April 6, 1995              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                 Vol. XLII  No. 14


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome two groups to the House of Assembly, first of all a group of fourteen Long Island students from Beaumont, Green Bay, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Lorne Roach, and secondly a group of twelve Adult Basic Education students from the Bonavista Campus of Eastern College, accompanied by their instructor Ms. Julia Russell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to inform this hon. House of preliminary results of a soil gas survey on Rutledge Crescent in St. John's. The residents of Rutledge have been experiencing problems with odours entering their homes from the storm sewer system since late 1992. Chemical testing of the vapours in the sewer show the odour to be consistent with gasoline contamination. Groundwater and soil surveys, however, have to date been unable to pinpoint the source of the problem.

In a further and continuing effort to identify the source of the contamination my department contracted CH2M Hill Engineering Limited of Waterloo, Ontario to do an additional field study of the odour problems. CH2M Hill is a leading Canadian environmental engineering firm with extensive experience in hydrogeological investigation and specific experience in subsurface hydrocarbon contamination.

Between March 27 & 30 CH2M Hill carried out a soil vapour survey between Rutledge Crescent and the two gas stations in the vicinity - the Co-op station on Harding Road and the Ultramar station on Logy Bay Road. The survey involved analyzing for organic vapours immediately above the water table. Although the final report has not been prepared, CH2M Hill's field staff have indicated that the survey produced positive results in two independent areas. One area is between the Co-op gas station and houses on Rutledge crescent and the other immediately across Logy Bay Road from the pump island of the Ultramar station.

Mr. Speaker, my department has informed the members of Rutledge Crescent Residents Committee and the City of St. John's of these results and assured them that these vapour levels pose no immediate threat. As these are only preliminary results, further action will depend on the outcome of the final report which is expected on April 17. Officials of my department will review that report, which will also be made available to the residents, to determine what our next course of action should be.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure this hon. House that the Department of Environment and the Province is committed to the safety of the residents and their property and that we will continue to work with them towards a resolution of this outstanding problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First I would like to thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House sat. I am sure the people in Rutledge Crescent are very pleased that there is finally some positive action being taken with respect to the problems they have had there the past couple of years. I believe personally that there is further investigation required with respect to the Works, Services and Transportation depot on Harding Road where there was a fuel tank removed last year because it was leaking very badly. The people in the area are depending on this minister to find the problem and to remedy it in the very near future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

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

About a year ago now, Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Transport announced that he was going to sort of commercialize a lot of airports in Canada. Some of the airports mentioned at the time were in our Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. As of late, Mr. Speaker, along with the other cuts to airports across this Province, especially Wabush, Stephenville and the town of Deer Lake, there are other cuts announced lately with regards to firefighting services and so on. Could the minister tell the House if and when he has made or his other ministers have made any representation to the federal government as it pertains to what they are doing with airports in this Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the federal airport policy was initiated, officials from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation have been involved in all the meetings that have been held by the federal ministers and transport officials coming into Newfoundland on an ongoing regular basis. We have been kept apprised of all the meetings. The monitoring position has been in place. I have spoken to the people in Stephenville, to the people in Deer Lake, to the people in Gander. I spoke to the people in Labrador City last weekend. Before that time I have spoken to the federal officials and Minister Young on a number of occasions about the new airport policy and the impact it will have on all of the airports in Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. WOODFORD: The minister is aware of the Transport Canada decision to withdraw emergency response firefighting from the town of Wabush. This will result, Mr. Speaker, in reduced emergency response services in all the other airports and especially at Stephenville and Deer Lake and will mean reduced safety for emergency response services at the other airports, especially as it pertains to Stephenville and Deer Lake, will mean reduced safety for the travellers in those airports - no question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister now tell the House if he is aware of a further cut to the airports in Stephenville and Deer Lake whereby the emergency response procedure that will be followed is this: One fire-fighter, operating one foam fire truck, at the Deer Lake Airport and the Stephenville Airport? Could the minister inform the House if he is aware of that, and if he has made any representation to the Federal Government on that particular concern?

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that. The only service that I am aware of that is being cut is into Labrador West, into Wabush, where they have informed the local people, the town, that these services will be eliminated. They have offered the Town of Wabush the equipment at the airport, and they have offered some training - that is the negotiation up front - and they haven't accepted the thing.

I have not been informed by the officials, or by Transport Canada, that service has yet been cut at Deer Lake, or is intended to be cut at Deer Lake or at Stephenville. I will check it out immediately.

I can say that on April 26 or April 27 there will be a conference held in Gander of all the players of Atlantic Canada to discuss all of the cuts that Transport Canada proposes in the airports in Atlantic Canada, and at that time there will be a position taken on all of the issues. The emergency fire-fighting services is one, and there are many, many other issues to be discussed before any final decisions are made.

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

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

I say to the minister that in his last comments he said, `...before any final decisions are made'. The final decisions have been made as they pertain to the fire-fighting capacity of the airports in this Province, and a directive has been sent to the airports in Stephenville and Deer Lake, saying that they were going to have one fire-fighter for operating one truck.

Now, I say to the minister that when he does have his meetings with Mr. Young and Transport Canada officials, he should make it quite clear to them that the life of a passenger coming into the Town of Deer Lake, Wabush or Stephenville is just as important as the life of a passenger in Moncton, Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver, or anywhere else in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Is he aware that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transport Canada, a Mr. Victor Barbeau, has issued, on behalf of Transport Canada, a warning to the employees associated with any federal departments, especially concerning this particular subject, that they will be disciplined if they say anything in public about it.

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

MR. EFFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that warning. Let me say to the hon. member, the lives of people in Newfoundland are just as valuable as the lives of people anywhere in Canada. Let me say also that it is a national airport policy, not a provincial airport policy. The decisions that are made in Newfoundland are no different from the airports all over Canada, depending on the passenger, the volume that is used at the airports. As far as emergency services are required, it is the decision that is provided right across the country. So for the hon. member to get up and say that the decision made isolated Newfoundland, that the lives of people in Newfoundland are less important to the people of Transport Canada than lives somewhere else, is absolutely wrong. So if you are going to make a statement, make the correct statement. This is a national policy and I can -

MR. TOBIN: Stand up. We are asking you to stand up and fight for Newfoundland.

