May 24, 1994                 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS             Vol. XLII  No. 47


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to acknowledge the projects announced under the lead-site phase of the Youth Service Canada program on Friday past. This program is evidence of the federal government's commitment to provide employment opportunities for the young people in our Province and throughout the country. The first group of lead-sites under the programs were selected from a flood of unsolicited proposals, reflecting a strong public interest in the concept of a community-based youth service initiative. The majority of funds from the program will go directly to the participants who will receive a regionally-determined weekly stipend and a completion bonus of not less than $2000. The bonus will be in the form of a voucher that participants can redeem to cover costs such as the cost of going back to school or to help repay student loans.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has been very successful in this initial phase of the Youth Service Canada program. Of the 623 young people who will gain relevant experience, develop their skills, strengthen their self-esteem and contribute to their communities across Canada, 37 of these individuals are from our Province. They will work in one of three lead-sites, namely: Buchans, at the James Hornell Boys and Girls Club, on the Bonavista Peninsula in a project sponsored by the Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Corps, and in St. John's at the Brother T.I. Murphy Learning Resource Centre. $370,000 of the $6.23 million for the lead-sites phase will be spent in Newfoundland. In comparison to other areas of the country our Province has fared very well.

These projects involve community work which emphasizes relevant work experience and skills development that will help participants when they enter the regular workforce. Priority areas for projects are community development and learning, sustainable development and the environment, positive attitudes and behaviours and entrepreneurship. For 1994-95, Mr. Speaker, Youth Services Canada has a budget of $25 million and aims to mobilize 2500 youth in community service projects throughout the country. The Province will continue to work with the federal government in setting priority areas for activities and in selecting future projects.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

We on this side of the House welcome any initiative put forward that will see the development of young people in terms of social development, economic development, and personal development. I cannot comment in any detail because I did not receive a copy of the Ministerial Statement prior to the House opening, but I can say this, Mr. Speaker. This government has let youth down in this Province consistently in their mandate. We have seen less and less each year in terms of student employment programs, graduate employment programs offered by this government. I have said also, Mr. Speaker, consistently in this House since being elected, that if there is any segment of our society that has been let down the most, that the least has been done for, it is the young people of this Province, so witnessed in the elimination of the grant portion for student aid, for students attempting to attain a post-secondary education. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the minister to take some initiative -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and take the lead and to develop more programs aimed at the development of youth in this Province.

Thank you.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, over the long weekend I had occasion to be in my constituency once again, and while there I had a chance to meet and speak with several groups and individuals representing nurses, health care workers, doctors and members of the general public, all of whom are very worried and extremely concerned about the effects of the government's budget cuts on the delivery of health care services that are supposed to be delivered in the central region by the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre, and, Mr. Speaker, in fact, a lot of these individuals are now gathering petitions, are raising it in the public domain bringing it to the attention of the media.

Now I am aware, Mr. Speaker, there has been a report done by the Department of Health suggesting the kind of restructuring and realignment that could occur or should occur at the Central Newfoundland Health Care Centre that would deal with these budget cuts and I would like to ask the Minister of Health, first of all, would he provide the House, or at least the elected MHAs in that region with a copy, I would certainly like to have one; secondly, is he aware that because of the government's cuts to health care at this institute they are now turning to contracting out services such as housekeeping, laundry, stores and other areas which will cost a number of jobs, there will be a loss of a number of jobs at that hospital, is he aware of that, and can he provide some precise information to the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, that's quite a number of questions there but I will do my best to answer them.

One of the developments in health care in the Province is a change from in-bed to out-patient services, same day surgery and things of that nature and most hospitals in the Province are well along in that area. We had some of our officials look at the Central Newfoundland Hospital and it was felt that more in that area could be done than is presently done, so when the budget was designed that objective was incorporated in the budget for discussion with the hospital board, because sometimes the board can come up with alternative savings, or make a response, and things of that nature.

I am not sure if we have had our final response, or if the board has come up with other ways or anything, but there is - I must be honest - a problem with respect to the stays and that type of thing in that central hospital, and we want to make sure that everybody is as efficient as possible, and that is the whole reason for our operation there.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister said he would table that report, or check into it. I would like for him to table the report, if he could, but let me get on to the supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, because of the government's policies and budget cuts over the past number of years, as he knows, acute care services are no longer available at places like Baie Verte and Springdale, and other outlying areas, because the government's policy was that they wanted to centralize acute care services at the Central Regional Health Care Centre.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a hospital that has 204 beds, not counting the nursery bassinets. Five years ago a unit wasn't opened containing twenty beds. Last year the gynaecology unit was closed, which was supposed to have been closed temporarily; that contained eighteen beds. Now, because of the cuts this year in their budget, I think it is somewhere in the order of three-quarters of a million dollars, there is going to be another unit closed, meaning a closure of another twenty-two beds. That is a total of sixty beds out of a 204 bed institution, so I would like to ask the minister, as a result of their policies to centralize all that, and send all that kind of acute care work and so on into the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre, in the name of providing good quality health care, how can he stand by and allow that to happen, those number of beds to be shut down. Effective July 1, more than one-quarter of the beds at the regional centre there will be closed down. How can he let that happen?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we can't measure health care entirely by the number of beds that happen to be open in a particular institution. I might add that this centralization has been occurring in other areas as well, but it is not the only trend in health care. The member may be overlooking the fact that we do have same day surgery, shorter stays; we are developing home care so that people can be discharged earlier. That is what we are about.

I don't think anybody in that area, where we have had centralization, have had, apart from the initial fear at the beginning when some of these services were centralized, we haven't had any recent complaints about that. People were a bit nervous and we had these discussions in the House several years ago but I have since been complimented - not me because I wasn't involved at that time - but the government has since been complimented on taking these manoeuvres. Because now, when a person is sick, he can be sure that when he gets to the hospital the treatment will be there whereas before, the range of services weren't there.

So, in addition to centralization, we have also changed the nature of health care in the Province from bringing people in the hospital and keeping them there for a couple of weeks, now we do and try to get them out of there as quickly as possible and into their homes, same day surgery and things of that nature. Out-patient services are expanding in most places and that's really what we're about in Grand Falls at the present time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the minister has been living the last couple of years. He's not in the real world, for sure, because all of those things he mentions, he leaves out the fact that we have longer waiting lists, we have emergency room beds meant to hold patients for up to eight hours being occupied for up to a week while Admitting tries to free up a bed. People in serious pain spending eight hours on stretchers in emergency, those are the kinds of things you are hearing about, Mr. Speaker. Now, we know of the bed closures at the hospital, I just talked to him about that. We also know about the potential loss of jobs among health care workers. I'm also aware some nursing staff have been laid off at that facility, but the matter I would like the minister to respond to and investigate is this: there are reports that the medical staff at that institution are extremely concerned over what's happening as a result of the budgetary cutbacks, what it's doing to the delivery of health care services in that region and they point out that while its difficult enough to recruit medical doctors - in the best of times, these kinds of cuts are seriously affecting their opportunities for recruiting new doctors. So I would like the minister to tell me first of all if he's aware of that concern, if not, will he investigate it personally and respond or report back to the House?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, we have in the Department of Health an appropriate procedure where doctors who are concerned work through their boards and through the Department of Health and that's how the concerns are raised. They are not normally raised by the member in the House although that is also an appropriate method.

You mentioned the waiting lists; I might add that the waiting list for all types of operations and things of that nature in this Province are better than anywhere else in Canada except perhaps for one or two things, like plastic surgery. We're well ahead, our waiting lists are lower, we're complimented across the country for the short waiting list we had. We did have a little problem with cardiac surgery here, where people were waiting last year. We put some extra money in the budget and that too is brought down. We in this Province are further ahead than almost any province in Canada as far as waiting lists are concerned.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister's job is to defend what is happening out there, what the government is doing, but I can assure him that isn't the view shared by the majority of people in this Province with respect to the waiting lists at hospitals. I'm extremely concerned about it in my own region, I can tell him. This is not something I'm making up. This is what I've been told by a number of people.

Let me ask him this final supplementary. Is he aware that in fact one of the most heartless things that is going to occur at that facility this year as a result of the budgetary cutbacks is that the palliative care room is going to be closed at the Central Newfoundland Regional Health Care Centre?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. SIMMS: The palliative care unit as he knows is the room provided to cancer patients to spend their few remaining days with family in dignity. You have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, when this kind of cut is occurring, what exactly is going on? It is shameful to allow this kind of cut to occur. On that specific point, can I ask the minister if he will personally check to make sure the question I'm asking him is accurate, and would he make representation to the hospital board and administration to try to have that decision reversed as quickly as possible? Because that would be a heartless thing to allow to happen.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to thank the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for bringing that particular point to my attention. I will look into it.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of Treasury Board. Parents are becoming increasingly concerned with the instructional time lost in their children's education. Many parents are alarmed that the current labour dispute may drag into more weeks, or indeed, a worse case scenario would have us believe students may not be back in their classrooms until the autumn. Parents demand action to end this strike. They want a return to full collective bargaining and a commitment that both sides will stay there until a settlement is hammered out. What steps is the minister taking to address the concerns of parents as expressed to him today in the lobby of the Confederation Building?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, this government has been taking steps ever since late in January to try to get bargaining teams together to examine the problems. Mr. Speaker, as a Province, as you know, we have considerable problems in terms of our financial condition and we must continue on the general course we have taken. We've been trying since the end of January to get the professional bargainers together. To date we have not been successful in that regard. However, there have been meetings, first of all, five or six meetings, between myself and the president of the teachers' union and some officials.

Thursday night before last I thought great progress was made and yet lo and behold Friday the strike was still on. Since that time there have been further meetings and over the weekend there has been contact between officials of the NLTA and officials of government. Our desire is to get the bargaining teams together to try to hammer this out. Today there was a meeting held in the lobby organized by the home and school associations and they asked that we once again sit down at the bargaining table. Mr. Speaker, nothing would make me happier. I have since made contact with the NLTA office and asked for a meeting tonight.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, many of those parents who were in the lobby over lunchtime believe the real issues in the teachers' strike involve proposals to restructure the educational system, changes to teachers' certification, new roles for administrators and parents, and a complete restructuring of the manner in which the boards coordinate their academic programs. In other words, the real problem in the collective bargaining process is not what is on the table but what is absent from the table. In other words, the government has a hidden agenda. Will the minister assure the House that the collective bargaining process and current strike is not a ploy on the part of government to initiate its restructuring programs in education in this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman refers to a rather interesting hidden agenda. This hidden agenda he talks about has been the topic of discussion in this Province for many years. A number of years ago the teachers' union indicated there was $70 million worth of waste in the system and we should hurry up and get that waste out. We had a royal commission on education which brought in a report which had a lot of recommendations that received discussion all around this Province and particularly within the Teachers Association. If what he is referring to is the royal commission report and the suggestions for improving the educational system, if that is a hidden agenda, I'm telling you, it is not very hidden from the people of the Province. The hon. member may not know about it but it is not very well hidden from the people of the Province.

This round of collective bargaining is simply about government meeting its financial objectives that it must meet. That is what this round of collective bargaining is about. We have placed positions before all of our public sector unions. We have placed similar, fair, equitable positions to all of our public sector unions and we are currently trying to negotiate contracts on that basis. What we must not do, Mr. Speaker, is treat one group differently from another.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. BAKER: We are trying to proceed through the process, Mr. Speaker. It is rather unfortunate that our pleas to get the teams together in January went unheeded and a public process took place that distorted the issues tremendously.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, on I believe it was January 18 the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association said that they wanted to have the Minister of Education and the President of Treasury Board at the bargaining table. It was the President of Treasury Board who said there was no relationship between fiscal policy and educational policy. Therefore, if these things are on the agenda now they indeed were denied by the Administration and that is why I talk about a hidden agenda.

There is a relationship between fiscal policy and educational policy. Why will the President to Treasury Board and the Minister of Education not agree to sit down and work cooperatively with the NLTA to reach a resolution to all those issues and admit that you can't have an agreement to the current labour dispute until you have the educational restructuring policies married into and part of the process of collective bargaining and the fiscal policy of this government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of nonsense, obviously. The restructuring process will take some time. We have been working on the many aspects of the restructuring process, and to be done sensibly and reasonably, and to make sure it is put to best effect, must be done over time, and will take maybe a couple of years to get around to dealing with these restructuring issues, but in the meantime, we have a budget, we have fiscal objectives to meet, and we cannot wait two or three years down the road to come back to these fiscal objectives. They must be met now, and I am not going to endanger the financial health of this Province simply to wait until the end of restructuring to get back to meet our fiscal objectives. That cannot be done, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the acting Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Approximately fourteen months ago, public input was sought in certain areas of the Province by a group of consultants to devise a master plan for the 500 Cabot Anniversary Corporation. I would like to ask the minister why this master plan has not been released for public viewing and opinion.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. We put in place a board of directors, chaired by Miller Ayre, a local businessman here in St. John's, and we wanted them to be at arm's length. It is entirely up to the corporation when they want to release the plan, but I should say, while I am on my feet, that the government, in the latest Budget, authorized $1.14 million as our part of what we perceived to be a 70/30 provincial agreement to give action to some of the items in the master plan.

It is a very comprehensive plan. I have had meetings in Ottawa recently with the federal minister, and I intend to see Mr. Dingwall this Friday in Halifax about that same issue. There has been very good response back. We fully intend a federal/provincial agreement to be put in place over the next two to three months.

