The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is in Corner Brook, I gather.

MR. ROBERTS: The Premier is in Corner Brook doing an open line show.

MR. SIMMS: And the Minister of Mines and Energy is....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. VERGE: He has been exiled.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess I will ask the Government House Leader, and ask him if he can respond to the questions.

I understand from media reports that at a public meeting held in his district on Wednesday night, called to discuss the sale of Hydro, the Premier's parliamentary assistant, the Member for St. John's South, I understand from media reports, was asked this question: Do you have an impartial objective cost benefit analysis from someone who won't benefit from privatization?

MR. MURPHY: The Minister of Finance (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, the Minister of Finance. I understand the Member for St. John's South said yes in answer to that question. I would like to put the same question to the Government House Leader. Is there a cost benefit analysis of the Hydro privatization done by a person or company who is not involved in the sale of Hydro or that will profit from the privatization? If such a cost benefit analysis exists, could he tell us who the authors were and would he table it in the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was also at that meeting and I thought that the Member for St. John's South did an admirable job. There have been a lot of cost benefit analyses done of the proposed privatization of Hydro. The analyses have taken two forms. One, when we were originally thinking about merging with Newfoundland Light and Power. That particular proposal was analyzed financially by our financial advisors. The proposal for the stand alone privatization of Hydro was also analyzed in detail, Mr. Speaker. The results of the analysis indicated that we should go ahead and that has been done.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the question was, was there an impartial objective cost benefit analysis done from someone who won't benefit. Does the minister really consider RBC Dominion Securities and ScotiaMcLeod to really be impartial? Don't they stand to make millions of dollars as underwriters for the sale of Hydro, or being involved in the sale of Hydro, just as they made millions of dollars from the sale of Nova Scotia power? Isn't privatization in their self-interest?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, to get these analyses done you use the best people who are available. The best people we feel are the Province's financial advisors. I suppose you could search around the world. I don't know if you would ever find anybody who would not have a possible benefit to gain, including the benefit to be gained from doing the cost benefit analysis. I think that concept is a red herring that the hon. member is dragging through the issue. I suppose every major financial house anywhere could possibly stand to gain from a privatization of a large corporation like this in some way, so, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's question has no bearing on the situation at all.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That may be the opinion of the Minister of Finance and I respect that opinion but I don't agree with it. The reason I asked the question is that I understood the question was put at the meeting: do you have an impartial objective cost benefit analysis from someone who won't benefit from the privatization, and I understood the answer was yes, but now the minister is saying no, the answer is no; they don't have such a study done by somebody who doesn't stand to benefit because he doesn't think he could find anybody, I believe that's what the minister said and maybe he would confirm that as I don't want to be putting words in his mouth. So let me ask him this or let me tell him this first of all: I have an impartial economic study that compares the differences in cost to consumers of private and public electrical utilities. It was done in 1980 by two economists from universities -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't quite hear the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: This study was done in 1980 by two economists from universities in the United States. The results - is he aware of this?... the results of their analysis show that public utilities minimize cost and have 24 per cent to 33 per cent lower cost per unit than their privately owned counterparts and the report says: most of that difference in cost to the higher rate of return is because of the higher rate of return given to shareholders and profits. Does the minister have any independent study to refute that particular finding for example?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I guess you could go back as long as you want, a 1980 study, a 1985 study, a 1954 study and I guess you could find a number of analyses done of the concept of privatization, whether privatization is of benefit or not of benefit. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that the benefit of the privatization of Hydro has been explained well in terms of the finances of the Province, that's the benefit of privatization of Hydro, and I would like to say to the hon. gentleman that, you can dig around and find studies I guess at some point in time to prove anything you want to prove. We have had the stand alone privatization of Hydro as well as the merger with Newfoundland Light and Power examined by financial experts who are reliable, considered amongst the best in the world and, Mr. Speaker, we have used those figures and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister of Finance is standing quite close but I am having trouble hearing him above the conversations in the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that's a very, very weak argument. I mean, these people have a self interest. They're going to make millions off this privatization. My question was: Is there any kind of independent study done? Now, let me ask him this, if the government hasn't commissioned its own studies, outside of what the financial advisors have told them, hasn't attempted to analyze the numerous economic studies that have been done in Canada and in the United States and elsewhere on the advantages and disadvantages of public versus private ownership of electrical utilities, have they at least done that much and if so will they table it? The second question is, since he says there is no impartial cost benefit analysis done but that there were studies done or analyses done by their financial advisors who stand to benefit, will he table those in the House as well?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it seems that consistently the tactic used by the Leader of the Opposition is to get up, ask a question and regardless of what the answer is, then say: Oh, the minister has confirmed that. Mr. Speaker, it's a tactic that's wearing thin, I should imagine with everybody in this Province. It's something that is beneath the hon. gentleman. What I say will stand on its own. The hon. gentleman's interpretation of what I say is simply his interpretation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before we proceeded very far towards the privatization of Hydro it's been indicated in this House that we did hire a company who would not stand to benefit from the sale of Hydro, which is Rothchilds. They would not stand to benefit from the sale of Hydro. This is a company that is recognized around the world as having experts that can be relied upon. This is a company that is recognized - maybe not in the hon. gentleman's mind - but around the world as being a superb company. They are also giving advice on what has happened, they've looked at the analysis that has been done and are giving independent advice to government, advice that cannot possibility be tainted by the possibility of later on receiving some benefit from the sale. So the independent advice, Mr. Speaker, is in place, yes.

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

MR. SIMMS: So, you have independent advice in place. Now the other part of my question that he avoided answering, I'll make it simple - I don't want to put words in his mouth - will he table that independent study or advice done by Rothschilds and will he table in the House for the benefit of the public the studies done by the financial advisors recommending privatization?

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

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not table it in the House.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Ah! You don't have it!

MR. BAKER: I repeat again, for the Member for Grand Bank, we do have it. We will not table it for the very simple reason that if we proceed with the privatization of Hydro, the process -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that, that has consistently been the position of government, that the bill has not passed the House and we would not insult the House by assuming it has been passed. That has been our position consistently. When the bill passes the House, in other words if Hydro is privatized, we would then have to go through a process, and in that process, we would have to ensure the maximum benefit for the people of this Province.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, that was not the question.

MR. BAKER: I am getting to the hon. gentleman's question. I hope he can follow it, if he wants to, if he wants to stop interfering. We have to go through a process at that point in time, Mr. Speaker, of a prospectus and sale of shares and we must guarantee, number one, the integrity of that process. We must guarantee that we are not seen as hyping the sale of shares, and we must guarantee that the Province receives the maximum possible benefit from the sale. I say to the hon. gentleman that in transactions of this sort, whether in the public or private sector, it is not proper to release all of this information beforehand, Mr. Speaker. It would interfere with the process and it would guarantee that we would be interfering with what is a stock market process and that we may, in fact, get less than we should for the sale of shares.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to interfere with that process - we are not going to do anything that will be detrimental to the best interest of the people of this Province, and I am not going to table that information, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct to the Government House Leader, a question related to the same topic, the same issue. During this past week there has been a flurry of activity involving the Premier and the government, the Premier in particular, Open Line program appearances, requests for Province-wide air time to make speeches and so on.

Can the Government House Leader confirm that the government is now, or is about to, in the next day or so, conduct a public opinion poll following on the heels of this flurry activity and, if so, would he table the question that will be put to the people?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I can neither confirm nor deny it because I have no knowledge at all on the matter. I can neither confirm nor deny. I was in Ottawa - I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I heard about it. I heard what a spectacle the hon. gentleman, the Member for St. John's East, made of himself, but no, I have been in Ottawa for the last two days at a meeting of the Ministers of Justice, with the Attorney General for Canada, so my answer to the question again is, I can neither confirm nor deny; I just don't know.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I would appreciate getting an answer to the question - maybe the Minister of Finance, who was the Acting Government House Leader, could answer the same question. I presume he heard the question.

MR. BAKER: What was the question?

MR. SIMMS: Is the government now doing, or about to do, in the next day or two, or day or so, whenever, a public opinion poll related to this question of privatization of Hydro and, if so, would he table the question?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman seemed to be surprised that I didn't know what the question was. Not everybody is waiting for the next word that comes out of the hon. gentleman's mouth, so I am sorry; I was distracted by something else. The question wasn't to me, and I asked him to repeat the question.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier last night indicated, it seems to me, that he would not do anything that he felt, in doing, he did not have the support of the people of Newfoundland. Now, that is my understanding of what he said.

Mr. Speaker, a poll is one option, and there are other options. I will probably be speaking with the Premier later on today to see what he has in mind. As far as I know, and I am not always privy to everything that goes on, there has not been a poll done, although there might well have been, and as far as I know there is no time schedule to do a poll, but that is one option. I believe the Premier also indicated there may be other options, but that is an option.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation.

Both the federal and the provincial governments during the last federal and provincial elections espoused that the Trans-Labrador Highway was a priority with them, Mr. Speaker. The town council of Happy Valley - Goose Bay has been told recently, as recent as a month ago, that there would be no major construction this year. Can the minister confirm this?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my hon. friend, perhaps I could answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, hold on now!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: No, no! Because my friend for Menihek is misinformed. I was at the council meeting which gave rise to his question. My friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation was not at the council meeting. I was. No such statement was made to the town council. What I did say, and what is correct, is there is no money provided in the present estimates, which my friend has brought to the House for this, and that is no secret, that is where we are.

We are still negotiating with Ottawa. My friend the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has been in touch with his counterpart in Ottawa within the last week or so with a view to dealing with this. The minister can deal with that. I want to deal with the inaccurate premise, not the false premise, the inaccurate premise upon which the question was founded. It was and is an inaccurate premise.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the minister responsible, the Minister who is responsible for Works, Services and Transportation. If indeed the hon. Minister of Justice didn't make those statements about any funding available this year - it wasn't in the Budget - will there be any major construction this summer on the Trans-Labrador Highway? Or indeed, will there be any major tender calls this year on the Trans-Labrador Highway?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to argue over who was at the meeting or what anybody said at the council meeting. I wasn't there. I will tell you that I have had negotiations with the hon. Minister of Transport, the hon. Doug Young, concerning the Trans-Labrador Highway. I will also tell you very clearly that the Trans-Labrador Highway is a major priority of this government, is today, and will be in the future. Not only the completion of the present route from Goose Bay to Churchill Falls but also the Northern Gulf Road. We have been negotiating over the past couple of weeks. I've already made that quite clear. I'm hoping that in the next couple of weeks I will be able to make an announcement on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, in light that the Minister of Justice said that there was no money in the Budget this year, will there be a tender call this summer? Does the minister anticipate a tender call this summer? I would repeat that question, please.

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

MR. EFFORD: The Minister of Justice is quite correct. There was no money in the Budget Estimates for this year. I just finished telling you that I am in the process of negotiating with the Minister of Transport of Canada concerning money for this year for the Trans-Labrador Highway. If we get a successful answer there will be tenders called this year. If the answer from the Minister of Transport of Canada is no, obviously there will be no tender called.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation as well. For years the federal brother of the current Minister of Finance in this House raved considerably on public media about no Trans-Canada Highway work being done outside the overpass. With the Roads for Rails Agreement the tractors and trucks have been busy basically from Donovans to Port aux Basques. However, the section of the road between Badger and the Baie Verte Junction might as well be in the Bermuda Triangle. Why has it been neglected?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the first part of the hon. member's question because I was turned back on and it is a job to hear the question down here. If he could repeat the first part of the question. I wasn't paying attention because I turned back on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had indicated that for years the federal brother of the current Minister of Finance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

You know, it is very difficult for me to hear at times with members talking across the House. I'm sure it is extremely difficult for the minister in this case. So if the hon. member is going to ask a question let's do him the courtesy of listening to him.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had indicated that for some years the federal brother of the current Finance Minister in this House had made considerable comment in the media about the fact that there was very little TCH work being done outside the overpass, as it's known.

With the Roads for Rails Agreement basically tractors, trucks and other heavy equipment have been busy basically from Donovans to Port aux Basques; however, one section of highway between Badger and the Baie Verte Junction has been terribly neglected over this time and I would like to ask the minister: Why has that section of highway been neglected?

Thank you.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me tell the hon. member that there is quite an extensive amount of work going on on the Trans-Canada Highway outside of the overpass. I fail to understand what he is saying, that there is no work outside of the overpass. In fact we are spending, this year, about $20 million on Trans-Canada Highway work across Newfoundland. What we are trying to do is spread as much work as we can across the Province without doing all of the work in one particular area. There is a substantial amount of work here on the Avalon Peninsula. There is more in Central Newfoundland, and quite an extensive amount of work out in Western Newfoundland.