MR. EFFORD: I am standing up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the cost of operating the airports in Newfoundland and all across Canada is a major problem. The $45 billion deficit to the taxpayers of this country is a major problem. What the federal Transport Canada minister is saying is that we have to operate these airports across the country more efficiently. You can't operate it with the debt that it has carried over the years. The way in which you people operated the Province for seventeen years and the reason we have to suffer the circumstances we have, is because of mismanagement. Now that there is some proper management being put in place, you don't agree with that system either.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, it may be a national policy, it may be something that he thinks is applicable to every airport town across this country, but I would say he had better get his facts straight. There are fifteen airports with fire-fighting services across Canada gone, altogether. There are another ten with services reduced to one truck and one fire-fighter. The town of Deer Lake is an example, with thirty-four flights a day landing there. The minister had better get his facts straight before he talks to his federal counterpart, because I'm half afraid of what is going to happen.

Will the minister make a commitment to the House and to the people of this Province today that when he does sit down to talk to Mr. Young and his federal officials, he will not, for the sake of efficiency, jeopardize and play russian roulette with the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians landing at any of those airports in this Province? Stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador and see what is right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member I was standing up for Newfoundland and Labrador when those people over there were ruining the Province. I take no back seat to anybody over there. I'm only assuming the hon. member is correct about cutting back of the fire services at Deer Lake. I have not received any information from Transport Canada or the Town of Deer Lake or anybody else. I will check it out - another Evening Telegram or another news report that is probably put out with the same accuracy as a lot of the other stuff that is printed. When I receive it from the Town of Deer Lake or Transport Canada, then I will take a look at it, but I will check it out this afternoon.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board dealing with the Workers' Compensation Review Division. It was instituted on July 1, and from July 1 to September 12 there was not one postponed case that was charged for, not one. My question to the minister is this: Who made the decision to double-bill for postponed cases? Was it the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, was it the Chief Review Commissioner, or was it himself? Who made that decision, Mr. Minister?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can't have it both ways. He brought some information to the attention of this House. We are now checking it out and we have a process in place to review all the details. In the meantime, the member keeps getting up and grandstanding on a very serious issue. I would suggest he wait until the investigation is complete, and then he can make his grandstanding statements if he wants to.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I'm grandstanding for the injured workers of this Province while this minister is grandstanding for a former Liberal Cabinet Minister and former buddies of this government, that is what this is about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I had a very lengthy chat with a review commissioner last night. He indicated to me that between July 1 and September 12 there were no postponed cases billed for. But discussions were ongoing with the department at the time about charging for postponed cases. So let me ask the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who was the minister at the time, the period that I just referred to, is he aware, or was he made aware, by the Workers' Compensation Review Division or commissioners there, that the issue of charging for postponed cases was an issue? Was he aware of it? Did he participate in any discussions about it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I can say is that to my knowledge, from the period of July 1 1994 when the Interim Review Commissioner was appointed - Mr. Brace, I believe, at that time - up to the change in Cabinet which happened at the end of August, I had never heard tell of the issue that the member is raising.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the former Minister of Employment and Labour Relations so I have it straight. At any time between the period of July 1, when you were the minister, and August 23, did the acting Chief Review Commissioner or other commissioners, any of them, discuss with you the possibility of charging for postponements?

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

MR. ROBERTS: I will find the citation in a second.

AN HON. MEMBER: A cover-up.

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a coverup. It is an attempt to bring to the attention of my friend, the Member for Kilbride the rules of the House which provide that it is not proper to ask a Member of the Ministry about a matter that occurred during his tenure of a portfolio. The appropriate thing is to ask the present minister, and the present minister will answer for whatever was done or not done, because we are one government, entire, indivisible, and we approach it on that basis. So my friend, the Member for Kilbride, I suggest to Your Honour, is out of order in asking a question of the present Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I don't want to belabour the point because we are taking up the time of Question Period and, of course, that is the reason for the Government House Leader's point of order. The point is that the Government House Leader is trying to cover up the issue here. The former minister, the present Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, was on his feet and answered once, and was prepared to answer again. Why would the Government House Leader want to muzzle the minister, who was on his feet willing to answer a question, I ask him?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Is this to the point of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: There are no speakers on the point of order.

I am aware of a reference to it. I will have to check it, frankly, and advise the House later. For the time being, perhaps - the question is on the paper and we will let it go. Does the hon. member have another question?

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, I can give you the citation.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, if you would.

MR. ROBERTS: I am reading from the 6th. Edition of Beauchesne, page 121, paragraph 410.(16) and it says: "Ministers may be questioned only in relation to current portfolios." That, I believe, is the correct citation.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry; it's 410 -

MR. ROBERTS: It's 410.(16).

MR. SPEAKER: Subsection 16. I believe there is also reference on page 126. I prefer to review it and make a proper ruling on the issue before I allow the question. Is there another question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

In conversation last night with one of the part-time review commissioners, he indicated to me that between July 1 and September 12 no postponed decisions were double billed for. The Chief Review Commissioner, Mr. Gullage, was appointed on September 8, and miraculously, four days later, the postponements, or double billing practice of postponements, started on September 12. So let me ask the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, in his investigation, his impartial investigation that he is conducting, will he take this into account? Will he look between the period of July 1, 1994 and September 12, 1994, to determine that there were postponed cases, and, too, that there was no double billing for it.

Secondly, will he also determine who made the decision to double bill for postponed cases, if it was the Chief Review Commissioner, if it was the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations? Who was it, and will he report back to this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made some charges in this House. We are now carrying out an investigation, and the results will become available as soon as they are available.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there was `double billing', as he calls it. That is the whole point of the exercise, to find out if, in fact, there was. I don't know if there is double billing. We will examine all aspects of it.

