer. I was just going to give him a chance to get on his

feet first so he can get up and answer some of those questions. I guarantee him

I have lots of questions here for the minister under the Premier's Office. Why

is $26,000 more budgeted for this year than was spent last year under the

Executive Support salaries, is it a position being added, which is the question

I just asked him.

Mr. Chairman, does the Premier intend to spend any of his

travel money to visit corporate offices and lay out the case for investing in

Newfoundland as Frank McKenna has done successfully in his Province of New

Brunswick, and as Gary Filmon has done successfully in Manitoba, or does the

Premier intend to continue devoting his travel expenses to speaking to law

schools all around the country? That's the question. Let me ask him this one:

Did the Province pick up any portion whatsoever of the cost of the cross-Canada

tour on overfishing that the Premier conducted during the federal election

campaign? In a letter to me he said he wouldn't disclose the monies provided by

the Liberal Party. I didn't ask him that. I want to know whether the Province

paid for any portion of that particular tour.

I want to ask the minister this: is there money allocated for

another fisheries tour this year; how much money was spent last year and for

what? Could the minister tell us who the Premier met with during his Asian tour

recently in the last few months? Will he table a list of the developments that

have occurred in the Province as a result of that visit, that trip? Would he

explain how he was instrumental in bringing those developments to fruition? I

want to ask the minister, is the Premier prepared to undertake a McKenna type

tour to the corporate boardrooms of North America, and elsewhere to try to stir

up business interests in investing in Newfoundland? Is the Premier planning any

other jaunts to the American Northeast to try to drum up business in the high

fashion shops of Boston and New York like he did last fall?

Mr. Chairman, if so, where might we find that included in the

expenditures of the Executive Council of the Premier's Office? Is there a line

item where that expenditure would be found, those travels? Could the minister

confirm that the Premier's $20,000 home entertainment provision is still in the

Budget? I am asking him now whether or not that's justifiable in terms of what's

happening with the public service and everybody else, would the Premier be

willing to lead by example, Mr. Chairman, even for a couple of years, by

reducing that amount of allowance?

Would he be prepared to table a list of the expenditures and

the breakdown for that entertainment allowance? Does the Premier pay income tax

on that allowance, Mr. Chairman, so I have asked already dozens of questions

even though the minister didn't think I had many questions to ask, let me assure

him that I have dozens more and I have my suspicions that the minister won't be

able to answer half the questions; he will get up now and he will try to dilly

dally for ten minutes but I bet you he won't be able to answer the questions, he

didn't even listen; he didn't even jot them down as I was asking them!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), he has a photographic

memory.

MR. SIMMS: He has them all in his head, he has a

photographic memory. Well I wish he would use it when it comes to negotiating

with the teachers because he certainly hasn't used it there and never has in the

past.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier, or the

minister on behalf of the Premier who isn't here, does the Premier entertain at

his home often for that $20,000 entertainment allowance-

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the same questions you read out

last year (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, no; these aren't questions of last year.

These are this year's questions.

MR. GRIMES: You get Hansard and you have the exact same

questions (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, who is trying desperately to look like his hero, Brian Tobin,

by shaving off his moustache, is not even involved in this debate here today, so

his best bet would be to go out, take the Member for Eagle River, go out and

have a cup of coffee somewhere in the back room.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this allowance that we have talked about I

say to the minister is public funds, and what we would like to know, is that if

the Premier uses that $20,000 allowance to entertain at home, how much does he

do, how much entertainment does he do at home, could he table a list of the

expenditures, a breakdown; could he give us a list of the guests whom he

entertains? Would there be anybody for example who have some interest in

privatization of Hydro who might have been at his home, while this entertainment

allowance expense was being used, Mr. Chairman, and, let's ask the minister if

he can give us the specific details of the $48,200 expenditure in purchase

services for administration under the Premier's office this year, can he tell us

what that $48,200 covers?