It is a comprehensive plan. It is one that was generated by the board of directors of the Cabot Corporation. I fully expect that they will release it publicly in the next little while. It is not something that government directs them to do. It is something that they, as an arm's length body, would do themselves.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since this master plan for the 500 celebrations was a direct result of input from concerned and participating interest groups, such as historical societies and, in my own particular area, the Discovery Trails Tourism Association, why are those groups now being deprived of information that is crucial to their planning for the 1997 celebrations?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing clandestine here. This is a plan that was generated from the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

There is nothing clandestine here about this plan. This is a plan that was sought by the grass roots of the Province. It is something that the board of directors of the Cabot Corporation in good time will make public. I don't see any reason for not making it public immediately. It is at the call of the board.

It is a terrific piece of work. It is comprehensive. It is something, as I say, and the hon. member says, public consultations were held around the Province. I can't see why it couldn't be released. In fact, when we finish Question Period I will speak with the chairman, and if he wants me to release it I would be happy to release it.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: One thing about the minister, I think we might get some results now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that I attended a meeting in Port Rexton last Wednesday night, and it was a grave concern for the participants at that particular meeting. Here they were, certain groups, trying to plan 1997 celebrations, not knowing what existed in the master plan, so I call upon the minister to release it so that everybody can be pulling in one direction rather than the mass confusion that is existing out there today.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, indeed I will. As I said just a few minutes ago, I would be happy to speak with the chairman of the board and do that.

As I recall, in fact, I think when I was the Minister of Tourism under the old Department of Development I think we appointed someone from the Bonavista Peninsula area to sit on the board - a lady -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Two people from the Bonavista area, so I don't know if the hon. member has taken it up with the two of his constituents who sit on that board; perhaps he hasn't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, that's okay; it's no problem. I will speak to the chairman, and if he doesn't have a problem, or the board does not have a problem, I will be most happy to make it public.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy.

In the past couple of weeks there has been a great deal of concern and uncertainty, I would say, regarding the Come By Chance oil refinery and the future of that refinery. I ask the minister if he has been in contact with the owners of the refinery and did they assure him that the refinery will reopen and continue to operate?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not had personal contact with the owners. My officials have been in contact with people associated with the refinery and people associated with VITOL Limited, the company that is negotiating the purchase, and I hope that purchase is finalized. We are as concerned as you are about Come By Chance. We want it to continue to operate and we will work with them.

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

MR. TOBIN: I find it somewhat disheartening that the oil refinery will be shut down and the minister has not even bothered to contact anyone to find out what is going on. I find that rather strange, I say to the minister.

Let me ask the minister if he is satisfied that the owners of the refinery have made, and are making, the kind of investment and plant modernization that will ensure its safety and its continued operation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have had personal contact with the resident senior person here in Newfoundland, Mr. Mifflin, but I have not talked to the people in the United States personally in the last few days. My officials are doing that regularly and continuously as there is any need to do so and we will continue to monitor it. In the meantime I am aware that considerable money has been spend at that refinery over the last few years, and many, many millions of dollars in just the last couple of years doing work that needed to be done at the refinery, and there is work continuing today on the refinery to make repairs where there was a fire a few weeks ago.

We all hope that all those things do fall in place and that the refinery sale is concluded and it will operate for many, many years to come.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, there is not much encouragement in what the minister has to say today for the employees who are uncertain about their future, who have found employment out there for the past number of years. Let me ask the minister if government has any contingency plan to keep the plant operating if the present operators decide to pull out?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the minister.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of the government keeping the plant operating if the present operators pull out. Government is not going to operate a refinery, and I have no intention of recommending to government that we operate a refinery. However, if something does happen at the refinery we will certainly do everything we can to maintain it and try to get someone else to come in there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Premier about Hydro. Will the Premier admit that one of the consequences of privatizing Hydro would be stripping from the government the means to ever develop the Lower Churchill? Will the Premier confess that he personally actually wants the private sector and not the government to develop the Lower Churchill? Will the Premier explain why in the world the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador would ever want to give away such a fantastic development opportunity for the citizens of this Province and hand it over to outside non-resident private interests?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer to the first question is, no. The answer to the second question is, no, and the answer to the third question is, it is a totally false statement and cannot be answered in the terms in which the member asked it.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the government, if the Premier, privatizes Hydro surely the Premier realizes that he would be handing over to the private sector all the government's expertise, all the government's know-how, and the financial strength needed to develop the Lower Churchill. Now, is the real reason the Premier wants to privatize Hydro and hand over to private interests outside the Province the means to develop the Lower Churchill, that golden opportunity, the same reason the Premier walked away from a fantastic opportunity two years ago to enter into an agreement with Hydro Quebec to get additional billions of dollars for the Upper Churchill, to get a fourteen-billion-dollar development of the Lower Churchill with a transmission line linking the Island under a thirty-year contract of sale that would have seen the provincial government owning both Gull Island and Muskrat Falls lock, stock and barrel, debt free after the thirty-year term. Is that the reason, the same reason?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Hydro doesn't have the expertise to develop the Lower Churchill. All of the expertise that Hydro has will continue to be available in this Province and continue to be available to the government if we need it. Hydro, if the Lower Churchill were to be developed, if anything were to be done with the Lower Churchill, we would have to go outside of Hydro to hire the professional expertise to do it. It's available, some of it in this Province, some of it in other parts of Canada, some of it in other parts of the world. It is not resident within Hydro itself.

Whenever Hydro ever had anything to do with the proposal to develop the Lower Churchill, they engaged outside expertise, and if the House wants it, I can provide a list of the people who were engaged and it was not people within Hydro. They do not have the expertise to develop. This proposal that this is the only expertise is another one of those utterly false statements that is used to colour the judgement of people in the Province against Hydro. Now that answers that first question, and the next question was so convoluted and mixed up and nonsensical, I really didn't even follow it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure recalling the experience of two years ago is embarrassing for the Premier, history will judge that decision very harshly.

Mr. Speaker, the expertise of Hydro, the assets of Hydro, the financial strength of Hydro under privatization obviously will be at the command of non-resident, outside private interests. I would like to ask the Premier if he has met with Paul Desmarais in the past year, if he met with Paul Desmarais and Prime Minister Chrétien in the United States a few months ago and if the Premier has discussed with Paul Desmarais the undeveloped water resources of Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, now I recall that convoluted other question and it was whether or not I had rejected this great deal.

If the hon. member wants to take that deal to the people of this Province to get their approval, she can take it there; but present the true deal. Present the true deal that would leave no benefit to this Province and would secure the position of Hydro Quebec till, 2041.

Mr. Speaker, I will never take that deal to the people of this Province, would never sign it; I would do no such thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: It was the worst disaster that could ever befall this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: It was the worst disaster that could ever befall this Province and the hon. member wants to take that deal and accept it?

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I know where she is getting her advice and I have even less confidence in it now, than I had before. The other question was: Did I meet with Paul Desmarais to discuss the development of the Lower Churchill?

I didn't meet Paul Desmarais, period, in the last year. I never met with the Prime Minister on this issue in the last year; I never met with the Prime Minister and Paul Desmarais in the United States or anywhere else in the last year. All this, Mr. Speaker, is part of the fabrication and the tangled web to distort the judgement of the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am tabling a report of the Public Tendering exceptions for March 1994.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow introduce the following private member's resolution:

`WHEREAS the United States naval facility at Argentia will formally close in October 1994; and

WHEREAS the compensation benefits offered to the civilian employees of the Argentia naval facility are much lower than the benefits paid to civilian employees on Canadian military bases who will lose employment as a result of base closures;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House of Assembly urge the Government of Canada to demand that the Government of the United States pay compensation benefits to displaced civilian employees of the U.S. naval facility, Argentia be equivalent to benefits paid in similar circumstances by the Government of Canada to civilian employees of Canadian military bases.'

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the petitioners in the general St. John's area, mostly in St. John's Centre - this government has proposed to privatize Hydro, not based on any economic facts. In fact, they sent out to the people of this Province this brochure here that has a lot of inaccuracies in it and half-truths. While they've advocated municipalities will benefit over a period of time, up to several hundred thousand dollars - they say a million - at the same time they have failed to establish the fact that the ratepayers in this Province will pay for that increase, that $700,000, $800,000 or a million eventually when it gets into full effect, I think, in 1999. So, the ratepayers of this Province will pay. So it's really an in-and-out item as far as the ratepayers of this Province are concerned.

He states that we need to privatize Hydro to regulate electric power. `Electric power rates can be regulated in this Province with a Crown corporation or with a private Hydro' - that's not true. `Major industries will benefit' - I can't see how major industries are going to benefit. The only people who are going to benefit are the shareholders of a privatized Hydro, the ones who are going to get the profit margin of over 13 per cent back. I can't see how it would benefit. He said it does not mean a loss of jobs - privatization. Well, in past experience, privatization did mean a loss of jobs, in Nova Scotia, 400 jobs, actually, and it's quite possible that there's going to be a loss of jobs here in this Province. I can't see how they can do that without any backup information releasing the efficiencies and projections under a new Hydro - that's basically not true. They've indicated to the people that it will provide badly needed cash for this Province. Yes, it will provide cash for this Province and it's a short-term fix to what we need long-term solutions. It is only going to save us on borrowing over one and part of another fiscal year. Then, where do we go in two years time when we have no assets, no hydroelectric assets in this Province?

If you want to just look at the value of assets here in this Province - when they're proposing and listing a book value on some of those assets, it is only a fraction of the real value and amount of revenue they can generate in the future. We've looked at hydroelectric projects that have been built back since the 1960s, right up to 1989, and we have seen a continuous increase in the cost of putting hydroelectric facilities here in this Province. We've gone from $500,000 per megawatt of electricity up to $3 million per megawatt now to produce electricity in this Province. When you look at the Bay d'Espoir project with 604 megawatts we are looking at a replacement value of anywhere from $1.25 million up to $1.75 billion. A facility that is listed on the books for $150 million - we are going to give it away. Bay d'Espoir, the bonds, the debt on Bay d'Espoir has been retired since 1992. Built at a cost of $170 million, and nothing outstanding. We are going to sell that asset. We are going to sell every other single Hydro asset on this Island out to investors and going to funnel the money. It is going to drain the money out of the Newfoundland economy to investors in other parts of the country. That is what a privatized Hydro is going to do.

We have no sound economic reason why it should be privatized. We've had an independent analysis done. Wade Locke said, if government has figures to show it is viable on an economic basis, provide them - provide the figures and let us see them, and we can draw our conclusions. They haven't done it. Wade Locke provided figures. He estimated it is going to cost anywhere from $40 million or possibly $70 million per year, not counting the revenues that this government is going to lose. Those revenues I am referring to are $10 million a year that we get for guaranteeing the debt, that is coming into the coffers of this Province; not counting the break that is now going to be given under PUITTA - the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act - that is going to give back to Newfoundland Power almost $10 million a year that we are now receiving in this Province. We are losing $20 million in revenues alone.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No leave.

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

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased today to rise and support my colleague as he presented this petition. Day after day now we've presented these petitions and I guess as the people of the Province watch the continuing story of the Hydro privatization slip away, I guess we could say, as it gets into the eleventh hour, people of the Province are still wondering, although it may be a strategy of the government here today that: We sort of lull the people asleep and maybe they would forget about the Hydro privatization.

We just saw closure come in on Bill 2, and I don't think anybody in the Province will be surprised when we see a closure motion called on Bill 1 now when it is called again. It is just typical of this government - closure. It is unprecedented in this Province, the amount of closure that has been brought in on one bill alone. Day after day we hear members from the opposite side tell us: `Petitions, I'm not really sure about the petitions.' One of the ministers complained last week that the same name was used on the same petition twice. Well, big deal. The bottom line is that no matter which way this government seems to want to look at it, 80 per cent of this Province, upwards of 80 per cent of this Province, do not want Hydro sold. That is a simple clear statement by the people of this Province.

The question that has to answered - and a constituent of mine asked me this weekend; it is a simple question asked by a lot of people in this Province - what does it take for this government, in particular, this Premier, when it is staring him straight in the face, when people say: `No, we don't want it sold,' for him to say: `Yes, we're still going ahead with it.' And at the same time, for him to stand on Province-wide TV and say - and I don't care how hon. members put it; you can mix the words, change them around as much as you want - your Premier, the Premier of this government, has said point-blank that if he does not have the support for the selling of Hydro he will not do it.

Now, we have read out the quote time after time, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how anybody on the other side of this House can say that the Premier didn't say it. The Premier says himself, very simply put - we can read out the quote again or I can just say it to you - the Premier did say - and I'm sure that anybody in this Province could stand up and say they heard him say that he would not let the members of this Legislature vote for something that did not have the support of the majority of the people in this Province.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) say that.

MR. SHELLEY: How many times do we have to say it? I agree with the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. How many times do we have to say it? They've said to us, Mr. Speaker: Petitions, they don't really count, people phoning in Open Line, that doesn't really count, demonstrations out front, they don't really count, Greg Malone, he must be a certain party partisan person, he doesn't count, Cy Abery, he doesn't count. Well, who counts, Mr. Speaker? I can tell you that the public opinion polls - and I say to the hon. members in the back benches again, listen to the people who elected you, not to your front benches and your illustrious Leader over there.