I really regret that the hon. member will now get up day after day and grandstand on the backs of the injured workers of this Province. It is really regrettable that he is taking that approach.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the hon. Minister of Social Services.

I would like to ask the minister: In her attempt to defend her budget some time ago, she talked about not making Hydro bills payable anymore by her department. I would like to ask the minister if she could sit down and reconsider this payment. I ask the minister if paying such bills and then deducting them from the client's regular payments might be an option, since this was brought on by a sudden surprise, and arrears that have built up over the past number of months.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We were never in the habit of paying electrical bills, it was only arrears, and we found that even doing that was certainly not in the best interest of the government or the recipients.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister if she or her department have been made aware of other hardship cases, similar to the one that was brought forward here in debate a couple of days ago by the Member for Burin - Placentia West? I would like to advise her that I have been talking to at least one other case in a similar circumstance. I ask the minister if she is planning on responding with the financial help needed to help families cope in such circumstances?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have great faith in the ability of my district staff to deal with the issues as they arise, and I will leave it with them.

MR. TOBIN: You make the policy, not them.

MS. YOUNG: Exactly, and they implement the policy. That is why I am leaving it to them. Every individual case does not come to the minister's attention.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a conflict within the Department of Social Services. The Social Assistance Division has been mandated by Cabinet to discontinue paying hydro bills for clients who are in arrears, and due to those circumstances there are many, many children out there today who are left, I will not say freezing, but with the type of weather we are experiencing, are left very, very cold in very uncomfortable conditions within their homes.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the Child Welfare Division has a mandate to make sure children are not placed in such circumstances and may have to be removed from such an environment. I would like to ask the minister what would be the most demanding charge, the cost to put children in foster homes, or the cost of paying hydro bills? Also, would she consider the emotional charge that might occur as a result of this, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the only emotional charge is from people like the hon. member across the House who is setting fear into the hearts of people out there. That is what he is doing. He is doing just political posturing here. To date not one single person has been cut off to my knowledge.

AN HON. MEMBER: There have been two in my district.

MS. YOUNG: Two in your district? The thing about it is that children are not removed from homes because they have no electricity. What happened when the power was gone for just about a week in some areas of this Province? Not one home had their children taken into protection.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. YOUNG: Let me continue. You asked me a question. Do you want an answer or not?

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. On February 10 the Board of Regents at the University announced they had reached an agreement with the City of St. John's relative to the transfer of the Canada Games Park, including the Aquarena from the City to the University. I noticed in the news the other day that the deal has still not been ratified by the government, so I am wondering if the minister could tell us how much this is going to cost the University, and is the operational money provided for in the University's budget for this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know before the University can make a capital acquisition the University has to have permission from the government of this Province. It is my understanding that the University and the City have reached a tentative deal. The University has submitted that deal to my office and we are going to discuss it now as a government in due course.

I do not want to go into any details beyond that at this time with the hon. member until I have had an opportunity to discuss it with the Cabinet. However, I would like the hon. member to tell us whether or not he recommends we do that? I can tell him that the Student Council at MUN have recommended that we do it, and some other people have recommended that we do not, so I would be quite happy if the hon. member would tell us where the Opposition stands on this issue. It could certainly help government as we deal with this matter.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's has an operating deficit of approximately $900,000 on the operations of this facility. I ask the minister, does his ministry plan to subsidize the University so that it can operate the facility without having to transfer these operational costs onto the students of the University?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I take that to mean that the hon. member's party is advising government not to take over the Aquarena so we will certainly consider that. As I told the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to address the details yet. I think some of the details have been made public. I think the media has announced that the City of St. John's will be putting a certain amount of money into the University when that is accepted. The University has said that they will be able to operate that practically at arms length from the University and hopefully make it operate on an efficient basis where it will not be losing money but all of these things have to be worked out and in due course government will decide whether or not to approve the tentative deal which has been worked out by the University and the City.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my position on the transfer is contained in the Board of Regents minutes of 1984. Maybe the minister could do some research and find out what it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the University has said that they will be able to operate it with a deficit of about $600,000. I want the minister to give an assurance that this deficit will not result in an additional factor or arguments by the University to increase student tuition fees, which have been increased by 10 per cent per year for each year that this government has been in office.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can be assured that when government reviews this issue we will take everything into consideration. We have the CSU who came forward man fashion and said we recommend you do it. Now the hon. member is over there in his typical flip-flop attitude and not telling us just what their position is. Do they recommend we do it or do they recommend we not do it? I would like for the hon. member to get up and say what he means instead of waiting to see what we are going to do and then be against it. I would like for him to tell us whether he is against it first or foremost rather than wait until we make a decision, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, Works, Services and Transportation is allocating $15 million for the improvement and construction of our provincial roads for 1995-96. I would like to ask the minister, when can this House and the people of this Province learn who the successful tenderers for this years roads construction are and will we learn of it before the Easter break?

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

MR. EFFORD: I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, if we will learn of it before the Easter break. Government has not yet made a decision on where the allocations of the $15 million will be made. When the allocations are made and when the decisions are made, I will be making an announcement. That may very well be over the Easter break.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Minister that $15 million that has been allocated for this year has raised a lot of concerns, not only among the road builders and construction people of this Province but the general travelling public, they are all concerned. The expenditures this year are way down. I mean when you turn the tide in your government, coming down through the years - from up over $50 million now down this year to $15 million. Concerns are being expressed around this Province. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what is to be done to utilize this paltry amount of money this year? What is the cost going to be to small construction companies? Can we expect unemployment to rise higher? How is the general public going to be jeopardized in their travelling modes across this Province?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member what the cost is. I will give it to you in the closest dollars that I can. If I had a very small percentage of the $500-plus million that we have to pay out in interest for the mismanagement of seventeen years of Tory government I would be able to build every section of road in this Province. The problem as to why we haven't got the $40 million or $50 million and we are reduced to $15 million is we are trying to pay for the mistakes that you fellows made for seventeen years while in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like the minister to answer: What would he do if he had the $820 million a year that Quebec is getting from a tribe he supported that gave away Churchill Falls?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: I would build a lot of roads.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further along the lines of questions by my colleague for Placentia to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The minister has been not altogether shy in the House over the last little while in indicating that he is less than favourable to PC districts - more commonly known to the minister as Tory districts. I've got some constituents of mine in the gallery today. Perhaps they would like to hear from the minister these sorts of comments. Is the District of Green Bay, formerly the district of Premier Peckford, to be punished again in the upcoming provincial roads budget? The people in the district have gravel roads in their section of Green Bay. Believe it or not, there is gravel road in Green Bay. I would wonder if the minister is going to give that gravel road favourable consideration this year.