Could he tell us, Mr. Chairman, whether or not, in the

expenditures of the Premier's office had been moved to any other sections of the

estimates since 1989 or since 1993, for example? Are there any other

expenditures for the Premier's office that have since `89 or since last year for

that matter, been moved to any other

section of the estimates? Is there some of

his expenditures in travel or whatever covered as minister responsible for -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: I will just leave those few questions dangling

until we get some answers from the minister. I presume he is going to try and

answer some questions.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take a couple of minutes. I thank the Leader of the

Opposition for his list of questions. He asked about some specific headings,

Transportation and Communications, and the Office of the Premier.

Last year we budgeted $53,000 and did not spend it all. This

year we reduced the amount to $49,500. This is an indication that just because

something is budgeted does not mean it has to be spent, and every attempt is

made during the year to spend money only on things that are absolutely essential

to be done, and there is no desire to spend an allocation simply because it is

in the Budget. This year because of that, we have lowered from last year's

Budget the amount in the office of the Premier for Transportation and

Communications. The hon. gentleman is right, this involves all the travel and so

on that is so absolutely necessary.

Under Executive Support the transportation and communication

amount has been dropped by about $25,000 from last year, again an indication

that we are trying to cut corners, we are trying to save money wherever

possible, so we have dropped about $25,000 under that heading. But in terms of

the purchased services under administration, the $48,000 he talks about, that is

what is allocated this year. Last year there was $57,000 allocated, and again,

another example of the fact that because something is allocated it does not

necessarily mean it is going to be spent, and that during the year we take every

opportunity to cut costs, to trim expenses, and not spend money simply because

it is in the Budget.

As to a lot of the details the hon. gentleman asks, he asked

about guest lists, and so on, what food was bought, and everything else. Mr.

Chairman, obviously I do not have that at my fingertips, but some of it I may be

able to find out. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, one thing that will not be

included in those amounts, you will not find tens of thousands of dollars for

booze as used to be the case. You will not find tens of thousands of dollars for

booze. You will not find tens of thousands of dollars for a private dining room.

You will not find that in these estimates. You will not find thousands of

dollars for cigars and cigarettes. You will not find that in those estimates, so

there has been quite a lot of refining done over the last number of years, and

we hope to do further refinements.

As is indicated in the Budget over the last three years even,

every year we have tended to cut down on these expenses as much as possible. You

have to realize that the Premier of a Province still has to have the ability to

travel. There are still meetings he must attend. There are speeches that he must

give if the image of this Province is to be upheld, and if we are to partake in

the country, if we are to take

part in things that are Canadian, if we are to

get together as first ministers, and so on, if we are to have contacts with the

federal government, if we are to talk to them, there are certain expenditures

that have to be made, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that these expenditures

under Transportation and Communications are being cut further and further every

year.

As for the $20,000 allowance that the leader mentioned.

Certainly, that is taxable and is included as a taxable benefit. This is in lieu

of a lot of entertaining and everything else. The former, former, Premier for

instance was provided with a house. In addition to a house was provided with

furniture and everything else that went into that house, and it was not the

lowest class house in the world, Mr. Chairman, I should hasten to add. He was

provided with a private dining room and all kinds of other expenditures

associated with that. In lieu of that and in recognition that an awful lot of

government business does go on in his private residence a taxable amount is

provided. We announced that from day one, the first year we were in office, and

we still stand by that particular expenditure.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the

minister for trying his best to provide some answers. I realize I asked a

barrage of questions there and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, some detail and I apologize for that.

That's why I slacked off and gave him a chance to get up and answer and

hopefully that's the way we can conduct the scrutiny of his estimates over the

next days, weeks and months. I don't necessarily stand to try to fill out ten

minutes of time. I want to stand and ask a couple of questions or a few

questions maybe and then maybe the minister can answer them. That's the hope I

have and I'm sure he's willing to do that. It would be easier if I stuck to

maybe two or three questions.