Stand up and just say to the Premier: I'm sorry, Premier. Listen to the Member for Pleasantville. He listened to his constituents. If you think this is a tough issue, wait until you get the other issues coming over the next few weeks and into the fall session. Sooner or later, you have to stand up and speak for the people who elected you. I mean, how much does it take, Mr. Speaker? a simple question asked time and time again, and my constituents asked it again this weekend; one constituent, just a plain, simple, question: `What does it take for the Premier of this Province, on any issue, to listen to the people?' Does he just have the blinders on, like the horse, straight ahead, the blinkers on, Mr. Speaker, straight ahead? `I am going to tell you what's right.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, I can tell all hon. members this, that if this debate had gone on before the election of May 3, '93, and you did win the thirty-four seats that you have won, I think, on this side of the House, people would say: Well, yes, you have the support for Hydro, but the real truth is, Mr. Speaker, that it was not before May 3, it was after May 3, it was a hidden agenda, and this Premier knows it. The issue in the last election that I remember going door-to-door was that he was going to take control of the teachers. That's what I heard day after day, that's what he got up and said when he called the election, Mr. Speaker; `I am going to show the teachers who's boss,' that's what he was saying.

Hydro wasn't brought up at all, not once, Mr. Speaker, that was the agenda of this Premier and this government, that's what they had a mandate for on May 3, and it wasn't to sell Hydro and for God's sake, will the Premier come to his senses as he watches poll after poll, and petition after petition, and say the people of this Province do not want this and he would turn around to each member on his side and say, you do what your constituents want you to do, as the Member for Pleasantville had the guts to stand up and do - and some of the hon. members over here in the last few days, Mr. Speaker, are standing up saying they only have one or two calls or a couple of letters.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was all.

MR. SHELLEY: I can tell you why you didn't have any calls, because people are saying it is no good to talk to you, because you've been told what to do. You have already been told what to do and you aren't going to change your mind. That's the truth of it and the truth will come out and, of course, all hon. members will go around saying: They will forget. Maybe in three years time when another election is called, people will forget about Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: Well, I can tell all hon. members that people won't forget; they won't forget because they will see their power bill every month and be reminded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Humber East have a petition?

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I have a petition on Hydro from residents of the district the Premier is supposed to be representing, from the south and north shores of the Bay of Islands.

Mr. Speaker, these citizens are petitioning the Legislature to `demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro remains a Crown corporation.'

Mr. Speaker, the Corner Brook area volunteer citizens' committee called Save Our Hydro, headed by Kevin St. George, has gone door-to-door on the south shore of the Bay of Islands, the more populous part of the district the Premier is supposed to be representing, and more than 90 per cent of the Bay of Islands south shore residents have signed a petition calling on the government to retain Hydro as a Crown-owned corporation. Mr. Speaker, people have many reasons for opposing Hydro privatization.

First of all, they want to keep down electricity prices. They realize that under privatization, electricity rates will go up at a far greater rate and to a far greater extent than would be the case if the government retains Hydro. They want to keep Hydro profits in the Province to work for the benefit of the citizens of the Province and they want Hydro to be the vehicle for Lower Churchill development. Mr. Speaker, the Save Our Hydro committee have a fact sheet about Hydro which they have circulated and I would like to read from the fact sheet:

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

2. Hydro has an asset value of $1.8 billion against a debt of $1.2 billion; a good ratio.

3. The Hydro debt is self-supporting.

4. The Province has never put money into Hydro.

5. Hydro does not cost the Province anything.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MS. VERGE: How do I know? Because the same laws that govern Newfoundland Light and Power will govern a private Hydro and those laws will require the Public Utilities Board in setting hydro rates to build into the price, to build into the rate base, a return on equity equalling roughly 13.5 per cent, and that is against approximately 5 per cent to 7 per cent paid the Crown-owned Hydro, and secondly because the debt/equity ratio would be much lower. Debt would be converted to equity, which is much more expensive, and those two changes will result in higher electricity costs totalling close to $50 million a year. And most of that money will be going out of the Province to shareholders because, realistically, most of the investors, most of the people who will buy shares in a privatized Hydro, will reside out of the Province, and control will rest out of the Province, probably with Paul Desmarais or some other industrialist, or some conglomerate based somewhere else in the world, and that private outfit will have the means to develop the Lower Churchill. That private outfit will get the profit of Hydro, will get the benefit of the higher prices that you and I and all the business people in the Province will pay each year, every year, forevermore, so it will be a lose, lose proposition for the people of the Province.

Privatizing Hydro will saddle householders and business people with higher electricity costs forevermore, and that cost will be passed on to consumers of other goods as a cost of doing business. The profit - Hydro makes a profit now - it will have to make a higher profit, by law, under the law governing the Public Utilities Board. The profit will mostly go out of the Province, the same as Newfoundland Light and Power, the same as Nova Scotia Power. Most of the shareholders will reside out of the Province, that will go out of the Province, and the expertise and financial strength required for Lower Churchill development will no longer belong to the government. It will be handed over on a golden platter to the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier challenges us to go to the people on the agreement he walked away from two years ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MS. VERGE: He concealed that from the people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to speak in support of the petition presented by my colleague, especially this petition, coming from the West Coast of the Province, coming really from the Premier's own district, the Bay of Islands, the north and south shores of the Bay of Islands.

The Premier often says that there are only a few people in the Province who don't understand the privatization of Hydro; that's why they are against it. Those are people living in his own district, and yet he is not going to listen to them.

I talked to people in the district of Bay of Islands, and my own district, and the districts of Humber East and Humber West, the district that the Speaker represents, and there are all kinds of people asking me questions about the privatization of Hydro - all kinds - all kinds of concerns, and that is one of the arguments that I used in the past, and I say it here again this evening, that the government should put this to the Resource Committee and let it go around the Province and give the people a chance to have a say; that's all. They can bring in legislation; they can do what they like with regard to the Electrical Resources Act and so on, but let the people have a say - a simple procedure, but again a procedure that should take place in the democratic society in which we live. Give them a chance.

We went around the Province on the forestry bill, the changes in the forestry bill a few years ago. Everybody had their say; there were amendments brought to the House of Assembly, some changes made to certain clauses in the legislation, and today it is probably one of the best pieces of legislation we have. Why? Because the public had some input. Let the people know. We can't send brochures around this Province. We are here, sitting in the House of Assembly with a bill - all kinds of legal jargon drawn by lawyers and officials who have all the time in the world to do so and if anybody ever read a document that comes from a lawyer, you know, yourself, you want another lawyer friend with you to try to interpret it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Exactly. And what do lawyers make a living at? I said it before, they make a living interpreting in a different way - with all due respect to the lawyers, my colleagues and they're all around me in the House - they make a living trying to interpret and make sure that the interpretation of a certain clause, a certain regulation or a certain law is wrong. It is the way they look at it. I'm a lawyer, I represent a client and I go into a courtroom, I am representing that client and I'm going to do everything in my power to try to win that case but do the other fellow next to me is doing the same thing based on the same regulation. Now, I ask members opposite, how do they expect the people of the Province to understand such a document when we, as legislators, are sitting here in the House - and I'm sure that if this debate went on for another five months, a lot of us sitting in this House of Assembly would find faults with clauses in those two particular acts, the Electrical Resources Act and the Hydro Privatization Bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite, just be a bit flexible, give the people a chance, put it out to committee, go around the Province and let the people have a say. At the end of the day, if the people in their own right, after seeing the document, agree with what was said, what was done, what they read and the explanations they're given, then and only then should this Administration act and privatize something which the people of the Province own now. It's not a business, it's a monopoly. We are giving someone in the private sector a right to operate a monopoly. It's not a business, it's not competitive. They can do pretty well what they like, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland Light and Power and Newfoundland Hydro today, they own a monopoly, it's not a business, and I say to members opposite, that it should be looked at in that light. We can get back the funds that we're going to get for one year of not having to borrow $300 or $400 million, Mr. Speaker. This government can get that back by charging extra fees on floating Hydro's debt. They can get it back by the increase in revenues of taxes from PUITTA. It comes back through the system every year. In a matter of four or five years, that money can be gotten from Newfoundland Hydro in any case and we'd still own the asset.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a few comments with respect to the petition, particularly because the petition was presented by the hon. the Member for Humber East. Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute or two to explain again for the record, for the written record of Hansard, why it is that members on this side of the House have real difficulty taking any of these petitions about Hydro seriously.

The hon. the Member for Humber East again today was developing the proposition - asking some questions about whether the Premier had met with Mr. Desmarais and Mr. Chrétien and so on. It reminded me of two or three months ago when she put forward the scenario in this House that we're supposed to believe - and shows how ludicrous some of the Opposition have been and how ill-founded.

Mr. Speaker, I'll just run through the proposition again: the hon. the Member for Humber East would have the people of this Province believe - this is her proposition now, we're supposed to take this seriously, and it is a reason to be opposed to Hydro - two years ago, before Mr. Chrétien became Prime Minister, because Mr. Desmarais is married to Mr. Chrétien's sister, this Premier was to have scuttled a deal with Hydro Quebec which was said to be in the best interest of the Province, because he knew, even though Mr. Chrétien was then Leader of the Opposition - he was supposed to know that Mr. Chrétien was going to become Premier, and that if he then sold Hydro to Mr. Desmarais, the husband of Mr. Chrétien's sister, Mr. Chrétien was going to take the Premier and make him a judge of the Supreme Court; therefore, it was supposed to all make sense as to why this was a big scam and a big scheme. That was the reason put forward by the Member for Humber East who is raising the same kinds of questions today: What about the Premier meeting with Mr. Desmarais and Mr. Chrétien, and all that kind of foolishness.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I heard the petition presented by the Member for Humber East. I heard what the Member for Humber Valley had to say to the petition and I didn't hear either of them talk about the Premier of this Province going to get a job as a judge. It was never brought out in this petition, Mr. Speaker. We all know he wants to be Premier of this Province but he shouldn't be wishing the Premier were a judge already. The fact of the matter is, it is the Minister of Mines and Energy who should be standing on this petition and speaking in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. TOBIN: If he wants to speak as Minister of Employment and Labour Relations then let him get up and tell us his position.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once more for the record, so it is in there, and so we know on this side why it is that we should change our minds and go against the privatization of Hydro. We should be against the privatization of Hydro because the Premier of the Province, two years ago, made a deal with Mr. Chrétien, the then Leader of the Opposition, to sell Hydro to Mr. Chrétien's brother-in-law, and then as a return for that great favour, Mr. Chrétien, who was to be Prime Minister, was going to make the Premier a Supreme Court judge. That is the proposition that the Member for Humber East put forward in this Legislature before, and it was on that basis, it was said to be a bad deal, the Premier is no good, it smells, it is crooked, it is an awful deal. That is the proposition she put forward and that is supposed to give credibility to the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that was raised here again today, and that they keep bringing up, and they know the exact opposite, there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between Bill 1, the privatization of Hydro, and anything to do with the assets in Labrador. Every member in this Legislature knows that if they read Bill 1. Every soul in this Legislature knows there is no connection, but every time they go out publicly to raise the big fear, they say, `You know what happened to Churchill Falls. Well, it could happen again, you know, another giveaway, and we won't be able to develop the Lower Churchill.'

You heard it in this Legislature today. There is absolutely no connection. Members opposite say they have read Bill 1 and if they have they should stand and admit publicly that they know for a fact there is absolutely no connection between the privatization of Hydro and anything to do with any assets currently in Labrador or those that might be in Labrador in the future. They know the difference and they refuse to admit it because they would rather for people to be out there wondering what is going on. That is what the Opposition have been saying, and it is totally unfounded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I understand there are no more urgent petitions and accordingly, I move, pursuant to Standing Order 21, that the Orders of the Day now be read.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will ask if the House would go into Committee of Supply to deal with the estimates of Consolidated Fund Services, the Legislature, and Executive Council. In so doing, a number of members have asked me, and I know others are wondering perhaps, the House will not sit beyond 5:00 tonight unless members absolutely demand it, and I will be surprised if members demand it. I know my friend, the Member for Grand Bank is anxious to sit, perhaps all night, but he will have to restrain himself today.

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

Committee of the Whole

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

We are now dealing with the estimates of the Consolidated Fund Services.

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This rather entertaining section of the Estimates procedure focuses around the Executive Council and takes some considerable time. Normally, there are, I think, seventy-five hours allocated to the total Estimates procedure, including the committees, where detailed estimates are examined. Finally, at the end of it all, whatever time is left over out of that seventy-five hours, is devoted to examining the estimates of Executive Council. Mr. Chairman, that I guess, puts me on the hot seat for quite some time.

First of all, I would like to explain to members of the House that Consolidated Fund Services represents the management expenses and service costs to government of maintaining the public debt of the Province. Also included in the maintaining of the public debt of the Province, we have the cost of servicing the pension funds of government. Essentially, that is what the Consolidated Fund Services are.

The Legislature, the next heading, is pretty obvious. It is the functioning of this particular body and the cost associated with it.

Executive Council is a much broader heading and includes a number of subdivisions that, in themselves, are rather significant, some of them. The Lieutenant-Governor's establishment is included under Executive Council. The Premier's Office is included under Executive Council. That is always the subject for a number of speeches and a number of questions about the comings and goings and the happenings and expenditures in the Premier's Office. Year after year we are very proud to point out that the expenses in the Premier's Office have been kept to a bare minimum. We point out always about the cost of the Premier's Office previous to when we formed the government and the expenses of the Premier's Office today. I'm looking forward to that entertaining exchange.