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

MR. EFFORD: There is some gravel road in Green Bay, but very little. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of teaching school in Green Bay when I was just sixteen years old. I have as much respect for the people of Green Bay as I do for anybody else in the Province. When we make decisions we will make them on the basis of need, I can assure you. I can take the hon. member to the great District of Port de Grave where there is a great need to build roads.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On probably a less partisan issue. In Green Bay as well there is some Trans-Canada work slated this year. The minister already announced it some time ago. It is being done on the Trans-Canada in the western section of the district, up near the Baie Verte junction. We have in Green Bay district on the Trans-Canada two major intersections. The one at Springdale intersection was rebuilt and is relatively safe. It was rebuilt during the Peckford years. I would ask the minister why can't the intersection at South Brook, which is far below standard and very dangerous, be a priority and that be the Trans-Canada work being done in the Green Bay area this year?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest problems we have is the number of demands that come in to the department year after year to do the work that everybody in their particular area consider a high priority. What we try to do as a department is spend the money on a priority basis. In the case of the Roads for Rails Agreement, approximately $50 million is spent each year. We try to prioritize the need.

The second thing we try to do is spread the work across the Province so that a reasonable amount of construction can be held from one end of the Province to the other - not doing it all in one place and showing favouritism. So it is done on a need basis, it is done on the basis of spreading it across the Province. If I did that particular area which the hon. member is talking about today, I would have ten or fifteen or twenty-five or thirty other people from other areas say: Why don't you do mine? We do it on a priority basis when the money is available, and in due course everything will be done, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would like to rule on the question raised by the hon. the Government House Leader, and that related to a question by the Member for Kilbride of the current Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. It related to what occurred when he was formerly the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I said I wanted to check the Beauchesne reference, and there are two there that I think touch on it. One is on page 126 of the 6th Edition. It is paragraph (ll), and it says that a question may not, among other things - and this is (ll) - "seek from an ex-Minister information with regard to transactions during that person's term of office."

The second reference is the more direct one, and that is the one referred to by the Government House Leader, paragraph 410.(16) found on page 122, which says that, "Ministers may be questioned only in relation to current portfolios". So it is clear that the member's question was out of order.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the Actuarial Valuation and Cash Flow Study of the Members of the House of Assembly (Retiring Allowances) Act as at December 31, 1994, done by William Mercer Limited, and also the Actuarial Valuation and Cash Flow Study of the Uniformed Services Pension Plan as at December 31, 1993, also done by William Mercer Limited.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hereby table the Financial and Statistical Report for the Social Assistance Program of the Department of Social Assistance. This report covers the fiscal year 1993-'94, and is submitted in accordance with Section 5 of The Social Assistance Act, 1977.

I hereby table the Financial and Statistical Reports for the Rehabilitation Services Section of the Division of Family and Rehabilitative Services of the Department of Social Services. These reports cover the fiscal years of 1992-'93, and 1993-'94, and are submitted in accordance with section 5 of An Act Respecting The Rehabilitation Of Disabled Persons, 1978.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough, please, to put the House into Committee of the Whole, under Order 2.(a), which deals with the Estimates that are debated in Committee of the Whole. We began that debate on Tuesday, and we will carry it on now.

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

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Barrett): Order, please!

The Estimates of the Executive Council; shall the estimates of the Executive Council carry?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, we are certainly not finished with this yet. There is too much happening in this Province in the last few days for us to slip it through, or to let the Government House Leader or anyone else slip it through, in a matter of a few minutes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) this budget.

MR. TOBIN: - in the budget, what is happening. We are talking today, and have been talking the last few days, about children going around cold in this Province whereas, at the same time, we have been talking about expense accounts from the Executive Council. We have been talking about entertainment, about gardeners, about chauffeurs, about limousines; and now for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board to think this is going to slip through without further debate, I think he is forgetting something. I think the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board is again forgetting something. How can this government, I ask again, justify an expenditure in excess of $270,000 for Purchased Services, I believe, in the Protocol budget.

MR. EFFORD: What?

MR. TOBIN: Almost as much money as you have for roads, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has a little over $7-million-worth of provincial road money left to call in this Province. It is gone - we are looking at the expenditures of - how can government justify the increase they have, particularly in the Protocol budget when, at the same time, they are prepared to cut (inaudible). Last year, the actual expenditure in Purchased Services for Protocol was $72,000. This year, the government is looking under Purchased Services for $212,700. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is a lot of meals, that is a lot of shrimp cocktails.

MR. EFFORD: The dining room is closed.

MR. TOBIN: No, it is not closed. I'm not sure that this Province wouldn't be better off financially if the dining room were still open, I say to the minister. I'm telling the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that the Province would be almost as well off, probably better off, if the dining room were still open. We have the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board saying the other day that the Purchased Services under Protocol, a lot of it is used to pay for entertainment. We have had the Minister of ITT state the other day that the Premier charges entertainment off to his department.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he did so. He said if the Premier speaks on behalf of his department and meets with people, then it is charged off to his department.

MR. DUMARESQUE: That isn't what he said at all.

MR. TOBIN: It is what he said. We will get Hansard. Can someone get Hansard on that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, we will have Hansard on this. I have it here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us the page now, `Glenn'.