The piece of highway that he is talking about now is not in as bad a condition as he says it is in - definitely not - but certainly by the time the year 2003, when the agreement runs out, we hope to have all of the highway, the worst part of the Trans-Canada, completed to a reasonable standard.

In the meantime, we are negotiating with the federal government on a separate agreement, a national policy on highway improvements, and that will also be a part of when the agreement is reached over the next two or three years; but in the meantime we have about another $200 million left to spend on the Trans-Canada, and all that section of Trans-Canada which requires repairing and operating will be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay, a supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Last year I wrote the minister with regard to the terrible condition of the bridge at the intersection of South Brook, Halls Bay. I even sent the minister photographs of the bridge in question.

The minister has agreed that the bridge is in terrible shape, and in need of repair. Can the minister confirm now that that particular bridge will be done before 2003, number one, and when, if possible, it will be done.

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

MR. EFFORD: One of the things that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation is very concerned about is the safety of all the bridges across the Province. We have an itemized list of the worse scenario cases of the bridges. They will be done as needed.

I will check out and tell the hon. member on another day exactly what time the bridge he is referring to will be done, but there is no particular preference given on any particular area, only the worst case scenario of the bridges across the Province.

There is money provided in this agreement to do the bridges on the Trans-Canada, in the Trunk Roads Agreement. Wherever there is a provincial bridge in any area that needs to be repaired on an emergency basis, or an urgent basis, we are also looking at that, but I will check out the particular bridge and give the hon. member a time when it is going to be done.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Justice, and concerns the legal work for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services, commonly known as NLCS.

Would the minister tell the House why, when the tender for legal work for NLCS was given to the law firm of French, Browne and Dodd, the work on the privatization of NLCS is being done by the minister's former law firm, Halley, Hunt. Can the minister explain that? And can he tell the House whether or not that legal work was put out to tender as well?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the assignment of solicitors -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the hon. the Government House Leader in his reply.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the assignment of solicitors was done by my friend, the Minister of Finance, who carries the responsibility for divestiture of NLCS. In fact, I have opted out of the entire divestiture process because, as is well known, I hold shares in NewTel, which is one of the companies of the consortium.

I can, however, answer his question in a general way. Halley, Hunt have been retained to act for the government, not for NLCS, and my hon. friend will acknowledge that the interest of a shareholder, in this case the government -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry; let me answer the question, I say to my friend, rather than interrupting me.

The interests of a shareholder, in this case the government, are different than those of the entity themselves. In the case of Hydro, for example, Hydro has retained law firms. The Hydro Board of Directors have - Rally Noseworthy and Tory, Tory in Toronto. The government has also retained lawyers, Curtis, Dawe with the assistance of Blake, Cassels in Toronto. So that's the answer to the question as to why the firm that was awarded the NLCS work, French, Browne and Dodd is not representing the government. There would be and there is a conflict and I may add, we've seen in the case of the Hydro negotiations ample evidence of the fact that the interest of the company being divested - either Hydro or NLCS as may be the case - differ from those of the shareholder, in each case the government.

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

MR. HARRIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the - whatever minister would like to do this, table in the House the contract or the tender for the work on the privatization, the legal work for the privatization of NLCS and the hourly rate being paid under that contract for legal work, the estimated cost of the legal work and whatever tender documents that might relate to it, or is the government saying to the House that this process of tendering legal work was just a farce and that we're no longer tendering legal work anymore as long as the government has its own ideas as to who should be passed out this work? Is this work tendered? What are the rates being paid and can these documents be tabled in the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. gentleman knows, he is or was a member of a law firm and he knows how the process works, he's done considerable work himself. The process is that a couple of years ago the Minister of Justice announced that we'd gone to all law firms and instead of simply picking law firms at whim - as had been done previously with previous governments - that all law firms were contacted and they submitted proposals. I suppose it constitutes standing offers in a sense that all law firms sent in their fees, their particular expertise and the kind of work that they would like to do. So we have that available to us. Law firms are then selected on the basis of what information we got back from these law firms at that point in time.

In terms of the privatization issue, Treasury Board has a responsibility for the privatization process. Treasury Board, under the direction of the President of Treasury Board, chose a law firm to do that particular piece of work for the privatization of NLCS. The Minister of Justice explained quite adequately that the company that was referred to does work for NLCS and will do work for NLCS if NLCS needs to during this process but in terms of the privatization we chose a lawyer at Halley, Hunt to do that particular piece of work for us.

Mr. Speaker, as to what he asked to be tabled, I would say to him that we will - once we know what the costs are, as soon as we finish this part of the process - we'll table the total costs including exactly what was paid to, not only legal advisors but accounting firms and so on related to the privatization. All of this information will in fact be tabled.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a quick question for the Government House Leader in the absence of the Premier. The Premier told the whole Province last night on CBC Television that he would withdraw the Hydro Privatization Bill from the House of Assembly if it's not supported by the majority of citizens of the Province. Since it's obvious that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are dead set against privatizing Hydro, will the government withdraw the bill forthwith?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a short question deserves a short answer and the answer is, the hon. lady's judgement in this case is as flawed as it was a year ago when she was convinced that her party would form the government of the Province. We do not accept her judgement on these issues.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It's a noisy Friday morning which is unusual but I guess members are pretty testy after the lousy performance of their Premier last night -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - when he informed the Province that the truth he told Tuesday night wasn't the truth, Mr. Speaker, but anyway, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

In the Budget Speech that was given by the Minister of Finance a few days ago, it was stated that there was $75,000 allocated for a campaign against foreign overfishing. I am wondering if the minister could explain to the House, what format the foreign overfishing campaign will take. Will it be through advertising, will it be visits by the minister or ministers to Europe; could he inform the House what kind of a campaign this $75,000 will enable him to undertake, and does he feel that it is enough money for a very important foreign overfishing issue?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans made at this time to undertake a public relations campaign. The funding was provided in the estimates in the event that it becomes necessary, but having as we do of course, complete faith in the new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and government in Ottawa, we don't believe it will be necessary but if it is, then we will plan a program and will do what needs to be done.

AN HON. MEMBER: And if we go to Europe -

MR. CARTER: We will take the credit with us.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table an interim report of the Select Committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

For some reason I am having a lot of difficulty hearing speakers this morning. I know I recognized the hon. member but I do not know if he said anything yet. If he would pick up where he left off, if he could start.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table an interim report of the Select Committee -

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot hear him.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Members are speaking across the House.

The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, for the third time I would like to table an Interim Report of the Select Committee on the practice of Public Accountancy in the Province.

Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 108 residents of Grand Falls - Windsor. At least most of them are from Grand Falls - Windsor. There are a few there from Botwood, Bishop's Falls, and so on.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the petition about?

MR. SIMMS: Hydro privatization.

Mr. Speaker, it is on top of the petition I tabled the other day from Grand Falls - Windsor containing nearly 1100 names.

MR. GRIMES: It's not the same one, is it?

MR. SIMMS: No, it is not the same one, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. MURPHY: Let us see the prayer.

MR. SIMMS: I thank the hon. Member for St. John's South I will be happy to read the prayer for him. He could use one or two of those this morning, I think, after last night's debate.

The prayer says: We the undersigned wish to avail ourselves of the right to present a grievance, etc., humbly showeth it, etc.

WHEREAS we citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador seek to stop the proposed sale of Newfoundland Hydro;

WHEREAS the sale of Hydro has not proven to be in the best interest of the citizens;

WHEREAS the production of electricity is an essential service for the people and should be controlled by the people;

WHEREFORE the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand the Government of Newfoundland not privatize, not sell Newfoundland Hydro and ensure that it remains as a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, in an unusual twist to the presentation of petitions related to this topic I had an individual give me a little story and they asked me if I would read it. It is suppose to be humorous. Now, members opposite may not appreciate it because they do not have much of a sense of humour. Let me tell this little story that these petitioners suggested I might read as an example of moving too quickly.

Several years ago a vacuum cleaner salesman visited a very small community out in Notre Dame Bay trying to sell his product. At the first door he knocked on a woman answered and he was invited inside. Not giving the woman an opportunity to say anything he said he could empty a bag of dust and dirt on the floor and his vacuum would clean it all up or he would eat it. Without further comment he emptied the dirt on the floor and the woman taking a spoon from the table said, here you go, sir, we do not have electricity. Now, Mr. Speaker, their point, and the point of the petitioners is that this was an example of an individual moving too quickly and their point is it is a good example for the government to pay attention to because they, too, are moving too quickly on this whole privatization issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of some of the things that have transpired over the last few days in particular, the debates, public broadcasts and so on, and particularly last night's debate, it will be interesting to see, I am really waiting to see government's next move. It is going to be very interesting to see government's next move on this whole process because their armor has been dented dramatically over the last few days, in particular. It has been beaten up, says the people. I know the minister would not understand because he is not listening to the people, like the rest of the ministers over there. Their armor has been dented and what they have done now, over the last four or five days, a sudden flurry of activity has transpired, the Premier has gone on Open Line here, gone on CBC radio, gone to Corner Brook this morning, on CFCB Open Line. He has asked for Province-wide television time, Province-wide radio time, all in a flurry, all in a compressed time of three or four days, a very well-known tactic by the way, used by parties, not just political parties but interests who are about to conduct a public opinion poll.

The reason for all of that flurry of course, Mr. Speaker, would be to somehow soften up those who might be wavering or uncertain and undecided, and to hear the Premier's voice on the radio and on the television and in the paper and everything, over a compressed period of time of four or five days, and then all of a sudden, on Saturday morning, you would flick out a poll or you would do a poll over the weekend and then hopefully, if the questions are crafted properly, if the question says: don't you think that government shouldn't be involved, and all that kind of thing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: - you might get a response. Anyway, I will speak to another petition a little later on, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise to support the petition presented by my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

I guess you might wonder when those damage controls become damaged; I guess any time the Premier speaks on Hydro, that's when damage control becomes more damaged; all it has been is a statement of contradictions and on television on Tuesday night he made reference to the cost to a consumer of electricity rates as a result of privatization. He stated $1.25 per month, $15.00 a year, that's the figure he used which is completely distorting the real fact.

There are 173,000 homes in this Province now served by Newfoundland Power. Out of these, 74,000 do not have electric heat and 99,000 are served by electric heat; when you take the average consumption level of the 173,000 homes, the figure is over 1,300 kilowatts per hour and the Premier used the figure, 700. In other words, you could double the rates for the average consumer. They are using the figures for homes that do not have electric heat, that is the standard on which he is basing his increase. What about the average consumer in this Province? It will be doubled the figure the Premier is quoting and for those who are on electric heat alone, the figures could go up by four, five even six times that amount. Now there are the real figures; 700 kilowatt hours is the consumption figure he is using and that is completely inappropriate.

The average consumption is 1,300 kilowatt hours and he is using a figure of 700. He is taking the 74,000 homes in this Province that do not have electric heat. He is ignoring the 99,000 homes that are served by electric heat in this Province. The figures are manipulation at its finest. The figures are deceiving; there is complete deception in the figures and the same as in the language that is being used.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover up, a cover up.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I can tell you the Premier's chemistry is not going over too well with the people of this Province and he is going to try to do up his doctored poll now to see will his chemistry be a little bit better. That's right, loaded questions and get his results and he couldn't stand and the minister couldn't stand here today and say: we are looking at doing a poll when they are on the telephones while he is speaking. Oh, we will get the true answer; maybe we will get a statement a little later in the House saying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - well, I didn't give any untruths but, I didn't really tell the people the full truth. That's all we have been seeing, statements of contradictions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology wanted a few figures I think, so maybe we will have a look at a few figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If members want to have conversations I would ask them to leave the House because really it is awfully noisy here this morning and I really can't hear anybody. In fact I can hear the conversations at the back of the House better than I can hear the hon. member at times and he has a very strong voice. Anyway, please continue.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the figures I'm using are real figures, accurate figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Same figures? I didn't even get to use all the figures I've been giving all along. What figures are you talking about? Could you tell me what figures you are talking about?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just the same figures (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Which ones? Could you tell me which ones you are referring to?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, you don't know, that's why you can't say. I will give you time if you can say!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: I will give you thirty seconds to stand up and tell the figures if you want to do it.

MR. SIMMS: He hasn't got a clue!

MR. SULLIVAN: See, he doesn't know what he is talking about - all a pile of rhetoric, just like the talk about Hydro. That's what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister and the Premier, why are they hanging the public service people out to dry in their pension fund and committing $30 million to $40 million of unfunded liability right now and charging it out to taxpayers today - not when it comes due, but right now, today? that is the figure I ask for - at an amortized value of $105 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Name him! Name that minister, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations keeps squawking. He will have his opportunity when I finish to stand up and speak. I will give him the opportunity.