Then comes the Cabinet Secretariat that is largely responsible for the functioning of Cabinet and what happens to Cabinet papers in the system. The Treasury Board Secretariat comes under this heading, and I should imagine under that heading we will again have a rather lively and interesting exchange because Treasury Board deals with collective bargaining and we are now into the collective bargaining process with a vengeance. I should imagine that hon. members will want to deal with the collective bargaining situation as they discuss the Treasury Board heading.

The heading dealing with Intergovernmental Affairs comes under Executive Council as well. Intergovernmental Affairs has become particularly important in recent years simply because of the particular interest in native land claims. This is perhaps one of the chief topics that may be raised under Intergovernmental Affairs, in addition to all of the other contacts with other governments and other branches of the Federal Government.

Another heading that always draws a little bit of comment is Newfoundland Information Service, the agency that once upon a time was simply a propaganda agency for Cabinet ministers. When we took over we changed that to be a true information service for the government and not simply a propaganda machine for Cabinet ministers. We happily gave up that little benefit that the previous government enjoyed through NIS.

Finally, there is the Women's Policy Office. Even though the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women does not directly come under this heading and is a different person, still the Women's Policy Office, which is a small section of the concerns of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, actually comes under Executive Council. The function of the Women's Policy Office, of course, is an interior government function and one that we find to be very valuable.

Mr. Chairman, that is kind of a summary of the headings that we are going to be dealing with over the next three or four days, I suppose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Weeks and months.

MR. BAKER: Weeks, months, ahead. I look forward to informed questions and comments by members opposite. I will try to deal with the comments as they come. I will try to answer whatever questions they may have so that we can have a very productive session, and all learn a lot as we go through this process.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to touch on four or five preliminary items, because we will be spending the next number of hours specifically asking questions.

One thing I would like to do, I had a copy of a letter hand-delivered to me today from the Conception Bay Centre Branch of the Newfoundland Teachers Association, and the verbal message sent with it was for me to raise it in the House of Assembly if the Member for Harbour Main hadn't raised it, and I guess he didn't have much of a chance before now to raise it - I don't know if he intended to - but I will do it now anyway, and I will read the letter into the record.

I tried to explain to them - I don't know if any of them are left here in the gallery now, but perhaps some of their colleagues could pass on to them - that it wouldn't be possible to read the letter in the House of Assembly during Question Period, which is what they asked for. That isn't quite the way things work, but this is the first opportunity, so I will read the letter into the record for the benefit of the President of Treasury Board, who is the chief negotiator of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on all its dealings with public servants, including the present dispute with the teachers.

The letter is addressed to the Member for Harbour Main, Mr. Whelan: Would you please read this letter to the House of Assembly during Question Period on May 25, 1994 - that is tomorrow. He wouldn't be able to do it.

Conception Bay Centre Branch of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association asks the hon. Members of the House of Assembly to place the education of our youth number one on their list of priorities. While teachers are on strike government is saving millions of dollars, but at what price to the children of this Province? If this strike continues, all levels from Kindergarten to Level III will be adversely affected. Teachers understand the economic difficulties of government, and in the past ten years we have done our part by accepting five years of wage freezes and cuts to our pensions.

Have we learned from our past? Governments, ignoring the many warnings of people in the fishery, have allowed it to be destroyed. We look back and ask why nobody listened to the people who were closest to the industry, the fishermen. Yet, government talks about restructuring the education system without listening to the teachers. Again, we ask, have we learned nothing? The education system cannot be changed without directly affecting the teacher and students in the classroom. Therefore, teachers and government must work together.

We, the teachers of Conception Bay Centre, implore the hon. Members of the House of Assembly to help us get back to what we do best - teach. Give us back the trust we had in the collective bargaining process. Allow both sides to maintain their dignity. Treat us like the professionals we are. Let us maintain the rights we have earned over more than 100 years as a professional organization. Allow negotiations, not confrontation, to prevail.

That is signed by the president, Doreen Noseworthy, of the Conception Bay Centre Branch, Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to read that while there were still some teachers in the gallery so they can explain to their colleagues in Conception Bay Centre, if they are not in the gallery themselves, that it is not possible to stand up and read the letter during Question Period. Those of you who have seen Question Period, how it works, would understand that, but in debate there is an opportunity to do that, so I have done it now, because the message I got was that if the Member for Harbour Main didn't raise it in Question Period, would I raise it.

I now see that maybe I misunderstood, because they asked him to raise it tomorrow in Question Period, and I apologize to the Member for Harbour Main. I am sure he intended to ask a question tomorrow in Question Period.

AN HON. MEMBER: He can still do it.

MR. SIMMS: Of course, he can still do that, so we look forward to the question being asked by him tomorrow in Question Period - whatever the question is that he wants to raise with the President of Treasury Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) call Doug Adams, the Member for Eagle River says. He adds a tremendous amount to this discussion, I am sure, whatever that means.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I don't know what's wrong with the hon. Member for Eagle River. Is he finished now building up the economy of Quebec by renting his cars in Quebec and going back to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, why don't you go outside and have a coffee?

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to address the estimates of the Executive Council and ask some questions. I notice the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations tried to intervene there briefly on some of the debate earlier, or at least the presentation of the petition. I heard it on the speaker, some of the comments he made. This is a finance debate we are having now so you can talk about just about anything, I guess. I might touch on that over the course of the next few hours or days or weeks.

One thing I did notice is I believe he has his moustache shaved off. I guess he is trying to look like his hero Brian Tobin, I suppose. Brian Tobin shaved his. Or hoping that nobody would recognize him, maybe that is the real reason. One thing I remember is Jacques Demiers tried that not too long ago in the playoffs. It didn't help him very much, and I suggest the same thing is going to happen to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

To the President of Treasury Board. We asked a question in the House the other day about the cost to renovate the Premier's private elevator. The question was asked of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. No answers were provided of course yet. The minister said he would check to find out. As far as we understand it, $680,000 has been set aside for the contract to do renovations to all four of those elevators: The three in the main lobby and the Premier's personal, private elevator. Which members opposite say is not a private elevator at all because other ministers use it from time to time, but you know the elevator we are referring to.

I'm hoping that the President of Treasury Board might have some answers to that question because it is relevant to the whole discussion of expenditure, and whether or not those kinds of expenditures are pertinent and appropriate in a time of restraint. At a time when you can't find $100,000 to help the working group on child sexual abuse but you can find $100,000 or $50,000 or $75,000 to do some renovations to the Premier's private, personal elevator, when he could easily use one of the other three elevators like the rest of, as the Member for Placentia said, us normal mere mortals. I would like the President of Treasury Board to tell us if he has the answer to that question because we would like to know it.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) the answer but you don't listen.

MR. SIMMS: No, he didn't give the answer.

MR. BAKER: Yes he did.

MR. SIMMS: What was the answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: No, he said he would take it as notice and find out the answer, that is what he said.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: So if I didn't - pardon me? I see the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture has a little question.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) from seventy-two to eighty-nine.

MR. SIMMS: Yes it was.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes.

MR. FLIGHT: Oh, I see.

MR. SIMMS: Was there another pertinent question? That was it, was it? Fine. I must say, Mr. Chairman, I'm very impressed with the questions asked by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. They get better every day. After twenty years in the House I must say he is coming along pretty good.

May I ask the President of Treasury Board, beginning with the Office of the Premier, Transportation and Communications vote, page 14 in the Estimates. The Transportation and Communications vote last year spent $40,000; this year the new estimates are $49,500. That is the Premier's Office itself. Then you have Executive Support where you have the Transportation and Communications vote at $71,000. Then you have under Administration another $17,000 being spent for Transportation and Communications. What I want to ask the minister is: Do these numbers differ dramatically from last year? If not, why not? Because we all know that the Premier has done a considerable amount of travel during the past year and no doubt will continue to do a considerable amount of travel in the coming year.

Second question, it is under 2.1.02.01, Salaries for Executive Support. Last year it was $610,000 in total, he will see, this year you are budgeting $636,000, an increase of approximately $26,000. Can he tell us what that increase is provided for? Are there new positions, new staff members being added to the Premier's Office or to the Executive Support division of the Premier's Office? These are the obvious question I'm going to run through here first of all.

MR. BAKER: It is obvious you don't have any questions.

MR. SIMMS: I say to the minister that is not quite true. If he would like I will get right into a lot of the other questions that I have here, if he would prefer. I was just going to give him a chance to get on his feet first so he can get up and answer some of those questions. I guarantee him I have lots of questions here for the minister under the Premier's Office. Why is $26,000 more budgeted for this year than was spent last year under the Executive Support salaries, is it a position being added, which is the question I just asked him.

Mr. Chairman, does the Premier intend to spend any of his travel money to visit corporate offices and lay out the case for investing in Newfoundland as Frank McKenna has done successfully in his Province of New Brunswick, and as Gary Filmon has done successfully in Manitoba, or does the Premier intend to continue devoting his travel expenses to speaking to law schools all around the country? That's the question. Let me ask him this one: Did the Province pick up any portion whatsoever of the cost of the cross-Canada tour on overfishing that the Premier conducted during the federal election campaign? In a letter to me he said he wouldn't disclose the monies provided by the Liberal Party. I didn't ask him that. I want to know whether the Province paid for any portion of that particular tour.

I want to ask the minister this: is there money allocated for another fisheries tour this year; how much money was spent last year and for what? Could the minister tell us who the Premier met with during his Asian tour recently in the last few months? Will he table a list of the developments that have occurred in the Province as a result of that visit, that trip? Would he explain how he was instrumental in bringing those developments to fruition? I want to ask the minister, is the Premier prepared to undertake a McKenna type tour to the corporate boardrooms of North America, and elsewhere to try to stir up business interests in investing in Newfoundland? Is the Premier planning any other jaunts to the American Northeast to try to drum up business in the high fashion shops of Boston and New York like he did last fall?

Mr. Chairman, if so, where might we find that included in the expenditures of the Executive Council of the Premier's Office? Is there a line item where that expenditure would be found, those travels? Could the minister confirm that the Premier's $20,000 home entertainment provision is still in the Budget? I am asking him now whether or not that's justifiable in terms of what's happening with the public service and everybody else, would the Premier be willing to lead by example, Mr. Chairman, even for a couple of years, by reducing that amount of allowance?

Would he be prepared to table a list of the expenditures and the breakdown for that entertainment allowance? Does the Premier pay income tax on that allowance, Mr. Chairman, so I have asked already dozens of questions even though the minister didn't think I had many questions to ask, let me assure him that I have dozens more and I have my suspicions that the minister won't be able to answer half the questions; he will get up now and he will try to dilly dally for ten minutes but I bet you he won't be able to answer the questions, he didn't even listen; he didn't even jot them down as I was asking them!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), he has a photographic memory.

MR. SIMMS: He has them all in his head, he has a photographic memory. Well I wish he would use it when it comes to negotiating with the teachers because he certainly hasn't used it there and never has in the past.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier, or the minister on behalf of the Premier who isn't here, does the Premier entertain at his home often for that $20,000 entertainment allowance-

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) the same questions you read out last year (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, no; these aren't questions of last year. These are this year's questions.

MR. GRIMES: You get Hansard and you have the exact same questions (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who is trying desperately to look like his hero, Brian Tobin, by shaving off his moustache, is not even involved in this debate here today, so his best bet would be to go out, take the Member for Eagle River, go out and have a cup of coffee somewhere in the back room.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this allowance that we have talked about I say to the minister is public funds, and what we would like to know, is that if the Premier uses that $20,000 allowance to entertain at home, how much does he do, how much entertainment does he do at home, could he table a list of the expenditures, a breakdown; could he give us a list of the guests whom he entertains? Would there be anybody for example who have some interest in privatization of Hydro who might have been at his home, while this entertainment allowance expense was being used, Mr. Chairman, and, let's ask the minister if he can give us the specific details of the $48,200 expenditure in purchase services for administration under the Premier's office this year, can he tell us what that $48,200 covers?

Could he tell us, Mr. Chairman, whether or not, in the expenditures of the Premier's office had been moved to any other sections of the estimates since 1989 or since 1993, for example? Are there any other expenditures for the Premier's office that have since `89 or since last year for that matter, been moved to any other section of the estimates? Is there some of his expenditures in travel or whatever covered as minister responsible for -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SIMMS: I will just leave those few questions dangling until we get some answers from the minister. I presume he is going to try and answer some questions.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will take a couple of minutes. I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his list of questions. He asked about some specific headings, Transportation and Communications, and the Office of the Premier.

Last year we budgeted $53,000 and did not spend it all. This year we reduced the amount to $49,500. This is an indication that just because something is budgeted does not mean it has to be spent, and every attempt is made during the year to spend money only on things that are absolutely essential to be done, and there is no desire to spend an allocation simply because it is in the Budget. This year because of that, we have lowered from last year's Budget the amount in the office of the Premier for Transportation and Communications. The hon. gentleman is right, this involves all the travel and so on that is so absolutely necessary.