MR. BAKER: But I think that the Member for Menihek has

questions to and other (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes. My colleague - I was going to say that

- my colleague, the Member for Menihek, who is the Treasury Board critic will

have lots of questions for the minister and lots of comments to make to the

minister about his handling of collective bargaining as well as the questions of

the estimates specifically, which he's entitled to do and he's there chomping at

the bit. He just came over to me then wondering if I was soon going to be

finished and I said, well I just started. So he wants to get on soon. I'll have

this go right now and I know my colleague the Member for Humber East, who is our

critic for the Status of Women or women's issues, would want to comment perhaps

on the women's policy office, how it's coming along and those kinds of

questions. So we have lots of questions here for the minister but let me get

back to the specific questions again. I want to repeat some of the ones I asked

which he didn't address and that's only because I asked so many. I suppose even

with his photographic mind he wouldn't be able to keep track of them all.

The minister can tell me because the Premier isn't here so

he's answering for the Premier, I presume. Does the Premier intend to undertake

any kind of a visitation or tour to corporate offices to lay out the case for

Newfoundland for investing in Newfoundland as Frank McKenna has done? I'm sure

the minister would be aware of the positive coverage that Frank McKenna, the

Premier of New Brunswick, has been getting. Not only the positive coverage but

the positive results because he has been successful in luring a couple of

corporations in to set up business in New Brunswick and with that, he has

brought along a number of jobs, probably several hundred jobs at this stage.

I know of two initiatives that he undertook. I also know that

The Financial Post - Fortune 500 , I think wrote about McKenna.

The Financial Post has written about McKenna and Gary Filmon who has done

similar things. Now the Premier's policy on this, in the past, has always been

that he would not go and try to encourage people to come here. He would not go

and try to compete with another province, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, that

kind of thing, but I'm wondering if the minister can tell us now if maybe the

Premier has had a change of heart? I know that he has his pictures in some ads,

financial magazines, business magazines, that kind of thing but you need a lot

more then pictures in an ad to really get the message out. You have to be

aggressive, go out and try to twist a few arms and try to encourage people to

come here and tell them why. Give them all the reasons why because there are

some positive reasons for businesses to set up here. So I want to know if the

minister knows if the Premier plans to undertake any kind of tour, a McKenna

type tour?

If the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was the

Premier today, I suspect, he would be just like Frank McKenna out aggressively

looking for business to come here. I say thank God and thanks be to heavens he's

not the Premier but if he was, I'm sure he'd be doing it. So I want to ask the

minister if that's the case? The other question I asked him which he didn't

answer was, did the taxpayers - did the Province pick up any portion whatsoever

of the cost of the cross-Canada tour that the Premier undertook on overfishing

last year during the federal election campaign? Now I wrote the Premier and

asked him for that information. He came back with a rather snotty letter and

said that he wasn't going to tell me what the Liberal Party paid to cover those

costs. I didn't ask that question. I wanted to know if the taxpayers paid any

portion of it whatsoever. Maybe the minister knows that, if he doesn't he can -

MR. BAKER: I don't.

MR. SIMMS: He doesn't, so he can maybe try to find out

for me. That's two and the other question that I asked him, and I'll leave it at

that, can he tell us who the Premier met with during his Asian tour many months

back now?...it's quite some time ago. Could he table a list of the positive

developments that occurred in the Province as a result of that tour, explaining

now he was instrumental - the Premier - as a result of his travel to Asia in

bringing those developments to fruition? Perhaps I could leave those two or

three questions and see what the minister has to say to those before we get on

with others.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know

specifically of any initiatives that the Premier may be undertaking in the

coming year to encourage business to come to the Province. I do know that

whatever initiatives are taken will be quarterbacked by the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology and that department. That department has a good

handle on what is going on, not only in the Province but in the world, and would

know the best kinds of approaches to make, whether that be in the Far East or

whether it be Europe or whether it be in the United States or in Mexico. They

would have the best idea as to what companies to target and how best to target

them.

Any such visits would be made in co-operation with and after

getting the advice from the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology.

However, my assumption is that there will be efforts made during the coming year

in this direction. I think this has been announced a number of times by the

Premier, and the fact that he is interested in doing this kind of thing in

conjunction with the minister.