MR. SIMMS: Don't be unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has elapsed. We will give another member an opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? In closing, Mr. Speaker, one comment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, just one. In closing, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has no leave.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was only going to ask (inaudible) if your call was the last call to the bar (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to interrupt any of these great conversations across the floor of the House. I will wait now for a moment until people finish.

I have a petition here from seventy-four residents of Cook's Harbour in the district of Strait of Belle Isle. Now, I have been holding the petition, waiting for a day when the Minister of Education, the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle, is in his place, but I don't know what happened to the Minister of Education. I'm tired of waiting, so I will go ahead and present the petition anyway. These seventy-four Cook's Harbour residents are petitioning the House of Assembly, to have the House of Assembly call on the government to forget privatizing Hydro. I will read the precise 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, these Cook's Harbour residents, chances are, have voted Liberal fairly consistently since Confederation. The Government House Leader, the Minister of Justice, represented them years ago. Despite the fact that Cook's Harbour has consistently voted Liberal, Cook's Harbour is now against the government's scheme to privatize Hydro, the same as citizens in every other community in the Province.

People in Cook's Harbour must have been dumbfounded watching the Premier, or hearing the Premier on radio, Tuesday night confess that selling Hydro wasn't simply the simple business deal that the Premier and his ministers previously tried to convince people it was. Of course, by that stage, the Premier realized that virtually nobody in the Province went along with the proposition that selling Hydro was going to enhance the private sector. Nobody believed that selling Hydro was going to improve the financial position of the Province. People concluded that all that was in it for them was higher electricity prices.

Tuesday night, they heard the Premier say that there was a hidden agenda, that the Hydro privatization legislation, along with the Electrical Power Control Act, were necessary parts of the same grand design to recall power from the Upper Churchill for the Province.

Last night, on television, however, the Premier contradicted that. When the Leader of the Opposition confronted the Premier with a legal opinion the Premier wrote, back in 1986, for Angus Bruneau of Newfoundland Light and Power, the Premier had to acknowledge, as he had written in 1986, that the Electrical Power Control Act can stand alone, and that it is not necessary to sell Hydro to do whatever he thinks can be done under the Electrical Power Control Act. So, the new truth of Tuesday night was shown to be a new lie last night. The Premier's credibility on this issue is shot.

MR. EFFORD: What? What's that again?

MS. VERGE: Now, at the end of the debate last night, the Premier said, and I quote, I have a transcript: `No government has the right to proceed with the implementation of major policy that it can't sustain public support for, and if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition we have no right to ask the House of Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.'

So, people watching television were left wondering, how is the Premier going to determine public opinion? When the other party leaders pressed him to have public hearings, or to have a plebiscite, he gave negative responses, but he did indicate that polling was, in his judgement, a way to determine public opinion. The Member for St. John's South is nodding, but people are very cynical about polling. People know that polls can be rigged. People know that poll results can be manipulated by tricky wording of questions, and everyone now realizes what a slick, tricky word master the Premier is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to support the petition presented by the Member for Humber East. The people of Cook's Harbour, like people all over this Province, are opposed to the privatization of Hydro. There are very good reasons for that, and I want to outline one of them because we haven't really - we have talked about a lot of figures. There have been a lot of figures thrown around, and these are important figures to analyze. There are an awful lot of them, but I want to talk about just three figures, because these are the essential ones.

First of all, on the one side, the Premier says that the big advantage for privatizing Hydro is that we are going to save about $25 million a year in interest payments on money that we would otherwise have to borrow, and that is going to go on forever and ever and ever. So this is the cost benefit that we are talking about, that the Minister of Finance won't put on the table. The benefit, according to the Premier, is $25 million a year in savings on interest for new borrowings. Okay, that is the benefit. Now what is the cost? What is the cost to the people of Newfoundland?

Let's look at only three figures, and nobody can disagree with any of these figures. Figure number one, the $10 million that the government gets by guaranteeing Hydro's debt right now - $10 million - that's going to be lost. So we have $25 million on the one hand; ten of that is gone.

Number two, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro makes about $20 million a year in profit, right now, that is ploughed back into Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. It is used to pay off debt; it is used for reserves; it is ploughed back in; it is profit. That $20 million is going to be gone, gone to the shareholders, so that's $30 million that is gone to the people of Newfoundland.

Then, on top of that, we have another at least $30 million. Now, the Minister of Finance will admit to $25 million, but there is at least another $30 million, maybe more, additional cost that has to go to the shareholders because it is extra money, because of the new equity that is there, money that would otherwise not have to be raised at all, that has to go to the shareholders. That has to come from the ratepayers, has to come in increased rates. Now, what the rates will be, and when they will kick in, that is up for debate, but there is no doubt that there is an extra $25 million needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: More.

MR. HARRIS: More.

So now we have these three figures on one side and the one figure on the other - the benefit to the government, supposedly $25 million a year, the cost to the government, and the people of Newfoundland, $10 million plus $20 million plus $30 million, forever. So that's $60 million in costs, $25 million in benefit - a good deal? No way!

MR. SULLIVAN: Not counting other costs.

MR. HARRIS: Not counting other costs - the Member for Ferryland is right. The Member for Ferryland is very good at figures, that's probably why he's so rich. The Member for Ferryland is good at figures - he knows more about figures then I do. He had it all figured out long ago. I don't even know why he bothered to teach school. He is good at figures and he has a lot more figures but I want to keep it simple. I'm not one of these financial geniuses; I just like to keep it simple. The Premier says we're going to get $25 million over here and it's pretty clear that it's going to be at least $10 million in lost revenues for guaranteeing Hydro's debt, $20 million which Hydro now makes which is going to go out to the shareholders instead of staying with the people of Newfoundland, plus an extra $30 million to keep the shareholders happy, which we don't have to pay now. So that's $60 million, cost, $25 million, benefit - and I defy anybody over on the other side, from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Industry Trade and Technology, anyone over there to get up and say that any one of those figures is wrong.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tax breaks.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Ferryland says tax breaks and we know he knows all about those, he has all the analysis, but I'm just one of - the simple figures, $25 million worth of benefit and at least $60 million worth of clear costs, in other words, a direct lost of a minimum of $35 million a year forever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of fifty people from the Clarenville area. The petition, Mr. Speaker, is to deal with the hydroelectric rates, the same as the other petitions that have been presented here.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few points rather then get into the figure situation, such as the Member for St. John's East and the Member for Ferryland have gotten involved in. I want to say to members in this Legislature that we are about to see something very significant happen over the next few days relating to this Hydro bill. We are about to see this government caving in to the pressure of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: We are about to see every member who has stood in his place on the other side and said, `This is a good piece of legislation, my constituents are for it and I'm going to support it', taking back water, Mr. Speaker, in a big way. I am going to be very happy that day, Mr. Speaker, because it's the right decision for the people to take. I can say to members opposite that I will be happy and proud of each and every one of you if you stand up and be the men and women that the people in Newfoundland and Labrador sent you here to be. Withdraw the piece of legislation, tear it up, Mr. Speaker, it's bad. The people of the Province are telling you it's bad. And don't feel badly because you've stood in this legislature day-in-and-day-out and said it's good and I'm going to vote for it. People can change their minds, Mr. Speaker. So, collectively your minds all work together, collectively you all thought it was good, it was hunky-dory and it was great - the Premier didn't influence us, we were doing it because it's what is best for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I hope you'll all think individually again and come, collectively, to the same agreement that individually you think, and you make the decisions individually. Mr. Speaker, something will happen that when you wake up you will all have had the same individual logic and you will withdraw this piece of legislation. It's bad, Mr. Speaker, it's bad!

The Member for Pleasantville, Mr. Speaker, will win a leadership in that party -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - in the matter of a few weeks.

MR. SIMMS: No, he will never beat `John Efford'.

MR. TOBIN: Because this Premier, Mr. Speaker -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) will, though - `Chuck' will.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and you'll stand up, too, with your tail between your legs, I say to the Minister of Health, and you will say, `I've changed my mind.' The people of this Province will know full well that the Premier didn't have control over you. That you weren't all kow-towing to the Premier bringing in this piece of legislation. They will know full well that you will individually come to the conclusion. Because the Premier said on Tuesday night, he apologized to you. He set you free - fly away, be on your own. Be men, be women. That is what the Premier said.

Last night he said: The truth I told about this on Tuesday night was a lie.

MR. MANNING: So I'll have to tell you the truth again.

MR. TOBIN: So now I'm going to tell you the truth again.

MR. SIMMS: He said last night, he doesn't need to privatize Hydro now.

MR. TOBIN: Then he went on with all this kind of stuff about why Hydro had to be a private company. The Leader of the Opposition said: `Mr. Premier, here, look - 1986, here is a proposal that you made as a lawyer for Newfoundland Light and Power to the government.' Do you know what it says on the third page, Mr. Premier, in your words as the lawyer? that this can be done by a private company, namely, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That's what the Premier said, Mr. Speaker, that this can be done by a private company, namely Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

Why did he get on Tuesday night and tell the whole world that it had to be done by a public company and on Thursday night tell the whole world that it could be done by a private company? Mr. Speaker, there has never ever been such a bunch of trained seals put in any institution as what we have seen over there. The Premier is going to get up Monday or Tuesday and he is going to say: I am going to withdraw the legislation to privatize Hydro. Remember I'm telling you now. Remember I said it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Remember I said it, Mr. Speaker. I will predict that the Premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Where did you stand on (inaudible) the Cabinet (inaudible)?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, `Chuck', we all withdrew from the Cabinet in 1989.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No we didn't, `Chuck', and we got kicked out of office, the same as is going to happen to you! Withdraw the legislation (inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, my time is (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think members are cutting seriously into the time of the hon. Member for Ferryland as a result of their conversations across the House.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to just touch a little on some of the financial aspects of this deal that are negative. I would like for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to listen very, very carefully so he won't have to ask these questions again, and if you don't listen I will mail a copy of Hansard to you on Monday.

MR. FUREY: Don't shout.

MR. SULLIVAN: I wouldn't shout if you would listen. Okay. There are numerous costs associated with Hydro that would not be incurred if Hydro weren't privatized. For example, there is a net debt of $1,028,000,000 billion. There is $283 million that is going to be paid down upon the sale. That is $283 million net. There is $1.028 billion, and $283 million out of that is going to be retired immediately off that debt. Retired immediately. The cost -

MR. SIMMS: How?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said it.

MR. SIMMS: He doesn't even know.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier said it so it must be right. Although we will find out probably Monday it is not right, but let's assume it is right today. That is going to be retired at a cost of $20 million, the cost of retiring that portion of the debt. That would leave approximately then $780-some million of which a portion of that, $270 million, approximately, is going to be defeased over a five-year period and retired. Then the remaining $495 million is going to be defeased over a long-term period, again. It is going to cost another $15 million to $20 million to defease those portions of the debt in the long-term.

By defeasing that debt - why are these costs do you say there? Here is why they are there. Because we are guaranteeing the debt of Hydro, even though it is a self-sustaining, self-supporting Crown corporation. You have to go out and have a custodian, as you call it, who is going to take the remaining value of that debt that is out there now and buy similar securities out on the market in this New Hydro. This New Hydro will hold these securities, and the ones that we have are guarantees against them. We are going to spend about $35 million to $40 million between retiring the $283 million and defeasing, over a five-year - and the $495 million over a longer term that would not be expended if Hydro were not privatized. Now that's some initial cost.

Also, by doing it today, extra cost today - the ratepayers are going to pay this - we are also going to have to value the securities that are held in foreign currencies, and in foreign currencies we have tremendous amounts of money in Swiss francs, and in the Japanese yen, and the cost with the devalued Canadian dollar, they say on the other side of the House, because of the strength of those currencies, because of the weakness of the Canadian currency, it is now going to cost between $90 million and $100 million on recognized foreign currency - the Premier says $90 million - $90 million to $100 million is also going to have to be valued, and it is a cost to the rate payers of this Province. That is $90 million to $100 million you total up. You total up those other $40 millions in defeasions and retiring debt, we are up to $140 million. We have other costs by allowing the new company to have a rate of return on their investment over and above what Hydro receives, it is going to cost another $10 million to $15 million, not counting any of the other related costs associated with Hydro, itself.

Even by the government's admission, by piecing the figures together they gave to the media and otherwise, they say $165 million it is going to cost ratepayers because we privatized. It wouldn't be there if we didn't. Now, that is the $165 million. We say it is closer to $200 million, because Hydro is also going to accept a certain amount of the unfunded public liability, or the unfunded pension liability that is there, and that is going to drive the figures up close to $200 million.