Under Executive Support the transportation and communication amount has been dropped by about $25,000 from last year, again an indication that we are trying to cut corners, we are trying to save money wherever possible, so we have dropped about $25,000 under that heading. But in terms of the purchased services under administration, the $48,000 he talks about, that is what is allocated this year. Last year there was $57,000 allocated, and again, another example of the fact that because something is allocated it does not necessarily mean it is going to be spent, and that during the year we take every opportunity to cut costs, to trim expenses, and not spend money simply because it is in the Budget.

As to a lot of the details the hon. gentleman asks, he asked about guest lists, and so on, what food was bought, and everything else. Mr. Chairman, obviously I do not have that at my fingertips, but some of it I may be able to find out. I will say this, Mr. Chairman, one thing that will not be included in those amounts, you will not find tens of thousands of dollars for booze as used to be the case. You will not find tens of thousands of dollars for booze. You will not find tens of thousands of dollars for a private dining room. You will not find that in these estimates. You will not find thousands of dollars for cigars and cigarettes. You will not find that in those estimates, so there has been quite a lot of refining done over the last number of years, and we hope to do further refinements.

As is indicated in the Budget over the last three years even, every year we have tended to cut down on these expenses as much as possible. You have to realize that the Premier of a Province still has to have the ability to travel. There are still meetings he must attend. There are speeches that he must give if the image of this Province is to be upheld, and if we are to partake in the country, if we are to take part in things that are Canadian, if we are to get together as first ministers, and so on, if we are to have contacts with the federal government, if we are to talk to them, there are certain expenditures that have to be made, but I can assure hon. gentlemen that these expenditures under Transportation and Communications are being cut further and further every year.

As for the $20,000 allowance that the leader mentioned. Certainly, that is taxable and is included as a taxable benefit. This is in lieu of a lot of entertaining and everything else. The former, former, Premier for instance was provided with a house. In addition to a house was provided with furniture and everything else that went into that house, and it was not the lowest class house in the world, Mr. Chairman, I should hasten to add. He was provided with a private dining room and all kinds of other expenditures associated with that. In lieu of that and in recognition that an awful lot of government business does go on in his private residence a taxable amount is provided. We announced that from day one, the first year we were in office, and we still stand by that particular expenditure.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the minister for trying his best to provide some answers. I realize I asked a barrage of questions there and I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, some detail and I apologize for that. That's why I slacked off and gave him a chance to get up and answer and hopefully that's the way we can conduct the scrutiny of his estimates over the next days, weeks and months. I don't necessarily stand to try to fill out ten minutes of time. I want to stand and ask a couple of questions or a few questions maybe and then maybe the minister can answer them. That's the hope I have and I'm sure he's willing to do that. It would be easier if I stuck to maybe two or three questions.

MR. BAKER: But I think that the Member for Menihek has questions to and other (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh yes. My colleague - I was going to say that - my colleague, the Member for Menihek, who is the Treasury Board critic will have lots of questions for the minister and lots of comments to make to the minister about his handling of collective bargaining as well as the questions of the estimates specifically, which he's entitled to do and he's there chomping at the bit. He just came over to me then wondering if I was soon going to be finished and I said, well I just started. So he wants to get on soon. I'll have this go right now and I know my colleague the Member for Humber East, who is our critic for the Status of Women or women's issues, would want to comment perhaps on the women's policy office, how it's coming along and those kinds of questions. So we have lots of questions here for the minister but let me get back to the specific questions again. I want to repeat some of the ones I asked which he didn't address and that's only because I asked so many. I suppose even with his photographic mind he wouldn't be able to keep track of them all.

The minister can tell me because the Premier isn't here so he's answering for the Premier, I presume. Does the Premier intend to undertake any kind of a visitation or tour to corporate offices to lay out the case for Newfoundland for investing in Newfoundland as Frank McKenna has done? I'm sure the minister would be aware of the positive coverage that Frank McKenna, the Premier of New Brunswick, has been getting. Not only the positive coverage but the positive results because he has been successful in luring a couple of corporations in to set up business in New Brunswick and with that, he has brought along a number of jobs, probably several hundred jobs at this stage.

I know of two initiatives that he undertook. I also know that The Financial Post - Fortune 500, I think wrote about McKenna. The Financial Post has written about McKenna and Gary Filmon who has done similar things. Now the Premier's policy on this, in the past, has always been that he would not go and try to encourage people to come here. He would not go and try to compete with another province, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, that kind of thing, but I'm wondering if the minister can tell us now if maybe the Premier has had a change of heart? I know that he has his pictures in some ads, financial magazines, business magazines, that kind of thing but you need a lot more then pictures in an ad to really get the message out. You have to be aggressive, go out and try to twist a few arms and try to encourage people to come here and tell them why. Give them all the reasons why because there are some positive reasons for businesses to set up here. So I want to know if the minister knows if the Premier plans to undertake any kind of tour, a McKenna type tour?

If the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was the Premier today, I suspect, he would be just like Frank McKenna out aggressively looking for business to come here. I say thank God and thanks be to heavens he's not the Premier but if he was, I'm sure he'd be doing it. So I want to ask the minister if that's the case? The other question I asked him which he didn't answer was, did the taxpayers - did the Province pick up any portion whatsoever of the cost of the cross-Canada tour that the Premier undertook on overfishing last year during the federal election campaign? Now I wrote the Premier and asked him for that information. He came back with a rather snotty letter and said that he wasn't going to tell me what the Liberal Party paid to cover those costs. I didn't ask that question. I wanted to know if the taxpayers paid any portion of it whatsoever. Maybe the minister knows that, if he doesn't he can -

MR. BAKER: I don't.

MR. SIMMS: He doesn't, so he can maybe try to find out for me. That's two and the other question that I asked him, and I'll leave it at that, can he tell us who the Premier met with during his Asian tour many months back now?...it's quite some time ago. Could he table a list of the positive developments that occurred in the Province as a result of that tour, explaining now he was instrumental - the Premier - as a result of his travel to Asia in bringing those developments to fruition? Perhaps I could leave those two or three questions and see what the minister has to say to those before we get on with others.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know specifically of any initiatives that the Premier may be undertaking in the coming year to encourage business to come to the Province. I do know that whatever initiatives are taken will be quarterbacked by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and that department. That department has a good handle on what is going on, not only in the Province but in the world, and would know the best kinds of approaches to make, whether that be in the Far East or whether it be Europe or whether it be in the United States or in Mexico. They would have the best idea as to what companies to target and how best to target them.

Any such visits would be made in co-operation with and after getting the advice from the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology. However, my assumption is that there will be efforts made during the coming year in this direction. I think this has been announced a number of times by the Premier, and the fact that he is interested in doing this kind of thing in conjunction with the minister.

As to the Asia trip, I don't know the specific names of the companies that were visited and the individuals who were visited. I don't know if I should actually discuss that, for one very good reason. It is tied in with the second part of the Leader of the Opposition's questions. Because he naturally assumes that a visit is made and then within the next half-hour or so after we arrive back on the flight that all of a sudden something is going to happen in the Province. He wants a listing of all of the positive things that have happened in the Province as a result of the trip. That indicates to me an attitude that tells me the member opposite doesn't know about the purpose of those trips and doesn't know how these things are conducted and doesn't know about the business world and the fact that things don't happen that quickly.

I can tell him that there is a lot of interest expressed in Newfoundland as a result of not only the Premier's visit but other contacts that have been made throughout the Far East. There has been for instance - and this was not specifically a result of the Premier's visit - interest expressed in the sealing industry of this Province and the development of a sealing industry and the use of the whole seal, not only the fur but the food and everything else - the meat for food, the use of the whole seal. This could be an up-and-coming industry in this Province, and even this year, it will mean millions of dollars to sealers on the Baie Verte Peninsula, Twillingate area, and so on.

Our contacts with the Far East are continuing and hopefully will grow in the very near term. Because of the attitude that if you've spoken to a company or whatever that all of a sudden things should happen overnight, and then phone calls are made and the whole process is interrupted and disrupted and people are scared off by the kinds of things that I think would happen were I to give a detailed list. I hesitate to do so but I want to add that I don't know personally, because I wasn't there and wasn't party to these types of decisions, exactly what companies were visited. The Minister of ITT would have a more exact knowledge of that.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, it is like pulling hen's teeth. The minister hasn't told us one single thing at all, absolutely nothing. The Premier is not here to answer the questions so we trusted in the Premier leaving a person of competence to respond and answer these questions with some knowledge. He hasn't answered any of these questions that I've asked him other than: I don't know if the Premier is going to do this, I don't think the Premier has done that, I'm not sure if we will get anything out of this; I don't think I can tell anybody of positive developments that have occurred.

We were kind of hoping we might get some positive answers from the minister to these very direct and simple questions. We didn't say, now, when he got back from Asia, half-an-hour after he got back, there must have been some positive developments. My question was: Can he table a list of any developments that have occurred in the Province since his Asian trip? That is a pretty straightforward question. That is not trying to attack the Premier or anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a bad attitude.

MR. SIMMS: That is not suggesting there is a bad attitude. I am asking the minister, could he table a list of positive developments that have occurred. I didn't even say positive; I said a list of any developments that have occurred as a result of that trip. Now that was the question. It is pretty straightforward, but if he doesn't want to –

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a bad attitude.

MR. SIMMS: It has nothing to do with the attitude, it is a simple question. If he can't answer the question, then simply get up and say, `I can't answer it, Mr. Chairman', and that will be it; that's all we can do. All we can do is ask the questions and hope that somebody with some competence will answer.

Now, as for suggesting that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology would have all the answers, that he quarterbacks, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce quarterbacks all the development activities in this Province -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Premier, yes.

MR. SIMMS: With the Premier.

I would have to say that is very, very difficult to do, because when you are quarterback, you should be in on the game all the time, you should be here all the time; but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is here not long enough to play - well, he certainly wouldn't be able to play halfback, and that is only part of the game, and he wouldn't be able to be fullback. I'm not sure what role the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology could play in developing business undertakings in this Province. Maybe at some point in time the Minister of ITT will stand in debate and tell us -

AN HON. MEMBER: Minister of what?

MR. SIMMS: Perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will be able to stand and tell us the answers to the questions that I asked the minister, who couldn't answer them. Does the Premier intend to undertake any kind of active role, or an active undertaking, related to encouraging businesses to come here? Does he intend to take on a McKenna-type of aggressive approach to encouraging business here?

The minister said he didn't know - this minister, the Deputy Premier - he tried to slough it off to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I think, and maybe at some point the minister might want to comment.

Also, I asked what developments occurred in Asia, or what developments have occurred since his return from Asia. Again, the minister didn't know. I will go on to some questions that maybe the Deputy Premier might know - I don't know - might know.

Some of the questions that were asked, I guess, on the Premier's Office, we might be prepared to put in abeyance for the time being, because apparently the minister doesn't seem to know too much about it. I did ask him if he would give the details of the $48,200 in Purchased Services, under Administration, in the Premier's Office this year. He didn't give the answer to that question. I don't know if it slipped his mind or not.

MR. BAKER: No.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, he just didn't give the answer; so maybe he will give the answer to that one. That is one question.

Are there expenditures related to the Premier's Office, either Travel or Purchased Services, or anything else, that have been moved to other sections of the Estimates? Are some of his expenses covered elsewhere, in other departments? That is question two.

The final question I will ask him in this stage - well, maybe I will ask him two more in this set of questions. One is: What is the total cost - this is something he should know - of step progressions, so-called step progressions, this year, to government? I know he wouldn't have that at his fingertips, I don't guess, unless he has asked for it himself.

Secondly, can he tell us the total cost from the Premier's Office alone? Have there been any step progressions this year for the staff in the Premier's Office? And does the minister not think it might be a fair time to consider freezing those progressions for a time, in light of the circumstances we face, and the cuts to other public servants?

Maybe I will flick out one more, just to finish this series of questions.

Does the Premier have police protection assigned to him now, a bodyguard assigned to him? I notice - over the last couple of weeks we've seen RNC constables, plainclothes, in the gallery, out in the lobby. We saw them on television. CBC carried a story about it, in fact, when he was over in Corner Brook a couple of weeks ago. My question to the minister is: Have the RNC or the RCMP assigned personnel to protect the Premier on a regular basis, just periodically, or once in a while? What is the story on that?

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

MR. BAKER: I will start at the last one first, Mr. Chairman. No, there is no assigned RNC protection for the Premier. There are occasions that arise when the RNC itself feels the necessity to come in around the building but this is not in terms of protection for the Premier.

As to his question about step progressions, I would have to go back and check, but it seems to me that the total cost might have been $600,000, $700,000 in the last year, but I will check and get the exact number. It is a small number in terms of all government. I would like to point out where that is. Most of it, I believe, would be under the teachers' contract where I think about a third of the teachers have for the last two or three years been getting about 2 per cent a year increase as step progression. The majority of that amount would be under the teachers' contract -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) or a third?

MR. BAKER: No, no, much more. I was saying one-third of teachers still get step progressions. Most of that money, $600,000, $700,000, whatever it happens to be, would be involved there. I will check and see the exact number.

I believe there may still be some employees in the Premier's Office who may in fact be getting step progressions. They may in fact be, but again I will check into that. It seems to me that maybe some of them have not been with government long enough to be beyond the step progression stage. The concept of step progressions is consistent throughout the public service and in some contracts would have greater impact than others. When we did the freeze legislation we did not interfere with the step progressions. I believe in some other provinces they have. They have specifically stated that there would be no step progressions. That is something we didn't do. We thought that everybody should at least have the ability to get up to the top of their scale without interference, because in fact that is a reward based on the learning curve. As the learning occurs and more expertise develops then the pay level rises and we did not interfere with that in terms of the wage freeze legislation.