As to the Asia trip, I don't know the specific names of the

companies that were visited and the individuals who were visited. I don't know

if I should actually discuss that, for one very good reason. It is tied in with

the second part of the Leader of the Opposition's questions. Because he

naturally assumes that a visit is made and then within the next half-hour or so

after we arrive back on the flight that all of a sudden something is going to

happen in the Province. He wants a listing of all of the positive things that

have happened in the Province as a result of the trip. That indicates to me an

attitude that tells me the member opposite doesn't know about the purpose of

those trips and doesn't know how these things are conducted and doesn't know

about the business world and the fact that things don't happen that quickly.

I can tell him that there is a lot of interest expressed in

Newfoundland as a result of not only the Premier's visit but other contacts that

have been made throughout the Far East. There has been for instance - and this

was not specifically a result of the Premier's visit - interest expressed in the

sealing industry of this Province and the development of a sealing industry and

the use of the whole seal, not only the fur but the food and everything else -

the meat for food, the use of the whole seal. This could be an up-and-coming

industry in this Province, and even this year, it will mean millions of dollars

to sealers on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Twillingate area, and so on.

Our contacts with the Far East are continuing and hopefully

will grow in the very near term. Because of the attitude that if you've spoken

to a company or whatever that all of a sudden things should happen overnight,

and then phone calls are made and the whole process is interrupted and disrupted

and people are scared off by the kinds of things that I think would happen were

I to give a detailed list. I hesitate to do so but I want to add that I don't

know personally, because I wasn't there and wasn't party to these types of

decisions, exactly what companies were visited. The Minister of ITT would have a

more exact knowledge of that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, it is like pulling hen's teeth.

The minister hasn't told us one single thing at all, absolutely nothing. The

Premier is not here to answer the questions so we trusted in the Premier leaving

a person of competence to respond and answer these questions with some

knowledge. He hasn't answered any of these questions that I've asked him other

than: I don't know if the Premier is going to do this, I don't think the Premier

has done that, I'm not sure if we will get anything out of this; I don't think I

can tell anybody of positive developments that have occurred.

We were kind of hoping we might get some positive answers

from the minister to these very direct and simple questions. We didn't say, now,

when he got back from Asia, half-an-hour after he got back, there must have been

some positive developments. My question was: Can he table a list of any

developments that have occurred in the Province since his Asian trip? That is a

pretty straightforward question. That is not trying to attack the Premier or

anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a bad attitude.

MR. SIMMS: That is not suggesting there is a bad

attitude. I am asking the minister, could he table a list of positive

developments that have occurred. I didn't even say positive; I said a list of

any developments that have occurred as a result of that trip. Now that was the

question. It is pretty straightforward, but if he doesn't want to

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a bad attitude.

MR. SIMMS: It has nothing to do with the attitude, it is

a simple question. If he can't answer the question, then simply get up and say,

`I can't answer it, Mr. Chairman', and that will be it; that's all we can do.

All we can do is ask the questions and hope that somebody with some competence

will answer.

Now, as for suggesting that the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology would have all the answers, that he quarterbacks, that the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce quarterbacks all the development

activities in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Premier, yes.

MR. SIMMS: With the Premier.

I would have to say that is very, very difficult to do,

because when you are quarterback, you should be in on the game all the time, you

should be here all the time; but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

is here not long enough to play - well, he certainly wouldn't be able to play

halfback, and that is only part of the game, and he wouldn't be able to be

fullback. I'm not sure what role the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

could play in developing business undertakings in this Province. Maybe at some

point in time the Minister of ITT will stand in debate and tell us -

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of what?

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology will be able to stand and tell us the answers to the questions that I

asked the minister, who couldn't answer them. Does the Premier intend to

undertake any kind of active role, or an active undertaking, related to

encouraging businesses to come here? Does he intend to take on a McKenna-type of

aggressive approach to encouraging business here?

The minister said he didn't know - this minister, the Deputy

Premier - he tried to slough it off to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, I think, and maybe at some point the minister might want to comment.

Also, I asked what developments occurred in Asia, or what

developments have occurred since his return from Asia. Again, the minister

didn't know. I will go on to some questions that maybe the Deputy Premier might

know - I don't know - might know.