Now if you amortize that just over the twenty-eight year period, it is going to cost close to $20 million a year on the ratepayers of this Province. Now, that's not looking at the other side of the coin.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave? Okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has no leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave?

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some members objecting.

Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public gallery seventy adults from the Association of New Canadians, including students who have immigrated from Russia, Moldavia, China, Cuba, Central America, as well as Kurdistan, accompanied by their teacher, Janet Kergoat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we have now had our three petitions. I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that the Orders of the Day now be read.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, for telling me he is finished. I agree with him.

Mr. Speaker, the House will notice that my friend, the Member for Fogo, is not with us this morning. I am told his father died overnight. Mr. Japhet Tulk of Ladle Cove, whom many of us would know. He had been in ill health for some time, but I am sure the shock of his passing is no less because of that.

I know I speak for all members on all sides of the House when I say that the House extends its sympathy to the gentleman, the Member for Fogo, and to the members of his family, at this time of loss, and I wonder if it would be appropriate for Your Honour to send a suitable letter to the Member for Fogo.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we would like to be associated with the remarks of the Government House Leader. Many of us have experienced similar tragedies, I guess, in our lives, and we can understand how the Member for Fogo and his family are feeling right now. I think it would be appropriate if Your Honour would send a message from the members of the House to let them know that, indeed, there are others thinking of him and the family at this time.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I may add, the late Mr. Tulk is resting at St. Stephen's United Church in Ladle Cove. The funeral will be tomorrow afternoon, should any hon. member wish to send a message or be present.

Your Honour, I wonder if we could go on and do Motion No. 4, which is the Supplementary Supply Bill. It stands in the name of my friend, the Minister of Finance, who is just now joining us here in the House again. We will have to go into Committee.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of The Whole on Supply to consider the Granting of Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty, Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 12.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bill No. 12 involves some supplementary supply for the Department of Social Services. Normally, Mr. Chairman, there are provisions in the Financial Administration Act for when money is needed over and above what is voted. There is a procedure in place whereby Orders in Council can be done and special warrants can be issued to provide that money.

In this case, Mr. Chairman, because the House was sitting we could have chosen that option. We could have simply done the Order in Council. We could have simply done the Special Warrant, and three sitting days later, notified the House. It is in perfectly good form and possible for us to do. However, Mr. Chairman, because the House is sitting, we felt it would be more appropriate to use another provision of the Financial Administration Act which calls for a supplementary supply bill to be introduced. This is exactly $3.5 million, $3 million of which is to get us through the rest of the year in terms of our social service payments and $500,000 has to do with the home support services of the Department of Social Services.

As you can see in our Estimates, we originally had $174,500 and this included an original amount that we had put in the Budget, plus what we had projected to be the overrun for the last few months of the year. We had $13,120,000 in for home support services. We found, and we have indicated to the House, that there have been some increases in demands on the social services budget, some increased demands on the home support services which provide care to people in their homes, and in our projections we have factored these things in. However, due, I guess, to an oversight -and this should have been done perhaps a month ago - but due to an oversight, we have discovered we really did not put in about $3.5 million that we should have so this is a second supplementary supply bill for the Department of Social Services to increase the total amount by $3.5 million.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that hon. members support this Supplementary Supply bill relating to the Department of Social Services.

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

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

I have just a few remarks about Bill 12. The minister, I think, has explained the situation very well. He asks hon. members to support this granting of supply of $3.5 million to the Department of Social Services. I say to the Minister of Finance, there is no doubt that at the end of the day we probably will support this piece of legislation, but it makes one wonder really what is going on with the financial administration of the Province and in particular, I guess, the financial administration and management of the Department of Social Services. Because how could such a thing as this happen, Mr. Chairman? I don't know what - maybe a condition of getting this supply might be to demand the resignation of the Minister of Social Services, I say, because this is a tremendous oversight, one of which I know the Minister of Social Services now when he speaks to this legislation will apologize to the House for - I guess, `negligent' would be a little too strong a word, I say to the Minister of Finance, a little too strong. I don't want to be too harsh on the minister because I know he must feel uncomfortable about the situation, not having a strong grip on his department and on the administration, the financial end of things in his department.

So, maybe if the minister would be willing to apologize and confess to the House that he and his department have made a tremendous blunder, a blunder amounting to $3.5 million, then perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we just might be receptive to granting this bill to give supply to Her Majesty of $3.5 million.

I see the minister is nodding and grinning so I sort of gather he is going to take my advice, get up and apologize and confess that he has made a major blunder.

MR. EFFORD: Never! Never!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The former Minister of Social Services says `never', but we saw him in days of confession, I say to the former minister, and it is getting close to that time again when the former minister might have to confess.

MR. EFFORD: Never!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: `Never' is a long time, I say to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, on a more serious note, we realize that the money we are being asked to approve here this morning is very important, it is for a great need, it is something that we all support in this House, something that we all try to support in the Province within our financial means. I mean, how could we not grant Supply to those I guess, who are most needy in our society; those who need home care support services; those who need social assistance allowances, we are all very reasonable about this, as, of course, is the Minister of Finance.

I commend the Minister of Finance, when, as acting House Leader over the last few days, he brought this matter to my attention. Of course, as we all know, the Minister of Finance and I got along very well when he was Government House Leader. We had a cordial relationship; we made great progress on whatever legislation was brought before the House; very little closure, very little closure.

In his very diplomatic manner, the Minister of Finance spoke to me behind the Speaker's Chair a few days ago, and asked if we could possibly get this Supply granted this morning, and I told him I would do my utmost, I would do my utmost to get it passed this morning, knowing though, knowing full-well that the Government House Leader was returning to the Province last night and I didn't know what effect that might have on the agreements that we made.

Mr. Chairman, on a more serious note and in concluding these remarks of mine, anyway, we have no difficulty in approving this later on after a few members have had a few words on it; it is much-needed money and it is going to those in our society who need it most.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, while there is no doubt that at the end of the day we will approve this bill, we cannot, Mr. Chairman, in all good conscience, let it slip through without exposing the incompetence of the minister. We cannot, Mr. Chairman, in all good conscience let this slip through without exposing that the Department of Social Services is responsible for this. There is only one reason why this bill is before the House today and that is, because the minister responsible for the department, forgot to do, or neglected to do or for some reason didn't do what he should have done.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be too hard on the minister because I understand some of his colleagues have already given the minister a bit of a ride.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, he doesn't have to resign for something as simple as this, but he has to be more a `hands on' minister - he can't let this slip through. But, at the same time, I say it is not an easy department, Mr. Chairman, I know that from experience; it is hard to keep on top of everything. And I must say that I didn't have the staff that the minister has, either, in terms of secretarial staff and so on, that he has in his office. I don't think the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has it either.

But, Mr. Chairman, while we are going to approve this bill, I say to the minister, I will avail of this opportunity to say it is unfortunate that the people on social assistance are expected to continue to live on the measly few dollars they have been getting over the past few years.

Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not easy for the minister; he can't flick a magic wand and increase social assistance - that has to be approved by the Cabinet. But I don't think there is any doubt with that minister, the same as every other minister who has brought forward a proposal to Cabinet requesting additional money for people on social assistance - but it didn't happen. It doesn't happen because some ministers don't really understand to the full extent, people on social assistance, what they do and how they survive.

In my case I've had experience as a Minister of Social Services and I've had ten years practising social work. So I have a tremendous –

MR. REID: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't say that I was any better or any worst then anyone else I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It is not an easy department to be in charge of. It is not an easy department when every decision that minister makes affects people's lives, I'd say to member's opposite. I say one other thing to his Cabinet colleagues, is that you don't have a true appreciation nor do most people who never served in that department for what really is needed to be done and for the necessity to support the Minister of Social Services.

We gave funding this year, Mr. Chairman, for thirty-three front-line workers. That's my understanding and the minister will probably address it when he gets up, that they are not thirty-three social workers. They are thirty-three financial assistance officers. What we need in this Province today, Mr. Chairman, is social workers and it is not the fault of the Minister of Social Services that there are thousands upon thousands of people ending up on social service roles every day. It is the fault of this government, Mr. Chairman, and the economic ministers, such as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. It is their fault, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Social Services is not vested with the economic portfolio.

It's the Premier and his ministers of economic portfolio's that are causing the hardship of the people of this Province and are putting the financial strain upon the Minister of Social Services and his department because there is no - the Minister of Fisheries is not here, that's one fellow I wish had been here to listen - there is no excuse for the numbers to be on social services. Never before, in the history of our Province, have so many people been on the caseload, never before, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson, we have no intention of delaying this bill. It's important and it's vital to people because they are not getting enough to survive on now, let alone having to delay getting their cheques for a couple of days, Mr. Chairman.

I would like the minister to - while he is doing this - it's separate obviously from debating the budget - why did the government decide this year to freeze the allocation of funding to the social assistance recipients? Why did government refuse the allocation of funding because people today cannot - and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation knows what I'm talking about - the people today on social assistance cannot survive on what they're getting. It's impossible, it is absolutely impossible. We've all got constituents who are on social assistance and we all hear from our constituents who are on social assistance time and time again. We have to increase the amount that they're getting.

MR. EFFORD: Where's the money going to come from?

MR. TOBIN: Money going to come from? John, government has to find it. I can tell you one place where the money can come from. If you go through the Budget and look at the increases in minister's offices, in purchase services, if you look at - not in yours, your's is gone down as a matter of fact. Mr. Chairman, if you look at the money that is gone into education, health and purchase services for one reason, Mr. Chairman, to provide a public relations campaign for the lack of actions on the part of this government. If you look at the money that's going to be spent by the Department of Health and the Department of Education to promote - television ads, radio ads and newspaper ads promoting the same type of garbage, Mr. Chairman, that this government perpetrated on the people of this Province regarding Hydro. Now they're going to be over there like a bunch of sheep when the Premier says we're going to withdraw the legislation and say, `okay, Premier.' They will surrender and wave the white flag. That's the proper thing, do it but do it quickly. You should have done it when we asked you to do it a month ago, you should have done it.

MR. GRIMES: Do what?

MR. TOBIN: Withdraw that piece of garbage, that legislation to privatize Hydro. You sure will sit in that seat like a little sheep when the Premier announces he's going to withdraw that piece of legislation. That's what's going to happen and so will every other member over there. You have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars and you say where are we going to get the money to give to people on social assistance? When you've spent millions of dollars to privatize Hydro and now you're going to come to your senses, hopefully, and withdraw the piece of legislation.

I commend you if you do it. Mr. Chairman, you won't hear us going around boasting about beating you to the ground or being winners or being victorious. You've no worries. You won't hear that, I would say to members opposite. We are not going to do that. Because we know that this is a piece of bad legislation. We've listened to the people. We've watched you people waste millions of dollars while the people on social assistance have to go hungry, spending it on the privatization of Hydro.

I've heard the Member for Lewisporte stand in this House and say it is a good deal and I'm going to support it. I heard the Member for Stephenville saying the same thing. He went out to his constituents. The Member for Eagle River thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. That is what we've heard day in and day out.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I still do.

MR. TOBIN: One of these days you will change your mind. When the Premier changes his mind Danny's will be changed as well, Mr. Chairman.

Where are they going to get money for people on social assistance? Millions of dollars gone into the privatization of Hydro. There will be a one line ministerial statement next week saying: Mr. Speaker, we've listened to the people and we are going to withdraw the legislation. Why didn't they listen to the people a month ago, I ask members opposite? Why did the Premier say last night: The truth I told you on Tuesday night was lies? Why? Because they tried every angle. Today the Premier is in Corner Brook.

The other interesting thing. He was on the CBC radio phone in the other day. Without conditions, he said: If the people of this Province don't support it I will resign. There was nothing about: It was my fault because we withheld information. Not on CBC radio. If the people of this Province doesn't support it I will resign. It will be the best thing that ever happened to Newfoundland and Labrador if he resigns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Yes, withdraw it and resign.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do both at the one time.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance should not be far behind him, I say to members opposite.

MR. BAKER: What am I doing to deserve this savage attack?

MR. TOBIN: It is not what you are doing, it is what you didn't do. You didn't stand up to the Premier and say: Premier, this is bad, this is not a good piece of legislation, my constituents will suffer, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will suffer. When we were telling him the Minister of Finance should have said: Mr. Premier, they are right, the Opposition is right, the Leader of the Opposition is right, when they get -

MR. BAKER: I think he is wrong.

MR. TOBIN: We will see next week.