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

MR. SIMMS: I thank the minister. I'm going to allow my colleagues to pursue questions under the Premier's Office now, Mr. Chairman, because I want to move on to one other area before my colleague, the Member for Menihek, the Treasury Board critic, gets ready to slam the minister on the Treasury Board estimates. I want to ask him just a couple of more questions.

I don't think he gave me the answer to the Purchased Services questions I asked him. I've asked him three times now if he could tell me what the $48,200 in Purchased Services for Administration under the Premier's Office is for. Can he tell me that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Purchased Services for the Administration.

MR. SIMMS: It is 2.1.03.06.

MR. BAKER: I know the one.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have a breakdown.

MR. BAKER: It is down considerably from last year.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have a breakdown of it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BAKER: Okay, alright.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to know what it is. Now just relax, because there is more coming.

MR. BAKER: You have more, have you?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I have more. For example -

AN HON. MEMBER: They are even written out for you.

MR. SIMMS: - can he also tell us - they are even written out for me, a lot of these questions, that's right. I have some good research people in my office that help me with this stuff.

While you are at it, would you give us the details of the $57,000 expenditure last year under the same head? Last year $57,100 in purchased services for administration was spent in the Premier's office, and this year it is $48,200, so we would like to know what it is for? It is a pretty straightforward question and even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology nods and agrees. There is no reason in the world why the President of Treasury Board could not provide these answers. He should be better prepared says the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, and me as well. I agree with him. Have any of the expenditures in the Premier's office been covered under any other sections of the estimates? I have asked him that one two or three times and he has avoided answering that, but I am sure not deliberately, it just slipped his mind. Would he answer that question? If there have been some things covered elsewhere, not covered up, covered elsewhere, what kind of things are they? Would he get for the House, if he does not have it accurately at his fingertips now, the current salary of the chief of staff to the Premier, the current salary of the press secretary, Judy Foote?

AN HON. MEMBER: You have a chief of staff.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, I have a chief of staff but I do not think he makes anywhere near what this chief of staff makes though.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does he make?

MR. SIMMS: I think Wayne makes $55,000 or something like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on pension?

MR. SIMMS: No, I do not think he is. No, he is not, not Wayne Clarke.

Would he tell me the present salary of Edsel Bonnell, the chief of staff, Judy Foote, whatever she is called now, press secretary or director of press, whatever she is called, and also would he give me the current salary of each of the Premier's executive assistants? Now, I know he has at least four because I see them sitting there in the gallery every day during Question Period. As Steve Neary would say when he looked up in the gallery, he would say, there is $250,000 in taxpayer's money and their job is to sit up in the gallery and look down at the Opposition all day long. There were four of them up there the other day. Now, I believe he has more than that. I do not know how many. What I would like to know is who they are, what their names are, and what their current salary is, along with the other salaries I just asked for, the chief of staff, the press secretary, and the executive assistants? Can I depend on the Minister of Finance, the President of Treasury Board, to provide the information I have now requested, either now or within the next couple of days, and answer the other questions?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All of that information is made public in the salary estimate guidelines.

MR. SIMMS: No. No.

MR. BAKER: You want to put the names by them. These amounts are all made public. There is chief of staff and an amount. You want me to say that the chief of staff is Edsel Bonnell. Is that it?

MR. SIMMS: And how much he makes.

MR. BAKER: Well, as I say that is in the salary details section. It is chief of staff and an amount. I do not know what it is offhand. I will get what the hon. gentleman wants. I will put the names on it. That is not a problem.

As to some of the other questions about purchased services I will try to get breakdowns from last year, but I tell the hon. gentleman that if he wants a breakdown of that $48,200 he is going to have to wait a year until it is spent and then I will let him know what it was spent on. I suspect we will not spend all that $48,200. We did not spend what was allocated last year, so he will have to wait until next year for that much detail.

MR. SIMMS: You did spend all that.

MR. BAKER: Yes, in that heading we did, but we reduced it. We spent $57,100 but this year we reduced it to $48,200 so there is a reduction of about $9000 there.

Before the Leader of the Opposition leaves I would like to comment for a moment on how he started this particular session with the Executive Council. He read a letter and there are two points I would like to make about that letter. First of all the letter sounded very sincere and made a lot of good points. One can only agree with the points made in the letter, but I question the Leader of the Opposition doing it at this point in time.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, that straightens up the next part. I question the Leader of the Opposition doing it when it was a letter to the Member for Harbour Main who was asked to do something about it tomorrow, and then the people who wrote the letter go to the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to subvert that process and get up ahead of time and not give the Member for Harbour Main a chance to even respond. To get up and read it out in the House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that's really unfortunate. If those particular teachers who expressed a sincere view it seemed to me, were really sincere, then why would they give a letter to the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to get up and do it ahead of time before the Member for Harbour Main had a chance to respond? It seems to me that's playing politics with a very serious issue and I think it was rather unfortunate that that happened, I really do. It's an indication that perhaps something happened that should not have happened. Either the teachers involved asked the Leader of the Opposition to do it, in which case they are at fault and I would question their motives or the Leader of the Opposition did it before he was supposed to, in which case I'd question his motives. So there's got to be some questioning of motives about that particular letter and I think it's kind of an unfortunate occurrence, Mr. Chairman. So I thought I'd better make those comments about that situation and get it on the record.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the information from the minister related to the questions. I asked him specifically, the salaries of the chief of staff, the press secretary and the executive assistants and the breakdown of purchased services expenditure. I realize the $48,000 is an estimate for this year but if he has a breakdown on what he based his estimate, that's what I'm looking for, and the specific breakdown of $58,000.

Now let me address his last point, the letter that he talked about from the Conception Bay Centre branch. Now I know the President of Treasury Board has a hearing problem, I know that, it's no secret. I really feel badly for the Minister of Finance -

MR. BAKER: You don't.

MR. SIMMS: No, I do. I know sometimes because of his hearing -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) that's not very nice.

MR. SIMMS: No - I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I'm talking to the Minister of Treasury Board. He doesn't have any problem with what I'm trying to say. He understands what it is that I'm trying to say and he said don't apologize, don't worry about it but I do apologize because obviously he didn't hear what transpired earlier this afternoon. He couldn't have because I stood up and said to the Member for Harbour Main that I apologized after I'd read the letter because the message -

MR. EFFORD: You're putting your foot in your mouth.

MR. SIMMS: - now listen, Mr. Chairman, the expert at putting his foot in the mouth, of all people. You did it over in Pasadena, many times I heard. Yes, I heard.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: He apologized to the Premier.

MR. SIMMS: He apologized to the Premier, came crawling back to the Premier with his tail between his legs. Yes, Sir, he did. I haven't heard a sound - haven't heard a whisper from him in the last year, not a whisper, not a whimper, not a word, not an expression, Mr. Chairman. For two years, Mr. Chairman, that Member for Port de Grave was tearing strips off the Premier and certainly tearing strips off his now colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, for the poor way in which he was dealing with the fishery of this Province.

Two years travelling all over the Province, public meetings, on the television every night and everything like that. His hair all fluffed up, that new lovely white hair fluffed up, Mr. Chairman, the silver fox they were calling him on fishery matters. He was the only person speaking out on the fishery because he said the Minister of Fisheries didn't know what he was talking about.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there's been a search party out for the last thirteen months, Search and Rescue, the Coast Guard, all hands were out for the last year wondering where the Member for Port de Grave is because you don't hear a whimper, not a whisper, not a word, not a sound, Mr. Chairman. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure he's just trying to divert attention away from the attack I was making on the Minister of Finance but it wasn't an attack, it was an explanation.

The message I got with the letter, which was dropped off in my office from the secretary that brought it in to me, was that these people brought this in to you just before the House opened. It was a letter to the Member for Harbour Main, Mr. Whelan, and they had asked him to raise this in the House today. If he doesn't raise it would you raise it? Now I read the letter but I didn't pay real close attention to May 25, that was the problem with it. I read the letter and said well you can't raise it in Question Period - can't read the letter. They asked if he would read the letter. So I said the first earliest opportunity that we'll have to do that will be in the debate on the estimates. So I read it and as I read it again I realized it was May 25. So I looked across to the Member for Harbour Main and I said: I apologize because I realize now this is tomorrow and maybe you were going to ask a question tomorrow in the House and he nodded to me and said: yes, maybe I would. I said: well you can still ask the question.

That's what transpired so there was no motivation other than listening to the people, Mr. Chairman, listening to the people. They asked me to raise it, I raised it, and it may have been inadvertently done a day earlier. If that's the case I deeply regret that and I apologize to the Member for Harbour Main. I already did it earlier so there was no need for the Minister of Finance to stand and try to score a few cheap, political points on that issue because it wouldn't wash anyway, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BAKER: I will be back in one minute.

MR. SIMMS: You will be back in a moment, because my colleague, the President of the -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, what is the cost of the expenditure to the private elevator out there?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Are you going to answer it? I wonder if he could answer that question.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, there is no private elevator. When we took over government in 1989 we did away with the private dining room, we did away with the private elevator and everything else that was private. Everything in this building now is for the full use of all people in the building. That elevator is used by Executive Council, by ministers, by the Premier, those who wish to use it and if anybody else may ask the question to use it -

AN HON. MEMBER: Us, we would like to use it.

MR. EFFORD: You are not government. You still think you are in government? My goodness, you are in opposition boy, you are not in government. But anyway, Mr. Chairman, there was a total of $400,000 given out in a contract this year for the four elevators in this building.

MR. SIMMS: $400,000?

MR. EFFORD: For all of the elevators. I haven't the exact -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No. No, no, not the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: No, no. The refurbishing of the elevators, yes; all of the elevators so there is no contract set out because there is no private elevator.

MR. SIMMS: You know the elevator (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: The hon. member points out the remainder is for maintenance.

MR. SIMMS: I am sorry, I didn't hear the minister (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, the minister valiantly tries to slough off the question related to the private elevator by saying it is not a private elevator. If it is not a private elevator then it is a public elevator, is that correct? It is not a public elevator; it's a private elevator for the private use of a few select people, that's what it's for. Now he can try to talk around it, try to cover it up by saying we closed the Premier's dining room and all that stuff, that's not the question. The question was a sensible question: how much was being spent on renovations or upgrading or the work associated with the elevator, the private elevator that everybody calls it, that's not the public elevator over in the northeast wing, that's what the question said in fact, I think and we ask that question. Now if the minister can give us that answer, we would appreciate it.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is quite obvious that the hon. the Opposition Leader is not willing to listen to the answer and to accept the answer that I gave. Now it is very clear. When they asked the question in the House of Assembly last week, the question pointed to the Premier, the Premier's personal, private elevator, and I said at that time, that it is not the Premier's personal, private elevator. It is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Well, you can listen and hear what you want to hear but I am answering the question. Now the modernization of four elevators, the three and the one, is a total of $464,769.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I just forget the age of them.

MR. SIMMS: The total contract (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That's a total contract. The modernization of all these elevators. They haven't worked for years and to replenish the elevators that's a total contract, $464,769 to be spent on the elevators this year.

MR. SIMMS: This year?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: But what about the last fiscal year now, was this work started (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Oh no, that includes that. That's to date, that's to date.

MR. SIMMS: That's to date?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: And that's all of the -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: So then you are saying that's the total expenditure for the restoration this fiscal year. Does he foresee any further work on those elevators beyond this fiscal year?

MR. EFFORD: The total contract won't be finished this year.

MR. SIMMS: All four?

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't be finished this year.

MR. SIMMS: Okay. Does the figure $680,000 ring a bell at all with the minister?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Yes, could he tell us what the $680,000 contract or expenditure is for, related to elevators, because obviously there is a discrepancy. He is telling us it is $464,000 but I have heard the number $680,000 somewhere, so I am obviously wrong and I would like to know where -

MR. EFFORD: You're right.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I am right? Oh.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: $220,000 to be spent after this year, I would think.

MR. SIMMS: Oh, I didn't know. I am sure if he had that information he would have been forthcoming and given it all to us.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No.

MR. SIMMS: I think you are being unfair to the minister now, but hopefully he will explain to me where the $680,000 comes into it.

I am trying to think of my other question. My friends here are offering all kinds of advice and suggestions. Of the $464,000 that he is talking about now, which he says he has the information on, how much of that is directed toward the non-public elevator over there in the northeast corner? He knows the one we are talking about, the one we refer to as the private elevator, which he says isn't. How much of that $464,000 will be spent on that elevator? And if the figure of $680,000 is actually the right number -

MR. EFFORD: If.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, if it is, how much of the $680,000 will be spent on that private elevator, that we call private, which he doesn't call private. Can he tell us that?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know what it takes to make the hon. members opposite believe or listen to the fact that it is not a private elevator. I know it was for seventeen years when the Tories operated it - a total, private elevator. In other words, you couldn't even touch the doorknob during the former seventeen years of the Tory operation, so I understand you are not willing to accept the fact that we do not operate in that manner. It is not an elevator assigned to the Premier.

MR. TOBIN: Who uses it? Who has the combinations?

MR. EFFORD: The combinations? Don't be silly; there are no combinations. Do you use a combination every time you open an elevator?