Some of the questions that were asked, I guess, on the

Premier's Office, we might be prepared to put in abeyance for the time being,

because apparently the minister doesn't seem to know too much about it. I did

ask him if he would give the details of the $48,200 in Purchased Services, under

Administration, in the Premier's Office this year. He didn't give the answer to

that question. I don't know if it slipped his mind or not.

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, he just didn't give the answer; so maybe

he will give the answer to that one. That is one question.

Are there expenditures related to the Premier's Office,

either Travel or Purchased Services, or anything else, that have been moved to

other sections of the Estimates? Are some of his expenses covered elsewhere, in

other departments? That is question two.

The final question I will ask him in this stage - well, maybe

I will ask him two more in this set of questions. One is: What is the total cost

- this is something he should know - of step progressions, so-called step

progressions, this year, to government? I know he wouldn't have that at his

fingertips, I don't guess, unless he has asked for it himself.

Secondly, can he tell us the total cost from the Premier's

Office alone? Have there been any step progressions this year for the staff in

the Premier's Office? And does the minister not think it might be a fair time to

consider freezing those progressions for a time, in light of the circumstances

we face, and the cuts to other public servants?

Maybe I will flick out one more, just to finish this series

of questions.

Does the Premier have police protection assigned to him now,

a bodyguard assigned to him? I notice - over the last couple of weeks we've seen

RNC constables, plainclothes, in the gallery, out in the lobby. We saw them on

television. CBC carried a story about it, in fact, when he was over in Corner

Brook a couple of weeks ago. My question to the minister is: Have the RNC or the

RCMP assigned personnel to protect the Premier on a regular basis, just

periodically, or once in a while? What is the story on that?

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

MR. BAKER: I will start at the last one first, Mr.

Chairman. No, there is no assigned RNC protection for the Premier. There are

occasions that arise when the RNC itself feels the necessity to come in around

the building but this is not in terms of protection for the Premier.

As to his question about step progressions, I would have to

go back and check, but it seems to me that the total cost might have been

$600,000, $700,000 in the last year, but I will check and get the exact number.

It is a small number in terms of all government. I would like to point out where

that is. Most of it, I believe, would be under the teachers' contract where I

think about a third of the teachers have for the last two or three years been

getting about 2 per cent a year increase as step progression. The majority of

that amount would be under the teachers' contract -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) or a third?

MR. BAKER: No, no, much more. I was saying one-third of

teachers still get step progressions. Most of that money, $600,000, $700,000,

whatever it happens to be, would be involved there. I will check and see the

exact number.

I believe there may still be some employees in the Premier's

Office who may in fact be getting step progressions. They may in fact be, but

again I will check into that. It seems to me that maybe some of them have not

been with government long enough to be beyond the step progression stage. The

concept of step progressions is consistent throughout the public service and in

some contracts would have greater impact than others. When we did the freeze

legislation we did not interfere with the step progressions. I believe in some

other provinces they have. They have specifically stated that there would be no

step progressions. That is something we didn't do. We thought that everybody

should at least have the ability to get up to the top of their scale without

interference, because in fact that is a reward based on the learning curve. As

the learning occurs and more expertise develops then the pay level rises and we

did not interfere with that in terms of the wage freeze legislation.

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

MR. SIMMS: I thank the minister. I'm going to allow my

colleagues to pursue questions under the Premier's Office now, Mr. Chairman,

because I want to move on to one other area before my colleague, the Member for

Menihek, the Treasury Board critic, gets ready to slam the minister on the

Treasury Board estimates. I want to ask him just a couple of more questions.

I don't think he gave me the answer to the Purchased Services

questions I asked him. I've asked him three times now if he could tell me what

the $48,200 in Purchased Services for Administration under the Premier's Office

is for. Can he tell me that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Purchased Services for the

Administration.

MR. SIMMS: It is 2.1.03.06.

MR. BAKER: I know the one.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have a breakdown.

MR. BAKER: It is down considerably from last year.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have a breakdown of it, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. BAKER: Okay, alright.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to know what it is. Now just

relax, because there is more coming.

MR. BAKER: You have more, have you?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I have more. For example -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are even written out for you.