MR. TOBIN: I will give you the page.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carried.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, it is not carried. That's what is happening. The Premier says it is not happening. I will ask the Premier to tell me when he - and I said the other day and I will say it again, I agree that the Premier of this Province has to entertain people, has to take people out to dinner. There are times that the Premier of this Province has to be chauffeured around the city. You can't go down to the Newfoundland Hotel where there is no room to park and be expected to walk for half-a-mile to speak. I agree with all of that. But what I want to ask up front is where are all of the expenses of your entertainment covered - in what part of the Budget?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is all covered in the expenses in my office. It is all covered in that. The only thing that is charged out to ITT - for example, about a month ago they asked me to go to Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal to promote the EDGE legislation. I said okay, I will do it. It took pretty well a week out of my schedule but I was prepared to do it, and I did. That all got charged off in the minister's budget. It didn't get charged in my office's budget at all. That portion of my travel was covered in the minister's budget. When I went to Boston and New York to do the same thing it was also covered in the minister's budget. When I went to Japan and China earlier in the spring, it was also covered in the minister's budget - anything I do for that promotion. All of the other travel, all of the entertainment, everything that I have to do, is all covered under my own budget, under the Premier's Office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: There is nowhere else that I know of it could be covered. It is all covered in my budget.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, it is a good thing the Minister of ITT ran in to remind the Premier of what he said the other day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, page 403, on Friday. The Premier said a few moments ago that it was all charged out to him, then he got up and he was around the world.

MR. FUREY: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member is giving his speech, which is an eloquent address to this Assembly, maybe he can tell us where Premier Peckford covered off his expenses?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if there was ever an admission of guilt it is when you cannot defend yourself and you try to throw up a smoke screen. If there was ever an admission of guilt by that minister, we have just seen it. We have seen in technicolour how guilty that minister is. For some reason that minister tends to have a very strong guilt complex. We asked a question one day a few years ago about a briefcase, who purchased a briefcase for a certain number of dollars? That was the question, and the guilty person -

AN HON. MEMBER: Is now walking away.

MR. TOBIN: I am talking about the guilt of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology when he just got up. One day in this House we asked the question, who purchased a briefcase? The one we knew purchased the briefcase, the guilty one, never looked at the Premier at all, ever though he was closer to him than the Minister of ITT, but the ITT reached over and said, `Premier, I purchased the briefcase.' The only one who answered the question was the Minister of ITT. He is the one with the conscience.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The same as he is today the only one with a conscience.

AN HON. MEMBER: The only one with a briefcase, too.

MR. TOBIN: Why, did you sell that one?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: He should, too, because he needs something to make himself look important. He can't do it on his own. Hopefully, the briefcase worked.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this Province just got up and admitted that he went across the world, went to Asia, went to the Eastern Seaboard, went out to Western Canada, and charged it all off to the Department of ITT, and at the end of the day, the people of this Province, from one end of the Province to the other, are asking, how much travel does the Minister of ITT do? How expensive is that minister? Well, half of it is not his fault.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) bankrupt the Province.

MR. TOBIN: You almost bankrupted one department, anyway. What department was it that used to subsidize stoves?

Yesterday, in The Evening Telegram we saw a story which I raised in the House the other evening regarding a situation down in Burin, where children were going to be separated from their parents because they were cold, because the lights were disconnected. I know the story, I probably know more about it than the minister, I say to the Minister of ITT. I know the entire story.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, what is the story?

MR. TOBIN: It is that the Department of Social Services have been instructed to cut the electricity, not to subsidize it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I say to the Minister of ITT, I'll ask the question, not him.

MR. FUREY: Your are not answering my question: Where did Premier Peckford hide all his expenses?

MR. TOBIN: He didn't have them, Mr. Chairman - he did not have the expenses. He wasn't `jet rolling' this Province. Every expense Premier Peckford had was upfront, it wasn't charged off, I would suggest to the minister. He wasn't all over the place. He wasn't over in Paris one day and Brazil, Ireland, all over the world and then bumping into ministers on the way back.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you with him in China?

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't with him China. I was never with him in China. I must have had the 'flu. I never knew that Premier Peckford was in China, I say to the minister. I don't know who was with him.

Mr. Chairman, there was a story in the Evening Telegram yesterday where a mother confirmed to a Telegram reporter that she was going to have to separate herself from her children if her lights were disconnected, yet this department would not move. I understand from reading the paper today that someone offered an additional $250, someone from outside, Mr. Chairman. Some compassionate person outside said that if government is going to pluck children out of the homes, they are going to create in this Province, a very emotional environment for families. Some person out there, out of the good of his heart, said he would put up the first $250 to help pay the light bill.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) tax return.

MR. TOBIN: I would think so. I certainly would rule out you, and if I had your money I would pay for the works, I say to the minister.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, give it to me, I will bring it down to her. How a minister - how millionaires, Mr. Chairman, can sit around that Cabinet table and make policies to cut the lights, to cut the power from people, and then make a decision that they will remove the children from their families, that, Mr. Chairman, is unconscionable, let me say. That is unconscionable and shows the total lack of compassion for the people in charge of these departments. I don't believe for one minute that the Minister of Social Services came in and voluntarily gave up to the Cabinet that amount of money. As a matter of fact, I'd bet my life she didn't, that she fought and tried to get more money for the department. I can tell you right now, since I raised that the other evening in debate, that I have gotten calls from other districts in this Province, from other parts of this Province regarding it. There are some people sitting in this House now whose district I have received calls from, I say to members opposite.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Say it yourself, `Chuck'.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: How we can allow people in this Province -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member doesn't have leave.

MR. TOBIN: I will be back, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It was nice to note in Question Period today that my new pew mate from the Pentecostal Church in Port de Grave has taken a kinder look at Green Bay. Hopefully, we will see a little pavement come our way if there is any on the go this year in what might be a relatively limited provincial roads budget. He was my pew mate last Sunday at the fishermen's service in Port de Grave. I know he didn't want that to get out in public but I thought I would put it on the record of the hon. House of Assembly. It may well be now, Mr. Chairman, that having so indicated, I may have cost my district some pavement.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did he put in, a nickel?