The $680,000 is actually pure rumour, assumption, guessing. There is no such figure as $680,000. The total amount of money that will be spent this year will be $464,769 and I am not going to repeat it again.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) last year.

MR. EFFORD: That is the total to date.

MR. SIMMS: That is the total to date, last year and this year?

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

MR. SIMMS: But we do not know how much will be spent in the next fiscal years, so that the $680,000 might not be a figment of somebody's imagination. It might very well prove to be -

MR. EFFORD: It could very well be.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, it may very well be. Aha! Now we have the minister, at least on record, as saying that.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) imagination.

MR. SIMMS: Wait now, I say to the minister; he hasn't answered my question yet. He still hasn't answered my question.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: The question is: Of the $464,000 how much of that will be spent on the renovations to what we call the private elevator, which he doesn't call a private elevator?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I cannot prejudge what is going to be spent next year, because according to the fiscal financial constraints, and the problems that we have that were caused by the members opposite over seventeen years of mismanagement, we don't know if we are going to have $1 to spend next year.

If we had a portion of the $585 million that we pay out in interest I would be able to put new elevators in the building. What we have to do now is try to refurbish the old elevators, so I am not going to stand here and say that we are going to spend $200,000 next year or $300,000 next year. I may not have a penny to spend next year. It is absolutely impossible to prejudge under today's economic circumstances that we are facing, and with the credit rating just being dropped, we may have to take out one of the elevators and sell it and try to get some of the money back.

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

MR. SIMMS: Oh, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, this minister who prides himself on being forthcoming, honest, truthful, was asked by the Member for Placentia last week, he has been asked by me now at least on three occasions, how much is being spent to upgrade or renovate the elevator in the northeast corner. He never did answer that question. How much of that $464,000 has been spent on that elevator? Can he tell us that, please?

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

MR. EFFORD: The problem, Mr Chairman, is that they are not accepting the answers I am giving them. If they would accept the answers - the first time I stood up and answered them I told exactly what we were spending this year on the elevators and I keep telling them there is no such thing in this building as a private elevator.

The question that was asked by the hon. Member for Placentia, how much money did you spend this year on the Premier's private elevator, I said: None. There is no such thing as a private elevator for the Premier of this Province today as there was for the seventeen years you were in power.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to let the minister off the hook on this one. He is trying to be too smart by half. He is attempting to cover it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Yes he is. That is exactly what he is doing and he knows it. He knows it very well. The elevator we are talking about is the one that he described a moment ago. He described it a moment ago. It is used by Executive Council members, he says, and it is used by some other ministers. He knows the elevator we are talking about. It is the one in the northeast corner that is not accessible by the general public. By the main door. He knows.

MR. EFFORD: That is not the northeast corner.

MR. SIMMS: That is - well, okay. He knows the elevator we are talking - he shouldn't be playing games with the House. He should answer the question directly. I want to ask him one last time, because I'm sure he knows the answer, but he is obviously avoiding giving the information because it is going to be an embarrassment. That is the reason. Would he tell the House now how much of the $464,000 has been allocated to be spent on that elevator that we are all arguing about? He knows which one we are talking about. Can he tell the House?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are not like the members opposite. I remember sitting in opposition from 1985 to 1989 day after day asking questions and the then-Premier Peckford, and some - most of the ministers opposite would sit down, turn side on, and read the newspaper. Wouldn't even hold their head up to answer a question. I have answered the questions. I have said it is $464,769. It is not to improve, it is maintenance. It is a contract let out by the public tendering act to contract out the refurbishing of the elevators. It is at the request of nobody and is not a private elevator. I will keep saying that.

MR. TOBIN: Who has the keys to it?

MR. EFFORD: All of the Executive Council, all of the ministers, and those people who want a key to that elevator is there. For security reasons there is a lock on the door, but strictly for security reasons. That was ordered, by the way, by the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, for security reasons.

MR. SIMMS: How much does it cost?

MR. EFFORD: I haven't got the price of the lock.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. No one asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation what the cost of the lock was. That is not what we were interested in. What we are interested in is how much money will be spent by the end of this fiscal year on the elevator out by the main entrance. Not where the other three are. The one that is off by itself. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation obviously has the information there with him so why doesn't he give it to the House? Then we will be off the matter. Because if the minister doesn't answer the question now I can tell you one thing, that before this House closes for the summer we will have the answer. Because tomorrow we are going to ask the Premier directly, I say to the minister. So if he doesn't give it to us today then -

AN HON. MEMBER: Then he will have to give it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know if he will give it or not. The Premier may direct him to give it. But we are having the answer before this House adjourns for summer, I say to the minister. He can give us the information that he has there now, or if he doesn't have it he can say he doesn't have it and tell us he will get it. But before this House closes this summer we are going to have the information on what will be spent by the end of this fiscal year on that particular elevator, I say to the minister. I make that pledge to him today. He can give it to us now and it will be over with, or else his Leader will answer tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, whatever way you want to take it.

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

MR. EFFORD: Now, I will take my time and I will read out the answer to the hon. member opposite. The original elevators, Mr. Chairman, were installed - the elevators we are talking about - at the time of the construction of this building. All we have to do is take into consideration the age of the elevators in this building. In fact, most of the time out there you couldn't use those elevators. You would press a button and you would wait and sometimes you would get into the elevator and you didn't know if you were getting off that day or the next day. It is quite obvious that there was a lot of trouble with the elevators.

We called a public tender for the four elevators. A public tender was awarded to Dover Corporation Canada Limited on August 12 1993 to refurbish, to modernize the four elevators, because they were dangerous. It is too bad some of the members did not get stuck for a longer time, but they did get stuck.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier got stuck a couple of weeks ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Do you want the answers? If you want the answers stop interrupting or I will sit down and not give them to you.

Mr. Chairman, can you protect me from the vicious members opposite?

The contract includes the modernization of the four main elevators in the east block, plus - and this is what the hon. members are forgetting, plus the annual maintenance of the four modernized elevators. Now, that is exactly what is happening. It is not only the refurbishing of the four elevators, it is the annual ongoing maintenance, and you can imagine the maintenance they require.

The annual maintenance of the new elevators in the House of Assembly, north wing, and the hydraulic elevator on floors eight to eleven, and the modernization of the four elevators at a value of $464,769, and no cents. Now, that includes not only the refurbishing of the four elevators but also the ongoing maintenance, so I think we are getting a good value for our dollar. It was called for in public tendering, something hon. members opposite know nothing about, because I remember back in the Opposition when that building was built over in the west block, those elevators were given to a company here in St. John's, some friends of members opposite, and there was no contract called. At least we go through the public tendering system and it is done in a legal way and done for the best value to the taxpayers of this Province. That is the total, exact dollar, and I remind hon. members there is no `cents' attached to this.

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

MR. SIMMS: We might ask the Minister of Works, Service and Transportation if he could tell us how many proposals - perhaps if we listen quietly we may be able to find out what the Minister of Finance is telling -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (inaudible) 2000.

MR. SIMMS: I would like to have one of those whisper 2000 machines that you could point at them.

MR. TOBIN: John, your mike is on and I picked up every word you said.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, obviously the minister is desperately trying to cover-up providing the information to us. I do not know for what reason.

MR. EFFORD: I gave you the information.

MR. SIMMS: You did not answer the question. We did not ask you for a history of the elevator, when it was built, and all that stuff. We asked you a very, clear, simple, specific question. Even by the minister's standards it is simple. We asked you how much money is being spent to renovate the elevator over in the front of the building that has no public access. He knows what elevator. He need not play games with us any more. He refuses to answer that question so we will move on, and we will ask the question tomorrow of the Premier of the Province. Having to waste the time of the Premier of the Province to answer such a straightforward question may be something that not only will the Premier get beet red about and mad about, but it might be enough to embarrass the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if not the entire government. We will ask that question tomorrow of the Premier.

DR. KITCHEN: How silly.

MR. SIMMS: What is silly I say to the Minister of Health is the games you people are playing when somebody asks you a question. What is silly is the games you ministers are playing. When somebody asks you serious questions you will not provide the answers because you are too busy trying to cover-up. That is what you are trying to do, Mr. Chairman. It is almost a full-time occupation for you people over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask Wins, he will find out how much the maintenance is.

MR. SIMMS: The Minister of Finance would tell if he knew. If the minister would give the information to him he would probably tell because he is more forthcoming, honest, and straightforward, that is the reason. I'd say he doesn't know the answer. Well he might know it. If I ever thought for a minute that he was participating in this cover-up then I'd lose all respect for him. I don't believe for a minute that he would be. No, I don't believe he would be.

Now I would ask the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation if he would provide to the House the proposals that were made for the renovations and the annual maintenance of the elevators in question, the four out in the front of the building. The three together and the one by itself that we call the private elevator which he says is not a private elevator. The breakdowns for the costs, repairs and the regular maintenance cost. The entire costs for each of the four elevators anticipated for maintenance and for upgrading under this $464,000 expenditure. Would he provide that to the House before the House closes?

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

MR. EFFORD: $464,769 - don't get your figures wrong. Now, Mr. Chairman, first of all it wasn't a proposal. We didn't call for public proposals, we went through the public tendering but I will provide to the House of Assembly a breakdown of the contract, it's public knowledge. I don't have that confidential - that's public knowledge. Public tendering is public knowledge. Any member opposite can access that any time he/she wishes to but I will provide to the House of Assembly, at the first opportunity, a breakdown of the public tendering contract - not given out to friends or anybody, it's a public tendering contract - to this hon. House with a breakdown of the refurbishing, the maintenance and the ongoing maintenance of all of the elevators.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, one final question to the minister: Of the $464,769 that he refers to, can he tell the House how much of that $464,769 is being spent on the upgrading, renovations and maintenance of the three public elevators here in the front lobby of Confederation Building?

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

MR. EFFORD: I don't know what's the matter with the hon. members opposite. I stood up at least five times this afternoon and I gave them the total dollars that were spent there. Then they came back and asked would I provide a breakdown of the money that's being spent on each of the elevators according to the contract that we gave out through the public - available information of the public tendering system. It was not a confidential document, it's public knowledge. I just told this House that I will provide a breakdown of all of that information at the first opportunity and that will be as soon as I can get available to my hands, that public document.

Now the other thing they could do, they could come over to my office any time they wish and go to the public tendering department - not to my office but to the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, to the public tendering and that information is quite available to anybody who wishes to seek that out. It's not something that's kept secret. Dover Construction, the people who are refurbishing the elevators, call them up and ask them. They'll tell you how much they are spending on the elevators, it's public knowledge.

MR. SIMMS: Why don't you tell us?

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

MR. SIMMS: I'd like to know why the minister won't tell us, that's what I'd like to know? Why should we have to phone Dover and ask them how much they're spending on the elevators? I mean the minister is supposed to answer questions in the House, not Dover Elevators, so surely he knows the answer to the question, doesn't he? He knows the answer to the question. Does the minister know the answer to the question? How much of the $464,769 is being spent on the elevator over in the corner that doesn't have public access? Does he know the answer to that question? Can he tell us in the House?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to make a few comments on the exchange that's going back and forth here now which is, in my view, not very productive. There are a lot of major issues facing all of us and especially under this heading, the Executive Council and within Treasury Board and consolidated fund services. We're dealing with things like the debt of the Province, the cost of servicing that debt, the burden that that places on the taxpayers of this Province, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also under this heading comes collective bargaining, and what has happened in the collective bargaining process, a major, major issue in this Province. Yet, the Opposition seems intent on focusing on some maintenance and repairs that are needed to twenty-odd-year-old elevators that are sticking from time to time, people are getting caught between floors, and they are not totally safe to use unless they are upgraded.

Now, so you go in and have people working in a building here, you have twenty-year-old elevators that are not functioning properly, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirty-year-old elevators.

MR. BAKER: Thirty-year-old elevators that are not functioning properly, and so often out of commission, so often people getting stuck between floors, and the members opposite are all upset, as if the Province is going to fall apart because we are repairing those elevators.

Mr. Chairman, make no wonder they are so totally ineffective, if that is the kind of thing, with all the major topics that are in this heading of Executive Council, all those major topics, and that is all they can focus on. It speaks volumes about where their minds are and the kinds of things that they want to focus on, and the kinds of things that they consider to be important.

Mr. Chairman, I have to tell them that I consider the debt of the Province to be more important than that. I expect that the collective bargaining situation is much more important than that, and there are very important issues, and I would urge members opposite to get on to the important issues and stop fooling around with this nonsense that means absolutely nothing and is simply a process to make sure that the elevators are safe for use.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just as a point of clarification with regard to the points raised by the President of Treasury Board with regard to the questions and non-answers that were occurring here in the House just a few minutes ago, I want to explain to him, the minister had excused himself from the debate while the Opposition House Leader was debating with him estimates from the Treasury Board.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Leader of the Opposition.

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. A. SNOW: What did I say? Oh, I am sorry.

The Leader of the Opposition was debating with the President of Treasury Board aspects of the estimates that he has presented. The President of Treasury Board excused himself from the House for a few minutes, and in his absence the minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation said that he would continue with the answers, and if somebody would ask him a question he would volunteer the answer. The question that was immediately posed to the minister was: What about the expenditures that were asked of you last week with regard to the elevators?

Now that's a legitimate question. Then, of course, instead of giving a legitimate answer, the people of this Province, really, were subjected to this banter back and forth of attempting to get answers to a very simple question.