MR. BAKER: That doesn't mean -

MR. TOBIN: The other thing, Mr. Chairperson, we do not want the Premier to go out and make a decision on a public opinion poll. Because do you know why? I will tell you why I don't want the Premier to do it. Did you ever read his autobiography and the story by Hoy, is it? When they brought out a poll that the Premier and his cronies made up during the election campaign of 1989. Doctored the poll in 1989. Now, who can trust the Premier to come in and say: I got a poll that shows the people are for it or against it? The Premier of this Province has been caught as written in his autobiography.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Go back and do your crossword puzzle. Have another nap. The Premier of this Province, Mr. Chairman, in his autobiography shows that he was part of a scheme, part of a group, scam, that doctored a poll in this Province for the 1989 election campaign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. We've seen in successive budgets unrealistic estimates of spending year after year, this has been a feature of Wells Administration budgets. Budgets brought down by the current Minister of Health who is yammering away, budgets more recently that have been brought down by the current Minister of Finance, the Member for Gander.

Consistently as an Opposition member asked to comment upon budgets on Budget Day, I've said that the projection for social assistance spending is unrealistic. Since this government came to power five years ago there has been a steady growth in the social assistance caseload. The number of people in this Province now depending on welfare for their livelihood is more than double what it was in May 1989.

I remember when the Budget came down last year, on a CBC television panel saying the estimate for social assistance again this year is low, it is unrealistic. When you look at the economic forecast, we have to expect more people to end up on the social assistance caseload.

Last fall the government got - I am just reminding my colleagues - $30 million supplementary supply for social assistance, and now here today they are in looking for, what is it, three-and-a-half additional million; and they have the gall to make fun of the Member for Ferryland and suggest that his arithmetic is inaccurate. What a joke!

Chairperson, this year I am saying once again the government's projection for social assistance spending is unrealistically low, and sure as anything they will be back here next fall, next winter, looking for supplementary supply. Right now staff of the government tell me that the social assistance caseload is about 36,000 so that would mean probably 75,000 or more individuals are depending on social assistance, but the number of units is 36,000; the caseload is 36,000.

Now in social services jargon, a case is a family unit which could consist of a family of five, with a mother and a father and three dependent children. It could be a single mother with three children, or it could be a single individual, so there are 36,000 cases and I would guess something approaching 75,000 or 80,000 individuals, women, children and men, who are depending on social assistance.

The projection for social assistance spending for next year is based on an estimate that the caseload will grow by 1,200 mainly because of the UI changes.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Over the 36,000 that it is now. That is what the staff told me when I questioned them. These were officials of Treasury Board.

I would suggest that a 1,200 increase again is unrealistically low. The changes in unemployment insurance which the Chrétien government has brought in on the recommendation of the Premier, who went to the Prime Minister just after he was elected with his grand design for reforming income support programs, was partly implemented by the federal government in their recent Budget.

The federal government conveniently took the negative features of the Premier's proposal, the features that are going to have the most adverse affect on Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, including upping the minimum qualifying time for unemployment insurance, so obviously a great many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who otherwise would have qualified for unemployment insurance this year won't get the minimum number of weeks of work and they are going to have to resort to social assistance. That is what has been happening.

So this supplementary supply measure of $3.5 million has to be examined in the light of the $30 million in supplementary supply for social assistance the government got last fall. Now that's a pretty big margin of error, and that's a huge difference from the estimate last year. It's a very high percentage error.

Chairperson, I am going to raise with members opposite, once again, an objection to their change in social assistance regulations in October, 1990 when they categorized maintenance and child support as non-allowable income. Previously maintenance and child support had been treated the same as income from a job, and social assistance recipients were able to benefit up to $115 a month. In other words, the regulations provided an incentive for social assistance recipients getting support or maintenance from a non-custodial parent or a former spouse. Once the change was made, the incentive was removed altogether.

Social Services now coerces clients to get a court order for child support or maintenance. They have to go through the motions of getting a court order but there is no advantage to them in having an order for a high amount. They are actually better off getting an order for a nominal amount, because whatever the non-custodial parent or the former spouse pays will be subtracted in full, dollar for dollar, from social assistance.

Worse than that, there is not synchronization of social assistance and support enforcement. So when support payments are late being made to the support enforcement agency the social assistance client - typically a single mother - has to do without. When the social assistance client is not getting any child support or maintenance and is relying totally on social assistance at least she can depend on her bi-monthly cheques. She is sure to get two cheques a month regularly on schedule from Social Services. When she has to depend to get part of the total income from Social Services and the other part from the support enforcement agency, and that second payment is late because the judgement debtor, the non-custodial parent, is late paying, then obviously the social assistance client is worse off. She doesn't have money to get groceries; she doesn't have money to pay her light bill on time.

Chairperson, in the Premier's income support reform proposal there is some recognition of the need to build into social programs providing income and incentive for people to get as much as they can through their own initiative. I've been saying for the last - how long has it been now, since October of 1990, so it is three and half years - that the government made a bad mistake in removing the incentive from the social assistance regime of clients getting maintenance and child support.

I've talked about this with the staff of the support enforcement agency and also legal aid lawyers who handle a fair number of court applications for maintenance and child support, and they say to me the government change is nuts. Because what is happening now is that people are simply just going through the motions of applying to court for child support. As low as they can keep the order the better off they will be. Because Social Services is simply going to subtract whatever the amount is in full, dollar for dollar.

The incentive before wasn't a large one. The incentive simply meant that a single mother and her children could have benefitted maximum $115 a month. If you are a single mother with two small children and you are getting $500 a month, an extra $80, $100, $115, means a great deal. One hundred and fifteen dollars a month is not much to anyone sitting in this House. It is not much to members of the House or the staff of the House because we have good salaries and generous benefits. Members must appreciate how much it means to a single mother with dependent children. So I'm urging the government once again to reverse that change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

MR. MURPHY: Yes. Just a few words, Mr. Chairman. Because I think what we are seeing here is something that is not unusual, I say to the Member for Humber East. I think it was 1982 - and members opposite can correct me - when some of the members opposite were in government that the Minister of Social Services of the day had to come to the House of Assembly and ask for a special warrant because there wasn't enough in his Budget at that particular time to fulfil the needs.

MS. VERGE: Oh, oh!

MR. MURPHY: I will find out for the member and let her know. So it is not precedent setting, it is not something unusual. It is something that sometimes needs to be done because of the economy, not only of the Province, but the economy of the country as a whole. I mean, hon. members opposite want to make hay on the Minister of Social Services and I tell you, it is a tough time to be Minister of Social Services -

AN HON. MEMBER: And he is a good one.

MR. MURPHY: Yes, and a compassionate minister I say to members opposite because it is just the way that the economic system has a tendency to come and go, and I am sure the Member for Humber East realizes that; that there are circumstances and situations and you know, she makes points about what we should and could do and so forth and so on, but she knows full well as a previous minister of the Crown that you have a budget and you must try and live within your budget but at the end of the day, when you have people out there who are in need, desperate need, then obviously, it is a circumstance that needs to be done. The Minister of Finance does not want to run off looking for $3 million-plus, but he knows that the people of this Province need it, the minister knows that he needs it and members opposite know that he needs it.

Now you can get into the specifics about who is suffering and who isn't suffering but I would suggest to the member opposite, that anybody on social assistance for forty years, suffers, they suffer, right? But let me talk about some of the rhetoric that the Member for Burin - Placentia West got on with when he talked about - well, perhaps he may be right. Perhaps there will be some logic seen in withdrawing the Hydro bill, but then I say to members opposite they have to be very careful because, if the status quo or the stand alone, or we don't change anything with Hydro because of money, what I say to hon. members is, if the Public Utilities Board, has through no fault, because Hydro has a larger maintenance expense or whatever the case may be, and that hydro rates go up 5 per cent, 6 per cent or 7 per cent or 8 per cent, through no fault but the system, then hon. members opposite better be careful because Hydro as it is today, could very well see a need for maintenance if the turbines or the two of them wear out and there is capital maintenance or whatever, or we need new pieces of transmission line, when that capital expense goes before the Public Utilities Board.

I say, you know they could very well see a large electrical increase at the domestic and commercial levels, so be prepared for that, and if that day should come, then hon. members opposite are going to have to stand in their place and defend why the rates have gone up. They will have to defend that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Yes, they will have to defend it. For me, I am three-and-a-half years now, I haven't changed my mind; I sincerely believe that we should privatize Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well I will. The hon. member knows and I still say and I want to go on public record as saying, regardless of what happens or don't happen, that I believe, sincerely believe that we should privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Nothing has changed my mind.

MS. VERGE: Don't confuse us with (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I didn't. That's not my responsibility, I only stand in my own place, the same as the Member for Pleasantville did and expounded upon why he didn't think that he should support the privatization of Hydro and I totally disagree with him. I totally disagree with his format; I totally disagree with his approach -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I say to the Member for Grand Bank, I will never change my position, never, no, no. I say to the hon. member, what government does, government does, but for me, in all honesty, I say and I want to go on record that if I had my way, I would privatize Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us why.

MR. MURPHY: I have already told the hon. member why and I am not going to get into that again. I say to the member, I am tired of –

DR. KITCHEN: Read Hansard. Tell him to read Hansard.

MR. MURPHY: That's right. The Minister of Health says that if you want to know my reasons, read Hansard and if you can't, get some help from the Member for Humber Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: No, I say to the member's opposite and for the fifty-two members in this House because this is - what we've seen is a very emotional debate on Hydro.

MS. VERGE: What's wrong with emotions?

MR. MURPHY: Nothing wrong with emotions, there is absolutely nothing wrong with emotions. I can say to the Member for Humber East, I'm just as emotional as she is.

AN HON. MEMBER: Probably more so.

MR. MURPHY: Let me say for the record that it isn't easy in 1994 to find the dollars to do all the things that Newfoundlanders expect. The reason that is is because members opposite year after year after year let Newfoundlanders live in a false economy and the day has finally arrived when the piper has to be paid. The piper has to be paid and the hon. members opposite know it and this government is doing everything it can to try and hang on -

MR. EFFORD: Try to right the wrongs.

MR. MURPHY: That's right, exactly. The Member for Port de Grave knows what I'm talking about, that this government has taken the responsibility and did what needed to be done when your previous leaders stood in this House - not this House but upstairs or wherever he stood - and he said to all of you, and all of the people in this Province: I do not have the political will to run anymore. Now that's what Mr. Peckford said because Mr. Peckford knew full well, I say to members opposite, that this Province could no longer carry itself on a $5.5 billion debt, he knew. Where was he going to get the tax resource? He knew the transfer payments would come down. He fought and argued with his own. I wasn't the first one to say that he sold the shop. All you people know who said it and Mr. Peckford left. Mr. Peckford today is out in BC, the most prosperous province in the country right now and good for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: The sun will shine and have not will be no more!

MR. MURPHY: That's right and I don't want to put prosperity down around your ears. What a dandy line that was. So hon. members opposite can get up, beat their chests and thump and get on. What we've seen here is a perfect example of what needed to be done, a Premier and a government who have tried under very difficult circumstances to bring this Province around and it's not easy, I say to the Member for Humber East. So to stand up and get on with a whole lot of incidental things associated with social services when she full knows, when she knows within her own mind - I mean she's not that naive or not that stupid, she's a smart woman.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't go that far.

MR. MURPHY: She's a smart woman, she knows and to stand up just again to thump her chest -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. MURPHY: Yes, she gets up and thumps her chest or her back or something I don't know but she thumps her chest and grabs onto silly little political points. So members opposite should stand up and say what needs to be said. Be reasonable, be rational, I don't mind you being against Hydro. That' fine but stop this getting on because who knows better then you fellows and the Member for Humber East, who knows? Every time you had a problem you ran to the bond market and you borrowed.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Grand Bank, let me do the total, we've had twenty-one years of Smallwood administration, twenty-seven years of Liberal administration and seventeen years of Tory administration and you fellows borrowed 72 per cent of the provincial debt. Now I say to the Member for Ferryland, you run out and get your calculator out and you figure it out. That is true, you run out and get your calculator out. Seventy-two per cent of what the people of this Province owe the bond market of this world, 72 per cent of what - the people, not just government, not that former government but the people of this Province owe, is on the backs of you folks. When every time you had any kind of a situation you ran off, got the money, came back and fired the money at the situation and said we'll get elected again. The only one that couldn't win in the Peckford big years was, `is dat you Bas'. Dat you Bas ran twice. He ran twice out in Bellevue and got slaughtered. Now I say to myself after two years listening to Bas I was -

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

MR. MURPHY: - wondering why he was so anti-Liberal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: - and it finally came to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MURPHY: So I say to you if you are going to get up now forget Hydro because we are dealing with something else. Get up and put some reason and do not get on about a warrant going to social services because all you are doing is demeaning a need that the minister has.

Thank you.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I am not in the mood for a promotion this morning.