MR. HEWLETT: I did not observe the minister's generosity with regard to the collection plate.

Mr. Chairman, more seriously, it was interesting to note that I think for the first since I've been elected to this Assembly, in about six years, I got an official admission from the government side of the House that not all the roads in Green Bay are paved. When I first sought the PC nomination for Green Bay back in 1989 and first got elected, obviously, as all people running, you hoped, you believed at the time, that you would end up on the government side of the House. I can remember doing an interview with one of the local media in my district at the time I was running for election, and they asked me what would be one of the biggest challenges that I would face. Working on the assumption that I would end up on the government side, I indicated that convincing my colleagues in government that Green Bay still needed public works expenditures in the way of roadwork, pavement, water and sewer, that sort of thing, would be a tall order in that the Premier had been the former member for the district before me.

Needless to say, to my disappointment, I ended up in Opposition after the election in 1989, and the concern that I had about convincing my government colleagues about the need for public works expenditures in Green Bay doubled, tripled, quadrupled, if anything, in dealing with the Liberal Government. The Liberal Government, I guess,having smarted under Brian Peckford for a good many years while he was Premier, I think did have a tendency to hold somewhat of a grudge against my particular district when the time came to share up monies for roads, water and sewer, that sort of thing.

I've asked a number of ministers over the years as to whether or not, especially roadwork, would be done in my district. Generally speaking, the replies have always been flippant, always been negative, and always been to the effect that you really don't need anything in Green Bay, that, in essence, your streets are paved with gold.

The first pavement in Green Bay occurred back in the 1960s when Premier Smallwood was in power. The road from the Trans-Canada into the town of Springdale and the main street through Springdale was paved I guess when I was a teenager. For a long time that was the only pavement in the entire Green Bay district. As the Liberal years waned in the early 1970s, and in that period when we had two fast elections, when Mr. Smallwood went down and Mr. Moores came up, there was a desperate shuffle in Green Bay. Premier Smallwood's son, William Smallwood, was dumped from the Liberal roster as the Liberal candidate. Harold Starkes from Lewisporte way was trotted out as the Liberal candidate. At that time, desperation really showed its ugly head in Green Bay because the Liberal Party of the day, desperately trying to cling on to power, actually gave some extra pavement to Green Bay other than what had already transpired in Springdale some years earlier. That was the method by which the town of King's Point got its pavement. Up until then, I mean, that was the only other pavement in Green Bay.

When Mr. Peckford got elected and ended up on the government side under the leadership of Frank Moores, our district started to get some of the facilities that many of the districts - even rural districts, on the Avalon Peninsula - had taken for granted, really, since Confederation. When 1972 came, Green Bay basically entered the 20th Century. We started to get some road work, we started to get decent water systems, we started to get sewer systems for the first time ever, with the exception of Springdale, which was a relatively large town by rural standards, and for the most part had financed its own way, and installed a water and sewer system a good many years ago by pick and shovel, basically under its own steam. Up until then, outside of Springdale, with the exception of a little bit of pavement in King's Point, absolutely nothing had been done.

Great progress was made during the Peckford years, Mr. Speaker, but as I said, Mr. Peckford basically had to start from scratch. Very little had been done. The existing gravel roads all had to be completely rebuilt, and then started the task of paving them. The number of years he spent - I believe seventeen years - as MHA for Green Bay, and during that time, even with ten of those years as Premier, he didn't get a chance to pave all of the roads in Green Bay; all of the communities did not get water and sewer, and some communities didn't get various recreation facilities, et cetera, so there was still much to be done in the District of Green Bay when I first got elected in 1989.

As I indicated earlier, I expected trouble if I ended up on the government side, getting money from the government, and I really found out what trouble was when I ended up on the Opposition side, trying to get money from government for the District of Green Bay.

I can only assume that Green Bay was especially singled out, because in the early years of my first term Premier Wells was making much to-do about this fairness and balance scheme of his, and a number of my colleagues in opposition were getting some road and water and sewer work when the annual budgets for each department were announced, and consistently Green Bay was underfunded.

We did better in the water and sewer department than we did in the roads, but in the roads department it has been absolutely pathetic. In the six years since I have been elected, not one, single, shovel full of pavement has gone into Green Bay - not one shovel full. We have pavement now that is fifteen years old and falling apart, and we have gravel roads that have never seen pavement. All I can get out of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation are lovely platitudes and assurances when his microphone is turned on and when there are Green Bay people in the gallery, but once his microphone is off and the usual banter of the House is ongoing we get the usual comments about `never in a Tory district', and `especially not in your district'. I remember the day when Brian Peckford wouldn't give me an artesian well for Makinsons, and Green Bay will suffer forever and a day because Makinsons didn't get its artesian well from Brian Peckford.

Mr. Chairman, that is the reality that we are still faced with, and I am duty bound, as the member, to bring this forward. This is a Budget debate, and it is often a debate used by MHAs to bring forward concerns relating to their district, and seeing people from my district in the gallery today sparked me to ask the minister that question, and to raise it here again. It is an ongoing subject. There will be new water and sewer monies, albeit very small I am told, and road monies, very small, allocated again this year, and I would be remiss if I didn't put forward Green Bay's case again, and the fact that Green Bay, I think, has been hard done by - especially in the roads department - since the Wells government came to power, and it is about time that the Wells government make up for those wrongs and give a rural district a chance.

Green Bay should not be punished for having elected Brian Peckford as it's member. Mr. Peckford served ten years as Premier, and for any district of the Province, I think, it generally is considered to be an honour if the First Minister of the Province is your member. Unfortunately for Green Bay, since the First Minister has resigned, that has not proven to be so at all. I don't remember any district, when we were in power, that we singled out because former Premier Smallwood had once served in it and therefore that particular district had to somehow be punished. For some reason, Green Bay has gotten that end of the stick, and that is not good enough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I just have a few words here to continue with the debate. I am trying to do two things at the one time here now. It is bad enough when I am trying to do one thing at one time.