MR. SIMMS: - can he also tell us - they are even written

out for me, a lot of these questions, that's right. I have some good research

people in my office that help me with this stuff.

While you are at it, would you give us the details of the

$57,000 expenditure last year under the same head? Last year $57,100 in

purchased services for administration was spent in the Premier's office, and

this year it is $48,200, so we would like to know what it is for? It is a pretty

straightforward question and even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology

nods and agrees. There is no reason in the world why the President of Treasury

Board could not provide these answers. He should be better prepared says the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and me as well. I agree with him.

Have any of the expenditures in the Premier's office been covered under any

other sections of the estimates? I have asked him that one two or three times

and he has avoided answering that, but I am sure not deliberately, it just

slipped his mind. Would he answer that question? If there have been some things

covered elsewhere, not covered up, covered elsewhere, what kind of things are

they? Would he get for the House, if he does not have it accurately at his

fingertips now, the current salary of the chief of staff to the Premier, the

current salary of the press secretary, Judy Foote?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have a chief of staff.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I have a chief of staff but I do not

think he makes anywhere near what this chief of staff makes though.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does he make?

MR. SIMMS: I think Wayne makes $55,000 or something like

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on pension?

MR. SIMMS: No, I do not think he is. No, he is not, not

Wayne Clarke.

Would he tell me the present salary of Edsel Bonnell, the

chief of staff, Judy Foote, whatever she is called now, press secretary or

director of press, whatever she is called, and also would he give me the current

salary of each of the Premier's executive assistants? Now, I know he has at

least four because I see them sitting there in the gallery every day during

Question Period. As Steve Neary would say when he looked up in the gallery, he

would say, there is $250,000 in taxpayer's money and their job is to sit up in

the gallery and look down at the Opposition all day long. There were four of

them up there the other day. Now, I believe he has more than that. I do not know

how many. What I would like to know is who they are, what their names are, and

what their current salary is, along with the other salaries I just asked for,

the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the executive assistants? Can I

depend on the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, to provide

the information I have now requested, either now or within the next couple of

days, and answer the other questions?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All of that information is made public in the salary estimate

guidelines.

MR. SIMMS: No. No.

MR. BAKER: You want to put the names by them. These

amounts are all made public. There is chief of staff and an amount. You want me

to say that the chief of staff is Edsel Bonnell. Is that it?

MR. SIMMS: And how much he makes.

MR. BAKER: Well, as I say that is in the salary details

section. It is chief of staff and an amount. I do not know what it is offhand. I

will get what the hon. gentleman wants. I will put the names on it. That is not

a problem.

As to some of the other questions about purchased services I

will try to get breakdowns from last year, but I tell the hon. gentleman that if

he wants a breakdown of that $48,200 he is going to have to wait a year until it

is spent and then I will let him know what it was spent on. I suspect we will

not spend all that $48,200. We did not spend what was allocated last year, so he

will have to wait until next year for that much detail.

MR. SIMMS: You did spend all that.

MR. BAKER: Yes, in that heading we did, but we reduced

it. We spent $57,100 but this year we reduced it to $48,200 so there is a

reduction of about $9000 there.

Before the Leader of the Opposition leaves I would like to

comment for a moment on how he started this particular session with the

Executive Council. He read a letter and there are two points I would like to

make about that letter. First of all the letter sounded very sincere and made a

lot of good points. One can only agree with the points made in the letter, but I

question the Leader of the Opposition doing it at this point in time.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, that straightens up the next part. I

question the Leader of the Opposition doing it when it was a letter to the

Member for Harbour Main who was asked to do something about it tomorrow, and

then the people who wrote the letter go to the Leader of the Opposition and ask

him to subvert that process and get up ahead of time and not give the Member for

Harbour Main a chance to even respond. To get up and read it out in the House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that's really unfortunate. If