I just want to say to the Member for St. John's South that those in the gallery who came in a bit later, do not know what we are doing, and I am sure by listening to the member they would never know that the government today is asking this Legislature to approve $3.5 million for the Department of Social Services to pay social assistance, and for home support services for those people out and about the Province who need it. Those people who do not know what we are suppose to be doing here this morning would not gather from the hon. member's comments what this piece of legislation is about because in a very weak and feeble attempt he is over there now going back to the years of Premier Smallwood, Premier Moores, and Premier Peckford, but quite conveniently he avoided talking about today. He avoided talking about today and Premier Wells because he knows how unpopular it is today to talk about Premier Wells, I say to the Member for St. John's South, how unpopular it is to talk about his Premier, his leader, the one who tells him that he must support the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

That is the problem with the member. He blames former administrations for the public debt. Well, I say to the Member for St. John's South, go get the records and show your government's record of borrowing for the last five years, from your first Budget in 1989. Go get it and lay it on the table of the House so that people can see what percent of the public debt you have incurred in the last five years.

Getting back to the piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, Bill 12, as I said before there was a mix up, there is no doubt about that. The Minister of Finance admits that and I am sure the Minister of Social Services, if he stood in his place, would admit that there has been a blunder made. That is why we are here today with Bill 12, having to approve a $3.5 million expenditure. It has been fiscal mismanagement again and having said that we in Opposition do not intend to hold that over the heads of those people who need this money to survive over the next couple of weeks, to get them to the end of the fiscal year. When I spoke originally on the bill I called then for the resignation of the minister. Such a major, major blunder that the minister is directly responsible for as head of his department.

MS. VERGE: That is the second blunder.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is the second blunder because they were in the fall looking for $30 million, so I do not know how many more mistakes the minister will have to make.

MR. GRIMES: He should resign.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He should resign. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is correct. When one of his own colleagues, from his seat, is calling for the resignation of the Minister of Social Services then I think it is incumbent upon the minister to rise in his place now and tell the House he is going to type his letter, as soon as the Premier arrives back from Corner Brook, the West Coast, he will be waiting for him at his office to submit his resignation.

AN HON. MEMBER: The second member of the Cabinet to apologize this week.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. That is the advice of the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, but I want to say to the Minister of Social Services that we will not go quite that far. If the minister would rise in his place and admit that he made quite a blunder - can you imagine the blunder, a $3.5 million mistake. The revised figures of the Department of Social Services, I say to the former Minister of Social Services, is $23 million over what they budgeted last year. At the time the Member for Mount Pearl, the Finance critic told the government that your figures were incorrect, your projections were totally incorrect. The Finance critic and members here, for five years, told you when you brought in your Budgets that your figures were all wrong, and again we see it today, Mr. Chairman.

Having said that, we are going to allow this piece of legislation, this supply to be granted to Her Majesty so that the Minister of Social Services can take care of those out and about the Province who need their social assistance payments, those seniors in their homes out and about the Province who need home care support services. We are going to be responsible about this even though we recognize that there has been a big blunder made. We will agree to have this piece of legislation carried now, Mr. Chairman, at your convenience.

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain additional expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1994, the sum of $3,500,000."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could rise the Committee and give the bill the three readings in accordance with our procedure, I can tell the Committee that we will then be coming back into Committee and going back on the interim supply debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, we have a message which will be read an hour ago.

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

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before you deal with reports in Committee it appears that the message as required under the Constitution Act was here but was not read. I wonder if we might have leave of the House - the message is here, my friend the Minister of Finance has it and will transmit it to Your Honour, but strictly speaking, under the Constitution Act expenditures must be authorized by the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Is leave given to read the message at this point and deemed to have been read before the Committee of the Whole was constituted for debate?

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

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

Motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Please rise.

I have the message of the Administrator of the Province, signed by J. R. Gushue, directed to the hon. the Minister of Finance:

"I the Administrator of the Province of Newfoundland, transmit supplementary Estimates of sums required for the Public Service of the Province for the year ending March 31, 1994, by way of Supplementary Supply and, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, I recommend these estimates for the House of Assembly."

Sgd.:______________________

J. R. Gushue, Administrator

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have passed a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same, Bill No. 12.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Additional Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service", read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 12).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that piece of work accomplished, could we go back into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means, Motion 1, please?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise this morning again to address a few comments relative to the Interim Supply motion and also to reference the fact that this is Nutrition month, and as we heard the other day from the Minister of Health, the theme for Nutrition month is: Nourishing our children's future.

The comments I want to make today will reference the commitment of government to the children of the Province and, in particular, the need for government to be aware of health needs, particularly the needs of children who are classified as being poor or children who have very special needs.

Mr. Chairman, the Newfoundland Dietetic Association, is working towards creating healthy eating habits to contribute to the physical and emotional well-being of children. Certainly, those of us who have backgrounds in education and those of us who are involved in the community, are well aware that some children start off life in a disadvantaged way. Therefore, as parents, teachers and citizens, it is our responsibility to emphasize the importance of nutrition to set an appropriate example for the Province's youth.

Mr. Chairman, I want to note as well that many of the studies done in this Province and elsewhere in the country have drawn reference to the fact that many children who attend school indeed do have nutritional needs that are not met at home and the schools are facing a continuous challenge to motivate those children to do well. For example, the 1988 royal commission on education in British Columbia said: When a child is troubled or underfed or if a child cannot benefit from schooling because of learning or other disabilities, it is the teacher, the other students and the school who must live with these difficulties.

Mr. Chairman, we also note that lack of adequate and proper food is a substantive social and economic barrier to achievement in school. The royal commission in Newfoundland contained some references to the connection between achievement and good nutrition. All individuals have basic needs and the degree to which these needs are or are not met may affect their ability to interact successfully with their families, to interact in their communities and their workplaces. In school, if a child is distracted by hunger or is distressed because of other types of difficulties, or is emotionally torn between dysfunctional family units, that child very quickly becomes unable to profit from instruction and failure is often the result.

Poor attendance in school is often the consequence of inadequate clothing, of insufficient food, and sometimes poor transportation. In the royal commission report it reads as follows: The difference in reading and related school achievement between children of high and low income families for example becomes greater in elementary than it is at the primary level. Mr. Chairman, what we are saying is that many children in this Province go to school hungry every day. If you are serious about achievement in school and achieving excellence in our school system, then the conditions for success must be addressed.

The child poverty rate in this Province is the highest in the country. These are not my words. They are the words contained in the reports that are on file with the Departments of Education and Social Services. I'm sure all members of government are aware of them. Twenty-seven per cent of families in Newfoundland and Labrador are classified as being poor. Seventy-three per cent of that twenty-seven per cent of poor families are headed by a single parent.

That means that poor nutrition is a substantive factor in low achievement in our school system. Poor nutrition contributes to poor health. Of course, the Minister of Health, this being nutrition month, drew reference to the connection between poor health and poor nutrition, and that is what nutrition month is all about.

Conditions that I have been describing in families certainly result in environments which are not conducive to learning, Unfortunately in many cases we have what is called a cycle of disadvantaged. That means, very simply, that we are sometimes seeing the second- and third-generation of families that are undernourished and for whom every day is a substantive challenge. Very often poverty in childhood leads to poverty in adulthood, and in turn creates situations where families continue to perpetuate the kind of circumstances in which they grew up. Of course, when these children go to school they encounter all of the bias of the middle-class environment and most schools do tend to operate according to a middle-class expectation and a middle class bias.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points I want to make before my ten has expired. In this Province we have to try to address the real issues of child hunger. Again, the Williams Royal Commission draws lots of reference to the connection between poor nutrition and school achievement. It reads as follows: when children are not adequately fed they miss valuable instructional time, fail to keep up with school work, and are very likely to drop out of school early. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to address the educational achievements of this Province we have to look at all the factors and poor nutrition and poverty among children is a substantive factor in low school achievement.

Mr. Chairman, it also is to be noted, based on studies done by the Department of Health, the Department of Social Services, and the Department of Education, they estimate that 2000 children in 491 schools in this Province are regularly going to school hungry, and they calculated, if the figure is correct, that one in four children living in Newfoundland and Labrador live in poverty and that means that approximately 32,500 children in this Province go to school hungry every day. Now, this information is contained in reports that are presented to the government and they are repeated in the Royal Commission documents.

Mr. Chairman, it also says that if you have a family of four and they are living on social assistance that 82 per cent of the allocation of funds for that family must go to pay for food and also it says in the report if they are to use the Canada Food Guide and to follow the minimum standards, that 82 per cent of the monies allocated to a family of four would be needed to meet the minimum standards and expectations of good nutrition.

Mr. Chairman, let us make sure that we understand that hunger is not the fault of the child. Children are dependent on guardians and parents. They are dependent on governments to make sure that every child has equal access to educational opportunities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude in a couple of minutes.

Child hunger is also known to be a hidden problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would like to welcome to the House, before they leave, the seventy Level 1 students from Bishop O'Neil High School in Brigus in the District of Port de Grave, accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Doug Parsons, Mr. Tony Connolly, and Mr. Sheldon Barry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Child hunger is also a hidden problem. Those of us who are teachers, who have practised that profession, know that very young children will often tell a teacher they are hungry, however, as children get older they are most reluctant to comment on what they have had for breakfast, or if they have had any breakfast at all, so, Mr. Chairman, there is a substantive stigma attached to being poor. Children in the junior high school grades will not go and tell the teacher that they are in need of food, and dealing with hunger is not the sole responsibility of educators, but it is often teachers who have to deal with the effects of hunger.

Mr. Chairman, it is in the interest of everybody - parents, teachers, and the community - to make sure that all children have their basic needs met, and certainly the school is where we find some of the most obvious evidence that children often come to the classroom without sufficient food.

Mr. Chairman, also I want to note that in the Royal Commission Report, recommendation 148, it reads: That the provincial government convene a planning group with representation from business, community organizations, churches and government departments to address the issue of child hunger, specifically to investigate potential models for dealing with the issue of child hunger, to explore the feasibility of developing a provincial school nutrition fund, and to establish links among all groups concerned about the issue, and to determine the most appropriate ways of assisting those who wish to implement the school food programs.

Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility, as legislators, to our youth. The Royal Commission Report talks about our children, our future, and if we are going to be serious about improving achievement in this Province, in our school system, then we have to look at the fact that 25 per cent to 30 per cent of children go to school every day without sufficient food, and would be classified as being poor.

Mr. Chairman, I note that the Minister of Social Services is not here, but I am sure that he is well aware of the increases in the numbers of people who are on social assistance in this Province. The data to which I refer was compiled prior to the closure of the fishing industry in this Province, so therefore I have no reason to expect that the data which was compiled three years ago has shown any change for the better. In fact, we suspect that the changes that have been occurring have made the problem greater than ever.

Certainly, in the St. John's area, many schools now have to offer the School Lunch Program. While that is to be commended, we all recognize as educators that we have, first of all, to make sure that a child is well fed before we can try to address the educational achievement levels of that particular child.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the children who have special needs in this Province, particularly those who go to school every day classified as being poor.

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

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

I have a few remarks on this Interim Supply debate where the government is asking for close to a billion dollars - $999,691,800 - to keep the Province going, just about a billion - $999 million.

MR. TOBIN: How many pennies is that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I don't know how many pennies are in it, I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a lot of pennies. I would say he would be down on one side if he had the equivalent of all those pennies in his pocket.

MR. SULLIVAN: There is 99,999,691,800 pennies.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I can't even repeat that, but it is a fair dollar –

MR. SULLIVAN: Add two zeroes on it and you will get the number of pennies.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Would you?

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Two zeroes. Well, that is a lot of pennies.

It is a lot of money, close to a billion dollars, that government is asking the House to approve to keep government operating, keep the Province running.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, it's pretty significant. It's about a third of the Budget they are asking us now to approve. It is about a third of the Budget for the next fiscal year which is standard practice every year, that the House is asked to grant to Her Majesty certain amounts of supply, known as Interim Supply, to keep the government going after March 31 when the current fiscal year expires so they can pay their bills and run the Province. Usually it is not a great problem, Mr. Chairman, the granting of Interim Supply. We all know what it is for. We all know that a good portion, close to $1 billion is justified.

MR. MURPHY: Carried.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who was that said carried?

MR. TOBIN: Murphy.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He is always there to distract and disrupt, the Member for St. John's South, issuing challenges, bringing up his fist, pointing his fingers, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SULLIVAN: Only when the Premier is not here, though.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, only in the absence of the Premier. When the Premier is here he is so quite and mute, running for this Hansard, running upstairs for a document, go get this and go get that, bring it in to me Tom, underline it for me Tom. I have to say in all fairness to the member that he is performing his duties very well. He is a good gofer. I watched him Wednesday morning actually, after the infamous statement by the Premier, when the Premier really made the biggest balls that any Premier ever made of anything on television.