I just want to carry on the debate that was taken up by my colleague from Burin - Placentia West, and now my colleague from Green Bay. Basically today we are debating the Estimates of the Executive Council, and there is some very interesting information here under the Estimates of the Executive Council, and a lot of them were alluded to on the last day and again today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: There he goes. I didn't think it would be too long before old turbot jaws himself would be going over there, the man who supports the Spaniards observing the Spaniards.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The man who supports the Spaniards observing the Spanish overfishing. That is what the Member for Eagle River supports now, but I do not know what that has to do with the Executive Council. I do not know if the member is speaking up because he expects the provincial government will be requested to allocate some money out of the Estimates of the Executive Council for the Spanish overfishing.

Now, that would not surprise me. I say that is the next recommendation that will come from the provincial government, that they will offer to pay the Spaniards to observe the Spaniards. I do not know what the Minister of Fisheries thinks about that. It would be quite interesting to hear him say something on this topic one of these days. One of those days before all the turbot are gone it would be interesting to hear the Minister of Fisheries tell us what he really thinks of this situation. He nods his head but he does not get up.

Does the minister agree with the Province cost-sharing the cost of the Spanish observing the Spanish, the British observing the British, and the Canadians observing the Canadians? Is the Minister of Fisheries concerned about that, I ask? Is he concerned about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Good. I am glad he is. The Member for Eagle River is not concerned about it.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Why is that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You are not concerned about the Spanish observing the Spanish while you are going through your travel claims over there? Is the Member for Eagle River looking to see how much money from last year's Estimates he has there in his travel claims? The most expensive member in the House of Assembly, the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I will show you my expenses.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You will not show me your expenses because I know them on a weekly basis. As a member of the Internal Economy Commission I asked for a weekly update on the Member for Eagle River. I want to know what he spends and where he spends it. I want to know where he rents his cars. I want to know how often he goes to Ottawa. I want the Minister of Finance to tell me if all those trips to Ottawa by the Member for Eagle River are included in the Estimates of the Executive Council. I want the Minister of Finance to answer before we give approval.

He is up in Ottawa every second week, up in the House of Commons looking down on his buddies, gloating, waving and smiling. It is unbelievable. He has looked at Bill Rompkey's seat that often now that poor old Bill Rompkey, when he hears he is going to Ottawa, does not sit in the seat. He makes sure he is gone somewhere else.

I never saw a person so gleeful and so happy when he sits in the gallery of the House of Commons as the Member for Eagle River. I could not believe it when I went up there a couple of years ago and looked across at the gallery and saw him there. He was lit up like a Christmas tree because he was so happy to be up there where he wants to be.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Not true.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Imagine how much he enjoys being up there now since Tobin went to New York with the net, since they arrested the Estai and have now offered to forego the fine, don't take the bond from them. They only overfished. They only took the juvenile turbot. They just broke the legislation. They cost us a couple of million dollars, I suppose, to arrest and get them in, but we do not want that $500,000 bond. We are going to give that back to them.

Imagine how happy he is now when he sits in the House of Commons and looks at his buddy Brian. How much did it cost to get the net down to New York? I would like to know how much it cost the Province in the Estimates of the Executive Council for the Premier to get the cabbie or the limousine down to the dock in New York so that he could be behind Brian Tobin waving so that the cameras would at least pick him up once?

Me, too, Ray Guy said, me, too. Boutros Boutros-Ghali and Clyde Clyde, he called him last night, the two of them together. Seriously, how much of that is from the Premier's office, how much did the Premier spend to get on the dock in New York?

MR. DUMARESQUE: He should be the first observer on the Spanish boat, Ray Guy.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Ah, see? You are agreeing with me know. So it would be rough for Ray Guy to be observer on the Spanish vessels, would it? Would it be rough? Why would it be rough?

MR. DUMARESQUE: It wouldn't exactly be a picnic for whoever goes (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Exactly, I say to the Member for Eagle River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they are pirates!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They are pirates. If they are pirates, what's the point of putting another pirate on with them to observe them, I ask the member. What is the point of putting a pirate in charge of observing the pirates?

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What a difference an election makes, what a difference a change of government makes. They can do no wrong up there now.

MR. DUMARESQUE: What a difference an election makes. More buffalo on Brunette Island than there are Tories (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Almost. But there is supposed to be one over there, I say to the member. There is supposed to be one buffalo over there but no one has found it lately. I was over there for a couple of nights the summer, I tell the member. I was over there I say to the Member for a couple of nights this summer, to the come home year reunion over there. Went over for one night and enjoyed myself that much I stayed two. What a time. The member should have come over with me.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I wouldn't mind going over.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I go up now to Ottawa to see the endangered species in the House of Commons.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You would have seen a lot of endangered species out there. The buffalo. The Arctic hare is not endangered. Caribou everywhere.

MR. DUMARESQUE: When are you having the national convention for the Tory Party?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They can't get a place big enough, I say to the Member for Eagle River. There is not a place big enough.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Is it true you are having the same (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That was the problem with their scheduling, not ours. Yes, it is on the same weekend. That doesn't matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No. Any time I go to Ottawa I tell you it is - I was going to say, for more important things than that.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who are you talking about? What are you insinuating? That you are friends or something with the candidate's brother?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. Have you spent time together lately somewhere? Is that what the minister is trying to tell me? It wasn't paid for out of the Executive Council Estimates, I hope. Being a member of the Executive Council. This debate has to be relevant, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know, I say to the minister, if my salary as House Leader is in the Executive Council Estimates or not. I'm not sure. All I would say is I don't know if there is going to be any need for them to be, for me, but for whoever else who succeeds me there will be, of course. That is if they pay them the same as they are paying me. I don't know where they are going to find anyone that good.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No I don't know the rules, I say, I don't them well enough, but I knew today the Government House Leader was right when he rose, of course. He was right, and I knew that, and I knew the way that the Speaker was going to rule on that. I had no doubt in my mind, I knew that. But you couldn't blame the member for asking the questions, because we had information which implicated the former minister, and he is now confessing to the Member for Kilbride that indeed he did know about what he asked him. Since the Government House Leader bullied him and wouldn't let him answer the question he said: I had to come over and tell you myself the answer, and yes, I did know about it, yes, I did discuss it with a commissioner.