I thoroughly agree that there are important aspects being missed in debate here, but the essence of what occurred there is exactly what has gotten this government in trouble - the arrogance of not providing answers to very simple questions, whether it's to the people of the Province, through members such as the Leader of the Opposition, or members such as myself from a district representing the people of Labrador City and Wabush. We ask very simple questions, and we expect very simple, straightforward answers, because that is what the people want. The people want answers to their questions, whether it's about what is occurring with collective bargaining or -

The President of Treasury Board talked about how he expected to be on the hot seat today because of the questions concerning collective bargaining, and his responsibility that is contained within the collective bargaining process here in this Province. He expected that, and I guess it's because he has earned that. He has earned that right, if you want to call it, or that responsibility, of being on the hot seat with regard to how collective bargaining has been approached here in this Province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I won't continue any more about the elevator question, it will answered tomorrow in a very, I am sure, it will be asked and answered to the Premier and he will explain it.

MR. BAKER: You don't want to elevate the debate?

MR. A. SNOW: I will elevate the debate because not all the elevators are going to the top floor. They aren't all going to the top floor, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is a definite feeling that is permeating throughout the Province that the collective bargaining process isn't working in this Province today, and that has been permeating and building up over a number of years. Now I have been a member of a union for years; all my working life I have either been a member of a union or I owned my own business and operated the family business.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It pretty well gets there, yes it does; fairly safe those types of statements you know.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am still pleased to say that I am a member of the steelworkers and the steelworkers in my home town is the basic union that covers I suppose 90-odd per cent, 90 per cent of the union membership in my district but, there is a fear that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I am. Sure I call myself a steelworker, but the membership and unions in this Province have a fear that this government is anti-labour, and I don't know if the government can do anything to undo the damage that they have caused in the way they approached collective bargaining in the last numbers of years, but I would hope that they would because it is going to be necessary, I believe, to have a good, harmonious, labour management atmosphere and climate within the Province, because I believe that there is a spill over from private to public and public to private in our economies, and that can occur whether it's in the actual economies going together or the actual labour management practices that occur, Mr. Chairman, so it is important to the economy and the private sector.

The private sector unions are very, very concerned about some of the messages that are being sent out by this Administration with regard to the approach of collective bargaining, and I will agree with the minister that he should be on the hot seat and he has earned that hot seat, but, Mr. Chairman, the President of Treasury Board, I will just ask him a few questions maybe, and he can provide some of the answers and I am sure if he can't provide them off the top of his head, he will get them from his officials as the debate continues.

Now on the salaries vote for the President of Treasury Board's office, last year, it is not a significant amount of money but it is there, Mr. Chairman, and it highlights a significant issue if you will. They budgeted $155,000, in line 0.1, 23.01; they budgeted $155,000 and they spent $156,800, so they went over budget by $1,500. Now it is expected to go $5,000 higher this year; they budgeted $160,000 this year; has there been a wage increase? I mean, I thought we were under a wage freeze, that's the highlight of that particular question.

While it doesn't seem like a significant amount of money, it does raise a very significant issue because we have been under, the public employees have been under a wage freeze, so that's one question, he can make note of that. Also, Mr. Chairman, the President of Treasury Board spent $5,000 last year in supplies. Now I don't know what type of supplies they are, but he is going to spend $6,500, again up by $1,500 and I would like to know what type of supplies he is buying, what went up, is there some special supplies in his office that became what, 20 per cent more expensive this year, or is he buying more this year or what's happening now, where is that money going, Mr. Chairman?

Another one is, I would like to know why government is shifting around the Executive Support, the Administrative Support, subheads. Can he break it down and show the various expenditures that were announced in the 1993 Estimates, and where they have been moved over to in 1994? Can he break that down, since it is very difficult to compare them, because I would like to be able to compare apples to apples? They are grouped together this year, correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: So if he could break that down for me it would be a tremendous help. Maybe he can't do that off the top of his, although maybe he can. I know he is very, very actively involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not even going to try that one.

MR. A. SNOW: He's not even going to try?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, no. I think the minister is very aware of - it is a very simple question, I think.

Also, in line 03 of 2.3.01, he came in under budget. He had budgeted $37,000 last year, and he spent $29,000 but he is going to spend $34,000. So why the increase in that allocation by almost $5,000 this year? Has the cost of transportation and communications jumped by 15 per cent in the next year? That is a significant amount of money. It is not a lot in that particular subhead, but if you look at a 15 per cent increase, across the board, it would be a substantial amount of money.

Those are just a few questions. Maybe I can leave that with the minister and you can answer a few of those questions, please.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to respond generally to a few comments that the hon. member made in his introduction that had to do with collective bargaining and the collective bargaining climate.

Collective bargaining has run into difficult times in this country in the last number of years. This Province was no exception, and when we found ourselves in an extremely difficult financial situation, when the revenues disappeared, when the reductions happened in transfer payments, we found ourselves in the situation where, because of lack of co-operation, we had to introduce legislation that effectively impacted very directly on collective bargaining in the sense that what it did was, it took away some agreements that had already been negotiated, and that was a very serious step, but I would like to point out that having gotten over that hump for two years, when the agreements started to come out of their negotiated term, we made a conscious decision that collective bargaining would start again and would not be interfered with. We made that decision knowing full well that this could cause a lot of trouble.

In Nova Scotia now they have said no more collective bargaining until 1997. Other provinces have suspended collective bargaining, but we chose a different route, knowing full well the problems it could cause.

I would like to remind the Member for Menihek that last year we reached agreements - agreements - with all of our unions. It was done by agreement, not by legislation, so, having reached agreement with all of our unions last year, I would say that the bargaining process is not dead. Now we have started and gone through the process yet another year, and we are still in that process.

The approach by the various unions has been different. However, we are going through the process and we are meeting some great success in that process. It is a process of give and take. Because we have been so open with our numbers to the union leadership, there has been an understanding amongst most of them that there is only so much that we can pay, as a people of a Province. There is only so much that we can pay, and I think that realization is there and, as a result, the collective bargaining process has been a true collective bargaining process. Now, it has fallen down in one instance right now, and I suppose I could say that even the strike is part of the collective bargaining process, that we're still talking, that we're still negotiating and that that is part of the process but we never like to see it get to that stage. My desire, Mr. Chairman, is that we reach an agreement in this case as well - that we do reach an agreement and that we don't have to go to the Legislature and once again do something that interferes with collective bargaining. We hope that that happens but I cannot guarantee it, obviously. I cannot guarantee it but we sincerely hope that that happens. So the collective bargaining process in this Province is alive and well - is happening and is succeeding. The process is succeeding, have no doubt about that. The process is succeeding. I guess only time will tell and hon. members can do the comparisons with other provinces if they want to but I think we stack up rather well in comparison to the other provinces in Canada.

So, Mr. Chairman, I simply hope that there's a satisfactory conclusion to this round of collective bargaining. I get a little bit disturbed when I hear members opposite and other people try to pretend that the process has been destroyed. The process has not been destroyed. We've been doing our very best to encourage the process and to make sure it works. Collective bargaining is happening. I think that should be a message for the private sector as well, that we are willing to bargain in very, very difficult times. The private sector has undergone some change as well. There have been concessions bargained in the private sector and there have been some increases. We have been in the mode in the last year or so that we would bargain concessions and let's hope that we get out of that so that at some point in time we can once again bargain increases.

Now, in answer to specific questions coming under President of Treasury Board in terms of salaries, first of all. I'd like to point out that $155,300 was budgeted last year, $156,800 was actually spent and I think that had to do with a couple of step increases of some staff. It had certainly nothing to do with my salary. The $160,300, I believe will not be spent this coming year because included in that is the full ministerial salary and, as all members know, we took a cut of 4.5 per cent. As all members know, under the various headings we've had to budget the full amount but that 4.5 per cent has not yet been restored. So I suspect that we won't end up spending the $160,300 under that heading because whatever happens in terms of the rest of the public service, then we as members of the House of Assembly and as Cabinet ministers have to do the same thing to ourselves. So I would suspect that that would be reduced a little bit.

In terms of Transportation and Communications I guess $37,000 was budgeted last year and I spent $29,100 in my office, so I guess I didn't do as much travel as I had allowed for and didn't need to spend money on communications things that I had expected so there was a saving there, Mr. Chairman of $8,000. I am very pleased to see that there was that saving. As a consequence, Mr. Chairman, we budgeted $3,000 less than last year; $37,000 was the budget amount last year, $34,000 this year, and if at all possible, I would promise hon. members that I will attempt to come in well under that figure again and I am very proud that I did in the past year.

So these were the two questions; as to a detailed description, if the hon. member asked for it, I can't quite remember, I can certainly give him a breakdown of the $29,100 for last year and next year at this time would give him a full breakdown on whatever portion of that $34,000 I happen to spend in the coming year.

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

MR. A. SNOW: The -

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognized the hon. the Member for Menihek.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: They are amply remunerated for the work that they perform, any employees with me.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the President of Treasury Board would explain who the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet is, it hasn't changed but I would just like to know what they spend the $3,000 on Supplies, and Services of $1,000. I would like to know who is on the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet and what -

The hon. the Member for Fogo is interrupting. Are you having a problem hearing? Do you want to -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you.

The Members of Treasury Board comprise the seven members of Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Fisheries and myself. I think that is seven. They comprise the Treasury Board Committee of Cabinet.

We generally meet once a week and the expenses we incur, I believe, are most usually lunch because what happens is we normally meet on Tuesdays and the only time available is about noon, so we bring in a few sandwiches. I guess over the run of the year with one, sometimes two meetings a week, the cost of sandwiches, coffee, and so on, runs up and that is where we get that. We occasionally, Mr. Chairman, have a little more than a sandwich. Sometimes there is a platter brought in or sometimes we get a meal from downstairs, or whatever, but the total cost there was estimated at $3000 last year and we spent $2000.

I think that was the cost of meals for the full year for seven members of Treasury Board and normally three support staff, and any other people we might have in. I think if you did the cost of that, seven members once a week for fifty-two weeks, plus three support staff and so on, you would find that the cost per meal is extremely low. As a matter of fact you might wonder how we even survive the rest of the day on that kind of cost per meal. I should do the calculation. It probably would amaze even me, how low the cost per meal is. I think that is just about the whole cost.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Having a look at the minister when he was standing there I can understand why $3000 was spent on his lunches. His girth is very ample. I am not sure if his lunch is under supplies or purchase services, but by the size of his girth, Mr. Chairman, I would imagine it is under supplies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The advantage is that my hairdressing bill is very, very low.

Mr. Chairman, somebody on this side mentioned how come the critic is not invited to these lunches you are having? In the interest of trying to keep my girth at least down to a minimum I won't be inviting myself, and I hope the minister doesn't invite me; and also of course in the interest of promoting austerity within the government, because I may eat more than the allotted amount, Mr. Chairman.

Under these Purchased Services and Professional Services and Supplies raises another issue. It only being a few minutes maybe I can ask the minister to respond very briefly. I'm sure it is going to be touched on by other members on the Opposition side. We see that last year there was nothing in the budget for Professional Services and they spent $1.7 million under Executive Support.

AN HON. MEMBER: The estimate was somewhat off (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Just a little bit off. They didn't budget a nickel prior to the election and spent $1.7 million after. Of course, next year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I know, one point five and two, I believe. If the minister could elaborate a bit on that, and then explain - he is asking for another $1 million this year, which is a substantial amount of money. I don't know what it is related to. Maybe that would open more questions that we can get into a debate and may require more answers from the minister. If he could just generally run down the $1.7 million. How come there was nothing budgeted last year, spent $1.7 million? It was tabled but if he could just elaborate a bit more, and do the $1 million this year.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The $1.7 million, I believe I tabled a detailed accounting of that. What has happened is that government's privatization initiative has been placed under Treasury Board. Treasury Board is overseeing all of the privatizations. This is why there is a new heading in there. The amount is because the cost of the privatization of Hydro has been very high. These lawyers and accountants and so on don't come cheap. I've indicated exactly where that $1.7 million went.

The $1 million that is in next year is an estimate. I hope we won't have to spend that. I would like to see the Hydro privatization issue put to bed as quickly as possible; therefore we won't have to spend that. I would suggest that the other privatizations we are into are not nearly as costly. The privatization of computer services is not a very costly process - or I hope it doesn't develop into one. You never can tell when you have a bunch of lawyers in a room what they are going to generate, but let's hope that's not an expensive process. We have started and called for proposals for Farm Products and so on, so let's hope we don't have to spend that million dollars.

Mr. Chairman, we are going to be going back at this, I guess, some other day. We don't have much time left; I wonder if I could move that the committee rise and report progress 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): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered the matters to it referred, has 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. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment, perhaps I could advise members that tomorrow, of course, we will be dealing with the resolution put down by my friend from Placentia today.

On Thursday the plan would be to carry on with the interesting and informative dialogue by my friend, the President of Treasury Board, in response to the penetrating and incisive questions from gentlemen and lady on the other side of the House, so we will be doing that on Thursday.

I do not anticipate the House will sit late on Thursday, unless members are minded to finish up the Estimates and leave the time. We have, I think, about ten-and-a-half or eleven hours left within the rule of 119 time limit, so members can either use it on this or use it at some other time as they deem appropriate. That is a bridge that we will fall of as we come to it, as the saying goes.

With that said, I move that the House adjourn until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.

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