DR. KITCHEN: The biggest what?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He made a balls of the situation, b-a-l-l-s, I say to the Minister of Health in case he is not familiar with balls, b-a-l-l-s. I am sure the minister has come across that word several times when he does his crosswords as he was doing yesterday when the Member for Ferryland asked him a question.

MR. SULLIVAN: A five letter word beginning with `c' and ending with `l'.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A five letter word that begins with `b' and ends with `s'. What was I saying about the Member for St. John's South? Wednesday morning after the Premier apologized and half wept to the people. Of course the big panic was to get in Wednesday morning and meet the caucus because he knew he was facing a revolt. He knew he was facing a caucus revolt. The Premier knew he was facing it. I came up towards the government member's caucus room and the Premier and the Member for St. John's South, well you talk about two fellows going. Like Buddy Wasisname said: no you wouldn't go, no you wouldn't, I know. The poor member, of course, with his bad knees was trying to keep up to the Premier because he was going behind him.

MR. TOBIN: You could just see his shoes.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, just the taps of his shoes.

It is very difficult, Mr. Chairman, when you hear him speaking about the government now wanting us to give them a $1 billion and you get interrupted then by the Member for St. John's South who really diverts your attention away.

MR. MURPHY: All I said was, carried, one word.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: But it is not going to be carried I say to the member. It is not going to be carried without some good answers. The Member for Burin - Placentia West this morning mentioned the millions of dollars that government has already spent and the millions more that will be spent on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Some of this money in this Interim Supply Bill, this close to $1 billion, is going to be for that. It is going to be for the advertising campaigns, and the various fees and so on that government wants. I do not know, Mr. Chairman, with the opposition that is in this Province to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro whether we can find it within ourselves to approve expenditures, to grant supply for further expenditures, an outright waste on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, knowing the overwhelming opposition in every corner of this Province to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Strongly support it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I say to the Member for St. John's North - I strongly support it! What world are you living in, I say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) world.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, boy, I would love to live there. It must be some spot, I say to him.

Overwhelming support for the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, the statement that the hon. member just made is comparable to the statement the Premier made last night when he told the Province; You know that truth I told you Tuesday night, well that's not true; that wasn't true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The truth about the untruth is still an untruth, I say to the member. That is what the Premier told the Province last night. It is not true. I am sorry I lied to you before. I didn't tell you the truth. I am telling you the truth Tuesday night, he said. Then last night he had to say, you know that truth I told you on Tuesday, that was untrue too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show me your poll and I'll show you mine.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Listen, I say to the Member for St. John's South -

AN HON. MEMBER: North.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: North.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're lost.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, but now I'm found. I was lost, but now I'm found, I say to the member. I'm sure he is very familiar with that phrase.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you didn't have a good name you would be in big trouble.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I would.

AN HON. MEMBER: His hypocrisy is showing through.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: My what?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hypocrisy (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Hypocrisy. I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that if there is ever a person or a group of people who should never utter the word `hypocrisy' again, it is you and your colleagues. You should never be allowed to even think the phrase, I say to him. You should sit in your seat, bury your head in your book, cover up your head, and be ashamed of yourself, because that is what you are. For anyone to tell you even how you should think, I say to the minister, you can't think for yourself, you are not allowed to speak for yourself, and the Premier confirmed that Tuesday night as well, that I told them to shut up, and don't tell anybody, and they all listened to me except for one. That is what he told the Province. I told them to shut up, don't tell anybody, don't even think about it, and they all nodded, yes, Premier; and they are expecting us now to approve, as part of this billion dollar Interim Supply Bill, more money to carry on with that charade.

Well, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, I don't know if we are going to be able to approve Interim Supply by the time the government needs it. They need it by the fifth or sixth of April, the next pay period. I think there are two pay periods left, one in this fiscal year, and one comes very quickly after the start of the next fiscal year, around the sixth of April, I believe. They need it for Wednesday, I believe, the sixth of April.

Now I say to the Member for St. John's North, I am not sure that we can give the government - I don't know if there will be any cheques issued in this Province the first week of April, I say to members opposite. I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure. The member said closure.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Closure. I know you watched your Premier last night. Did you not watch your Premier last night when he just kept himself, on television, from telling the Province he was going to withdraw the legislation? He just stopped himself. He just caught himself from saying: I am going to withdraw it. Then the minister comes in here this morning and mentions the word `closure'. No, I don't think we will see any closure; I don't think so. I think we are going to see a withdrawal of the legislation early next week is my prediction.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, no, not in this. I am talking Hydro, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, you can invoke closure on this, and I would suggest to you, and my good friend, the Minister of Finance, as much as I want to co-operate with him, as everyone knows, I would say they will probably have to invoke closure to be able to pay the bills in April. There will be no cheques. We are going to shut the Province down because you won't have any supply, unless there is a very important thing happens.

Now if the Premier comes in, as I expect he will on Monday, and admits that he is defeated, he is bashed, he is whipped, he is bruised. Don't be surprised, because the only thing he hasn't done now, on Tuesday and last night. That's the only thing he hasn't admitted - that I'm beaten, I'm bruised, I'm defeated, I'm sorry. I expect he is going to rise in his place on Monday because the bill is in the Premier's name, the privatization bill -

MR. TOBIN: He's going to resign.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and he is going to say, `I have a very short statement,' it's going to be two sentences, `I hereby withdraw the bill as it pertains to the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dream on.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: `I herewith resign accordingly.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Now, that's what I'm expecting on Monday, I say to members opposite. Now, if that happens on Monday, you'll have no worry, I say to the Government House Leader, about sitting Holy Thursday. If that happens on Monday, you'll have your Interim Supply, but if that doesn't happen -

MR. FLIGHT: You'll have an election.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have to say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that I have become a little bit shy about elections, I say to him. Four elections now, I'm getting a bit tired, not sure, tired, family not too keen on my running again, but I tell you one thing, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier would only go down to Government House and get the Writ issued, then I'll guarantee you one thing, I'll be back over there somewhere in those four seats in the front, right there, I say to the minister. If the Premier had the intestinal fortitude to call an election on the issue, when we come back I'll be somewhere in that block of four right there. Now where I'm going to be I don't know, but somewhere there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, there won't be a Liberal coming back if there's an election called now, I say to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not one Liberal would come back. Not one Liberal - yes, one Liberal but I'm not sure he will run as a Liberal, I say to him. The Member for Pleasantville, I don't think will run as a Liberal, but if he does, he will come back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have to finish this up; I want a few minutes to finish up, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture never stands in his place and speaks but he speaks continuously from his chair and it's very disruptive. All he does is cause those of us who speak, to speak that much longer then we really intended to.

MR. TOBIN: So, apologize to the Speaker, will you?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry?

MR. TOBIN: Apologize to the Chairman for singing out.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who?

MR. TOBIN: You.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm sorry if I sang out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I have leave.

MR. TOBIN: You're speaking too loudly.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, I'm speaking too loudly, I'm sorry.

I just wanted to reiterate, to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, that's the realities of today, I say to him. He knows it, he sits there and makes his smart remarks, quips and goes on with his nonsense -

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not smart!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, to him, it's smart. He laughs at himself. He makes them and he laughs to himself, but he knows the realities of it. He has been around a long time. He knows it's not good times for the government; they know that. It's been a rough week on the Premier and the government, they know that. Next week is going to be even worst for the government and the Premier unless he does what I expect he's going to do on Monday. I expect he's going to do it on Monday and, of course, I would say, over the weekend there's going to be a fair bit of activity. I would say the Member for St. John's South will be rather busy over the weekend. I'd say he will call every Liberal district association in the Province over the weekend.

MR. MURPHY: We've done it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You already got it done. He will be lining up support for his favourite candidate because he's up in the Premier's office, he's going to see the Premier's statement, he's going to read it, he's going to know what's coming, he's going to take up the phone and he's going to say, `Rog, it's happening. It's coming Monday old boy. I have it all set up for you.' That's what we're going to have.

MR. TOBIN: No, they would be having an interim leader first.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, no doubt. `Danny' will be their Interim leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I hope he does. I say to my colleague, I hope he does become interim leader, my good friend, the Member for Eagle River. I hope he does, because we won't see him anymore. He will be full-time in Ottawa, up with the Prime Minister, full-time.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Trans-Labrador Highway will be completed in one year.

AN HON. MEMBER: He will run with the Chateau Laurier.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, a big sweep.

Now, Mr. Chairman, those are the biggest concerns I have about the Interim Supply. We all know why government needs Interim Supply. They have to run the Province after March 31st. But I'm wondering if someone could tell us what this privatization of Hydro has cost the taxpayers of this Province to date? what it will cost in this fiscal year even, to March 31st, and what the anticipated cost will be. How much will come out of this billion dollars you are asking us to provide you in Interim Supply? I'm wondering can anyone tell the people of the Province, who are paying for this, how much money this whole deal is going to cost.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The one I'm hoping the Premier will withdraw on Monday, I say to the minister.

MR. SULLIVAN: They have already spent tens of millions.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, the minister found it funny; he poured water all down his neck. He missed his mouth, which is a most incredible feat - a most incredible feat for the minister, I say, with all due respect, that he put up the glass and missed his mouth!

MS. VERGE: Which minister?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: My good friend, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I'm wondering though, seriously. I think it is something that needs to be answered. We have heard tell of the $100,000 figure on the advertising brochures and so on but it is certainly far more than that. The radio ads, themselves, I say to the Minister of Finance, who I know is taking a keen interest in what I'm saying, I notice - I'm wondering could the minister provide a breakdown for the House, seriously, of what the brochure cost, what the newspaper ads cost, what the radio ads cost. I'm just thinking about the advertising.

Because when I look at the Budget - and I asked the minister a question this morning, I didn't have much time, the Minister of Fisheries, on the $75,000 for the foreign overfishing campaign, it seemed to be a very insignificant amount of money when you look at the money government is spending, or going to spend, on advertising on the privatization of Hydro. To me, the foreign overfishing issue is far more important to this Province, and stopping foreign overfishing -

MR. FLIGHT: This is the first time you have mentioned fisheries in a while, the first time you've said the word (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: He asked questions this morning in Question Period.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - than privatizing, much more important, Mr. Chairman, than privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. A much more serious problem for the people of the Province is stopping foreign overfishing. It will have a greater impact on our economy -

MR. FLIGHT: It is the first time for a month (inaudible) Opposition (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Second time this week on (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Stopping foreign overfishing will be very positive for the people of the Province. Privatizing Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is going to be negative for the people of the Province. The question I guess I wanted to ask the minister, but I didn't have time, is why is there only $75,000 in there to combat, to put on a campaign against foreign overfishing, when you've told us that a minimum of $100,000 is being spent on privatization.

MR. DUMARESQUE: `Tobin' is going to have it done anyway.

MR. SULLIVAN: He was going to do it by January.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tobin? Tobin will have it done anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Paul Watson is going to do it for you.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, I am not even going to get sidetracked with that, Mr. Chairman, because what is it now, 150 days since the federal election? One hundred and fifty days have passed, have come and gone.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and fifty days, not eight years, I can tell you).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: One hundred and fifty days have come and gone and the great promise by one, Mr. Brian Tobin, Mr. Roger Simmons, and one, Jean Chrétien, still not fulfilled, and one, Mr. George Baker never mentions foreign vessels out on the Nose and Tail of the Banks now. They are never mentioned. No seventy-three out there fishing today, Mr. Chairman. You would never know it - never know it is happening, I say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: The source of information dried up - `George Baker'.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, there is no doubt, yes it did. If the government hadn't changed, I say the Atlantic Ocean would have dried up, according to George. The foreign trawlers would have not only taken the fish out of the ocean, Mr. Chairman, they would have taken every gallon of water out of the Atlantic Ocean. Now it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter now how much they overfish and how many boats are out there.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It does, I know, but I'm saying to `George' and `Roger' and `Brian' and those it doesn't, I say to my friend, the Member for Eagle River. I wonder about him, too. He hasn't had too many press conferences lately.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Who?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You. You haven't had too many press conferences lately talking about big fisheries issues. You haven't even mentioned the Salt Fish Corporation in the last five or six months, Mr. Chairman. Haven't even mentioned the Salt Fish Corporation.

The word is out and about now, is it: Still waiting for `Danny'. Danny is muzzled, he is silenced. Too bad, because the hon. member made a name for himself. I'm not saying it was a good name, now, I'm not saying he made a good name for himself, but he made a name for himself.