those particular teachers who expressed a sincere view it seemed to me, were

really sincere, then why would they give a letter to the Leader of the

Opposition and ask him to get up and do it ahead of time before the Member for

Harbour Main had a chance to respond? It seems to me that's playing politics

with a very serious issue and I think it was rather unfortunate that that

happened, I really do. It's an indication that perhaps something happened that

should not have happened. Either the teachers involved asked the Leader of the

Opposition to do it, in which case they are at fault and I would question their

motives or the Leader of the Opposition did it before he was supposed to, in

which case I'd question his motives. So there's got to be some questioning of

motives about that particular letter and I think it's kind of an unfortunate

occurrence, Mr. Chairman. So I thought I'd better make those comments about that

situation and get it on the record.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the

information from the minister related to the questions. I asked him

specifically, the salaries of the chief of staff, the press secretary and the

executive assistants and the breakdown of purchased services expenditure. I

realize the $48,000 is an estimate for this year but if he has a breakdown on

what he based his estimate, that's what I'm looking for, and the specific

breakdown of $58,000.

Now let me address his last point, the letter that he talked

about from the Conception Bay Centre branch. Now I know the President of

Treasury Board has a hearing problem, I know that, it's no secret. I really feel

badly for the Minister of Finance -

MR. BAKER: You don't.

MR. SIMMS: No, I do. I know sometimes because of his

hearing -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) that's not very nice.

MR. SIMMS: No - I say to the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation, I'm talking to the Minister of Treasury Board. He doesn't

have any problem with what I'm trying to say. He understands what it is that I'm

trying to say and he said don't apologize, don't worry about it but I do

apologize because obviously he didn't hear what transpired earlier this

afternoon. He couldn't have because I stood up and said to the Member for

Harbour Main that I apologized after I'd read the letter because the message -

MR. EFFORD: You're putting your foot in your mouth.

MR. SIMMS: - now listen, Mr. Chairman, the expert at

putting his foot in the mouth, of all people. You did it over in Pasadena, many

times I heard. Yes, I heard.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He apologized to the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: He apologized to the Premier, came crawling

back to the Premier with his tail between his legs. Yes, Sir, he did. I haven't

heard a sound - haven't heard a whisper from him in the last year, not a

whisper, not a whimper, not a word, not an expression, Mr. Chairman. For two

years, Mr. Chairman, that Member for Port de Grave was tearing strips off the

Premier and certainly tearing strips off his now colleague, the Minister of

Fisheries, for the poor way in which he was dealing with the fishery of this

Province.

Two years travelling all over the Province, public meetings,

on the television every night and everything like that. His hair all fluffed up,

that new lovely white hair fluffed up, Mr. Chairman, the silver fox they were

calling him on fishery matters. He was the only person speaking out on the

fishery because he said the Minister of Fisheries didn't know what he was

talking about.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there's been a search party out for the

last thirteen months, Search and Rescue, the Coast Guard, all hands were out for

the last year wondering where the Member for Port de Grave is because you don't

hear a whimper, not a whisper, not a word, not a sound, Mr. Chairman. Anyway,

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure he's just trying to divert attention away from the attack

I was making on the Minister of Finance but it wasn't an attack, it was an

explanation.

The message I got with the letter, which was dropped off in

my office from the secretary that brought it in to me, was that these people

brought this in to you just before the House opened. It was a letter to the

Member for Harbour Main, Mr. Whelan, and they had asked him to raise this in the

House today. If he doesn't raise it would you raise it? Now I read the letter

but I didn't pay real close attention to May 25, that was the problem with it. I

read the letter and said well you can't raise it in Question Period - can't read

the letter. They asked if he would read the letter. So I said the first earliest

opportunity that we'll have to do that will be in the debate on the estimates.

So I read it and as I read it again I realized it was May 25. So I looked across

to the Member for Harbour Main and I said: I apologize because I realize now

this is tomorrow and maybe you were going to ask a question tomorrow in the

House and he nodded to me and said: yes, maybe I would. I said: well you can

still ask the question.

That's what transpired so there was no motivation other than

listening to the people, Mr. Chairman, listening to the people. They asked me to

raise it, I raised it, and it may have been inadvertently done a day earlier. If

that's the case I deeply regret that and I apologize to the Member for Harbour

Main. I already did it earlier so there was no need for the Minister of Finance

to stand and try to score a few cheap, political points on that issue because it

wouldn't wash anyway, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BAKER: I will be back in one minute.