MR. TOBIN: So did Roger Simmons.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, let's talk about something important. Let's talk about the Member for Eagle River, I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia West that that gentleman has a reputation of speaking out on important issues, being a bit of a maverick -

AN HON. MEMBER: Usually without the facts.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Really? There is no doubt, he has a high recognition factor in the Province, there is no question, everybody knows Danny Dumaresque. Now they might not know him for all good things, they might say he shoots off his mouth too much, he doesn't know what he is talking about, John Crosbie socked him three or four times and knocked him down but they know, they know and people have a lot of respect for that kind of politician I say to members opposite very sincerely, they do have respect for that kind of a politician as the member is, if he didn't get so uptight in debate he would be by far, much more effective, he gets so spitey and turns white, clenches his fists, grinds his teeth, but I must say he is restrained a lot lately. I guess he knows there is a vacancy in the Cabinet, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: He would have to change his demeanour.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, definitely and I am sure the image makers for the government are making notes and they are telling them that Danny has definitely improved and so on, but there won't be anything happen, I say to the Member for Eagle River, not until late June or early July, you can relax; there is nothing going to happen whatsoever I say to members opposite until whenever we allow this to finish.

DR. KITCHEN: I thought you said the Premier was going to resign.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh yes, but the new Premier won't need him you see. He won't fill the position either or have a shuffle because you can't do that too quickly, I say to the Minister of Health, he wouldn't understand that, he hasn't been very close to leaders or leaderships or premiers, he does not get too close. He doesn't understand a new Premier cannot do that too quickly I say to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why wouldn't Danny do that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Do what? Why wouldn't Danny do what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh he might be, he might be an interim leader, he just could be; I hope he is. Now, if that happens, Mr. Chairman, if that should happen then I would say there would be a tremendous shake-up over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Interim supply.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh I would give him whatever he wanted I say to the minister.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, and he will give you the boot right away too.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I know, I know, exactly. I am sure that the new Premier, Premier Daniel Dumaresque, would make some significant changes in the Cabinet and he would be calling me the same day he was sworn in and saying: Now Bill, you have been watching the performance of my colleagues, who would you recommend?

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill, it is funny the only thing that cheers them up is the prospect of the Premier resigning.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, it is the first time they laughed in weeks at the mere thought that their Premier is going to resign on Monday, but I can understand it, if I were over there I would feel good if someone mentioned that to me as well. As a matter of fact, if I were over there, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier gets back I would be waiting on the eighth floor, Mr. Chairman. I would be waiting up on the eighth floor -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I would. I would call my good friend Judy and I would say: Judy book me an appointment with the Premier because there is something I have to tell him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, just hold on now. I am just saying that if I were on the other side I would get an appointment and I would tell him, I would say: Premier, in the best interest of our party and our government you should go -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you tell Brian to go?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I say to the Minister of Health, I did tell him. Why do you think he left I say to the Minister of Health?

MR. SULLIVAN: He told him two years before he left.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I wanted him to go a year earlier I say to the Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a day on the bay (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There was no day on the bay I say to the minister with Len either. That's another fallacy that the Member for St. John's South, when the Premier was under that vicious attack of mine, I heard him say to the Premier: what about the $500 a day on the bay with Len? The Premier looked around just like that. You see, another inaccuracy, I say to the member because there was never such a thing I say to him, never such a thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, he was not there I say, there was no such thing I say to the member. There were talks of one but it never materialized.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Not so, I say, not so.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for St. John's South that we know what happened to the Minnow; we know what happened to the Minnow and Gilligan, so the Minnow would be lost. That's what happened, it was cancelled out of concern for public safety; but, you see, that is how the Member for St. John's South behaves. He wanted to please the Premier so much, and the Premier was under that vicious attack from me on that cocktail party issue, that the member had to bail out his Premier, and he told his Premier an inaccuracy.

MR. MURPHY: It showed Brian going (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I saw Brian walking into the Radisson with Carol, yes.

MR. MURPHY: You were inside with a balloon.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, let me say to the Member for St. John's South, I would rather that CBC came in and saw me with a balloon than come in and show the hon. member like they showed him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) me with a phone.

MR. SULLIVAN: Last call to the bar that was, that call.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Member for St. John's South, a telephone never did that to me yet.

MR. MURPHY: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A telephone didn't do that to me yet, and I spend a fair bit of time on the phone, but a telephone didn't put me in the mood the hon. gentleman was in yet, I tell him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bar.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We were in a bar? Now because the CBC caught the Member for St. John's South red-handed, now he is trying to - the next thing you will see, the next thing now the Member for St. John's South will have out and about, is that I am spending all my time in bars. You just wait now. You just watch and see the next story that will come out of this. Just like the day on the bay with Len, which was not true. You just watch now what he is up to, twisting -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, could I get protection from the Member for Burin - Placentia West? He is making a great speech here. Mr. Chairman, could you give leave to the Member for Burin - Placentia West to leave, please?

I wonder if the Minister of Finance, whose name the bill is in, would he undertake to get the information that I have requested of him? Will he make a commitment to do that for me today? He is not nodding yes like his usual, happy self. He is not making any commitments. Will he do that? It is very important for us, very important for the people of the Province, very, very important. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is saying the Minister of Finance will get it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the minister hasn't said he will. I am wondering if he will get it. Will he tell us he will get it, and will he tell us when he will table it? Will he table it before we recess for Easter, I ask the minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well I am optimistic, I say to the Government House Leader. I am always an optimist. I hope that we will get out of here for a few days.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) your little bunny right where you are right now.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A nick off my little bunny.

MR. MURPHY: A chocolate bunny.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh. I do not eat chocolate, I say to the member. It is not good for me.

I ask the minister if he will do that for the House? Will he tell us how much has been spent on privatization advertisements, all sources, newspaper, radio, television, and brochures? Will he tell us that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I do not care about that either. I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that if you want to bring in what has been done in advertising in the last twenty years, I would say if you did, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology would be very close to the top in advertising.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Advertising, I said now. I realize the minister by the nature of his department has to spend a fair dollar in advertising, travel and stuff.

MR. GRIMES: The cucumber recipe book, was that counted? Was that advertising?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That cost a fortune. The only one it is costing anything now is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who reproduces them weekly and sends them out. He sells them. That is how he pays for his campaigns, on the pickle book.

The Minister of Finance is yawning, and I know I am boring him, but I want a commitment from the minister. I know how much you need this $1 billion and I know why you need it. It will be a sorry day come midnight of whatever day it is, April 5 or 6, and the minister is unable to issue cheques to the people of the Province, social assistance recipients, public servants, and all those others, MHAs, teachers, and social workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is very possible. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has not been listening very well. I have been trying to give the government a message here this morning, that unless certain things happen in the next week or so - now if the Premier comes in Monday and resigns and withdraws the legislation I say, yes, to the Government House Leader, you will have this by next Wednesday or Thursday. And if the Minister of Finance will lay on the table the cost -

DR. KITCHEN: Go away, boy.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: It is not going to go away boy, I say to the Minister of Health, you might want it to.

DR. KITCHEN: You made a speech on behalf of the poor and now you are saying you are not going to give us supply to feed the poor.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Because I do not want to make the poor poorer by what you are doing with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I do not want to make them poorer I say to the minister. There is no point in you giving them your little welfare cheque and then you are jacking up their light bills. They can't buy food. That is what this is about. It is all connected, I say to the minister. I know he can't understand that. What you are doing with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is you are making the poor poorer.

DR. KITCHEN: Stop teasing! Are you going to give approval or not?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I say to the Minister of Health, I thought it was three old women in the feather bed, I say to him. Not the Minister of Health. Are you teasing me? It is unbelievable, I say to the minister. Are you teasing me? My, oh, my, it is unbelievable.

No, Mr. Chairman, it is not a tease. But I will tell you - now whether my colleagues will go along with me, I don't know. I'm not so sure that they will. I hope they will. I hope they will take my advice. That we will shut this Province down on April 5 or April 6, we will shut it down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: They will invoke closure.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm hoping that is what they will do. Shut it down. There would be no reason for being here. Because something has to be done to bring this government to its senses, I say to members opposite, and to bring the Premier - now the Premier is coming around in the last two or three days, I must say. He is a different Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is very humble.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Just very - oh, humble? It is a serious situation. I hope that we will be able to grant this Interim Supply of a billion dollars so that we can pay the bills, but if this government doesn't come to its senses, I say to the Minister of Health, and come to them quickly.... It won't be passed, I say to the minister, if the government doesn't come to its senses. We will bring this Province to a screeching halt on April 5 or April 6.

MR. FUREY: You are going to shut the hospitals down.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We will shut the works down, I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Whatever there is to be shut down will be shut down, I say, Mr. Chairman. We will shut the works. Shut the works down.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Province will stop functioning, just stop, halt. I know my good friend the Government House Leader wants me to sit down very badly.

MR. ROBERTS: Well, the hon. member's leave has turned into a (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay, well, if you want to withdraw leave, I say that is fine. I'm just getting started, you know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No problem. Thank you very much, minister.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MURPHY: Get back up, Bill, for God's sake.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Bring back Bill!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and the Member for St. John's South might very well say that. Because he hates to see me standing. That is right. He ran away and hid after the last time he confronted me. I would say you are delighted. I said that to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture that if he sits down, I'm getting up. He was after withdrawing leave, gave it back and changed his mind.

Now the Minister of Finance - I guess the past Minister of Finance still thinks he's Minister of Finance. He seems to be speaking for this bill - he's looking for $281,954,300 for Interim Supply for expenditures in the Department of Health. Now I had a look at what he's trying to do in the Department of Health this year and you don't have to be a genius to be able to see what they're trying to do in the Department of Health and I'm just going to look at a few of the specific areas. In fact, they're tying to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into running a campaign to promote and tell what a great job they're doing in the Province.

Under purchase service, looking for Interim Supply of over $280 million out of the Department of Health expenditures here, to go out and spend $120,000 extra on purchase service, $266,000 extra to go out and communicate to the people of the Province about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - to tell the people of the Province what a fantastic job we're doing. They commissioned a report to realign the hospitals, nursing homes and health care in the Province. They take a report, about nine or ten pages, that makes recommendations there but it doesn't give any particular facts to it. So they're going to go out and spend money now in advertising and promotion under Purchase Service and Communications to try to tell the people what we're doing is best for you, it's the most efficient way to do it. The minister said in this House, these new boards are going to get more money. Get more money, administration - they're more costly to administer because they have bigger regions. They're spread over bigger regions and they're more expensive administratively to function.

They're going to get on the airways - they're doing with education now - they're doing with Hydro over $100,000. The Premier admitted to over $100,000 to get out and try to tell the people of this Province what a great job we're doing. Well if you were doing a proper job you wouldn't have to tell the people of this Province what kind of a job you're doing, they would see it for themselves. There's more and more money being spent on promotion, communications and under purchase service, increasing amounts and less getting down to the real people who need these funds.

Now the minister knows very well about the declining state of health care in this Province, and he stood in the House yesterday and talked about the new facility in Forteau. I am fully in support of it.

He didn't tell the House, in Forteau it was ready a year ago and they couldn't buy furnishings because they gave them $100,000 to operate and you needed $250,000 to operate that facility, and instead of January of 1993 they opened in January of 1994.

He didn't tell them about the one in Burgeo he talked about yesterday, and Port Saunders, that got built and went to the higher bidder, over $3 million more, and then they couldn't operate it because they didn't have the necessary funds, and because the funds weren't - I have clippings from the Minister, in The Evening Telegram indicating - well, here is what he said: They are going to have to watch their money a little better, I guess, and he gave them an operating Budget that could carry them for about four months. So what they are going to have to do now is they are going to operate the facility for four months and ask everybody to get sick between January and April of this year, and next year, well, let's see. It wasn't too bad this year. Next year you're allowed to get sick between June and September. That's what he is doing.

Here they are, spending money on capital structure all across the Province, and sitting there and can't operate them because they don't have the operation dollars. Well, I say, efficiently spend your money and you will get a lot better result for the dollar.

I now adjourn the debate.

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

MR. ROBERTS: A stirring piece of claptrap by my friend, the Member for Ferryland. I will move that the Committee adjourn. I assume we have to report progress, what we have to report is called progress, but in any event, would the Committee rise, please, and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of this morning's session, notwithstanding the demands of those on the other side who want to sit this afternoon and this evening, as far as I know, we will be doing Interim Supply on Monday, because the Opposition have announced - well, they have said they are going to keep us from sending out the cheques, so as far as I know, we will be doing Interim Supply. If that's not the case, I will make sure that my friend, the Member for Grand Bank knows, but given the Opposition filibuster on this, we have no real choice except to carry on. The seventy-five hours continues to run. All of this comes out of that, so they can have it now or they can have it later, as they prefer.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I move that the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow, Monday, at 2:00 p.m., and I wish my colleagues and friends on both sides of the House a restful weekend. I hope they come back in as good a temper as they have been this morning. I move that the House adjourn, Sir.

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