MR. SIMMS: You will be back in a moment, because my

colleague, the President of the -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, what is the cost of the expenditure to

the private elevator out there?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Are you going to answer it? I wonder if he

could answer that question.

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

and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, there is no private elevator. When we took over

government in 1989 we did away with the private dining room, we did away with

the private elevator and everything else that was private. Everything in this

building now is for the full use of all people in the building. That elevator is

used by Executive Council, by ministers, by the Premier, those who wish to use

it and if anybody else may ask the question to use it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Us, we would like to use it.

MR. EFFORD: You are not government. You still think you

are in government? My goodness, you are in opposition boy, you are not in

government. But anyway, Mr. Chairman, there was a total of $400,000 given out in

a contract this year for the four elevators in this building.

MR. SIMMS: $400,000?

MR. EFFORD: For all of the elevators. I haven't the exact

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. No, no, not the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, no. The refurbishing of the elevators,

yes; all of the elevators so there is no contract set out because there is no

private elevator.

MR. SIMMS: You know the elevator (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member points out the remainder is

for maintenance.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, I didn't hear the minister

(inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, the minister valiantly tries to

slough off the question related to the private elevator by saying it is not a

private elevator. If it is not a private elevator then it is a public elevator,

is that correct? It is not a public elevator; it's a private elevator for the

private use of a few select people, that's what it's for. Now he can try to talk

around it, try to cover it up by saying we closed the Premier's dining room and

all that stuff, that's not the question. The question was a sensible question:

how much was being spent on renovations or upgrading or the work associated with

the elevator, the private elevator that everybody calls it, that's not the

public elevator over in the northeast wing, that's what the question said in

fact, I think and we ask that question. Now if the minister can give us that

answer, we would appreciate it.

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

and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Opposition Leader is

not willing to listen to the answer and to accept the answer that I gave. Now it

is very clear. When they asked the question in the House of Assembly last week,

the question pointed to the Premier, the Premier's personal, private elevator,

and I said at that time, that it is not the Premier's personal, private

elevator. It is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, you can listen and hear what you want

to hear but I am answering the question. Now the modernization of four

elevators, the three and the one, is a total of $464,769.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I just forget the age of them.

MR. SIMMS: The total contract (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That's a total contract. The modernization of

all these elevators. They haven't worked for years and to replenish the

elevators that's a total contract, $464,769 to be spent on the elevators this

year.

MR. SIMMS: This year?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: But what about the last fiscal year now, was

this work started (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh no, that includes that. That's to date,

that's to date.

MR. SIMMS: That's to date?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: And that's all of the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: So then you are saying that's the total

expenditure for the restoration this fiscal year. Does he foresee any further

work on those elevators beyond this fiscal year?

MR. EFFORD: The total contract won't be finished this

year.

MR. SIMMS: All four?

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be finished this year.

MR. SIMMS: Okay. Does the figure $680,000 ring a bell at

all with the minister?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, could he tell us what the $680,000

contract or expenditure is for, related to elevators, because obviously there is

a discrepancy. He is telling us it is $464,000 but I have heard the number

$680,000 somewhere, so I am obviously wrong and I would like to know where -

MR. EFFORD: You're right.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I am right? Oh.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: $220,000 to be spent after this year, I

would think.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I didn't know. I am sure if he had that

information he would have been forthcoming and given it all to us.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. SIMMS: I think you are being unfair to the minister

now, but hopefully he will explain to me where the $680,000 comes into it.

I am trying to think of my other question. My friends here

are offering all kinds of advice and suggestions. Of the $464,000 that he is

talking about now, which he says he has the information on, how much of that is

directed toward the non-public elevator over there in the northeast corner? He

knows the one we are talking about, the one we refer to as the private elevator,

which he says isn't. How much of that $464,000 will be spent on that elevator?

And if the figure of $680,000 is actually the right number -

MR. EFFORD: If.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, if it is, how much of the $680,000 will

be spent on that private elevator, that we call private, which he doesn't call

private. Can he tell us that?

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

and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know