I don't know again, Mr. Chairman - it is time to be relevant - if that is where this double billing money is coming from, the Executive Council estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know if that is where the double billing money comes from for Mr. Gullage - from the Executive Council Estimates. We can't find out who authorized this. So maybe that is where it is covered up. If it is in here I would suggest that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board authorized it. If it is in these Executive Council Estimates, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board who is pretending he is not listening. Who is pretending he is listening to the Member for St. John's East, which I know he is not. He wouldn't. But then, there is a bit of a socialist background there with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. He ran as an NDPer one time, I believe.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you on leave now?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going by leave?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I'm on leave now, yes, I say to my good friend, my very good friend for Eagle River. I'm up on leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, he ran for the NDP. Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Yes, if I don't be nice you will withdraw leave.

Just a couple of question that I want to ask, I don't know - no one listens to me and this I can't understand. I don't know why everyone is not listening to me. I am starting to get annoyed. I am soon going to get in the same way as my colleague from Burin - Placentia West gets, then everyone listens to him. I was looking in the offshore - Newfoundland Information Service, by the way, perhaps someone can explain this to me, why is there such an increase in the amount of money being voted to the Newfoundland Information Service? I say to the Government House Leader, the Minister of Finance is pretending he is ignoring me and he is pretending he is listening to the Member for St. John's East, he is doing neither.

MR. ROBERTS: Actually he has turned off his hearing aid.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I know, that's what worries me.

MR. ROBERTS: He is listening to the (inaudible) speech of Lynn Verge, a very important speech.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Is there someone who is going to answer this? Let me say this, Offshore Fund - Administration, the Minister of Finance - he just goes out, he just walks out.

MR. ROBERTS: Well look behind you, there is nobody here.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I am glad there is no one behind me - yes, I am glad. I feel more comfortable when there is no one behind me, I say to the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I understand the feeling.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: You understand the feeling. You have been through it many times. You don't feel very secure.

MR. ROBERTS: Oh I feel very secure.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: When they are gone. When they are not there.

MR. ROBERTS: What do you want to know?

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Two things; 2.3.07, Newfoundland Information Service, there is an increase there of $118,000 in total. I am just wondering why that would be? The other one is, 2.3.08, from what was spent last year, $3,031,000 under total Cabinet Secretariat $3.8 million this year. That is a fair increase. I am just wondering if perhaps you could explain why the increase in two of those allocations?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Let me take them one at a time, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the salary details book in front of me but I would suspect 2.3.07, the Information Service - the committee will note that last year we budgeted $391,100 and we actually spent $285,800 and this year we are asking for permission to spend $388,800. Perhaps we can find out in the next few minutes but I suggest what happened is we under-recruited last year because we have vacant positions that have not been filled and we are asking for authority to spend the money in the event we are able to fill them this year. I don't think we have created any new positions in the Information Service. My friend from Grand Bank will recall that when this government took office in '89 there was a major change made in the way in which public relations and public information personnel were hired. So I would suggest to him that is the answer. We are not asking - in fact, we are asking this year for less than we asked for and were granted last year but it is more than we spent, my hon. friend is quite correct.

I think he also spoke of the total of Treasury Board Secretariat, I notice it is about - last year we asked for $10,462,000. Yes, that was the budget, $10,462,000 - I am on page 23 of the printed estimates.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We actually spent $13.3 million and this year we are asking for $10,618,000. So it is an increase of about $150,000 in all. Now I don't know if that answers his questions or not. We are not asking for a $3 million increase. In fact, we propose to spend less this year, under this heading, then we spent last year even though we are asking for a little more then we asked for last year. Now I can go through it with my friend and point out the areas where we actually spent more then we budgeted last year. For example, 2.4.03, there was some discussion in the committee the other day about this, last year under that subhead we asked for $1.45 million - this is page 19 of the printed estimates - and we actually spent $2,027,000. This year, we are asking for $449,800; and an explanation was given the other day. That is a large item in there, the NLCS privatization and the Hydro privatization lawyers and consultants fees. So overall we are asking, under the Executive Council head, for considerably less than we actually spent last year. That is, I think, the answer to the hon. gentleman's question as I have it, but if not, I will yield and it will be his turn again.

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

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

I thank the minister for the explanation. That satisfies me. It is just that when you notice some of these things you would like to have an explanation for them.

Just going back to Newfoundland Information Services, the minister, when he said there have been changes, is certainly correct. I say to him, it would be quite interesting to do a total cost analysis now on what it was before and what it is now.

MR. ROBERTS: It is probably still a great deal less.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister, of course, keeps saying that. It is like the Premier keeps bragging about the decrease in cost for the Premier's office in travel. Then we find out - I really thought, when the Premier was jogging all over the world, that it was being paid for by the Premier's Office - we find out now it is being paid out of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology's vote. So when you put it all together, I would suggest, with the Premier being out of the Province for what was it, eighty-eight days last year - eighty-eight days or something he was gone - that must be quite a substantial bill.

I remember being in government with Brian Peckford, when he used to get knocked for the travelling he did, and how expensive he was, and all of this stuff. I guess the only thing I have to say is, it seems this government has been a little better at covering it up somehow, a little better at hiding it away. We really can't get at what the total figure is. You can't knock him for that. I can't knock him for doing that, but we would like to see the total figures on the Premier's travel and entertainment in total, which we can't get.

The public relations team, I ask the Government House Leader, or whatever you have in place, are they all under Newfoundland Information Services? That is a different entity altogether, is it?

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible) public relations.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Well, there is a public relations team. I see some of them around all the time. Some of them I know personally, and I know they are good people, and friends. I talk to them often and say hello. I have known them for years before they became attached to this, or even before I came to where I am. The point is, where are they found in the Estimates? Are they under Newfoundland Information Services, or are they two separate entities?

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

MR. ROBERTS: The salaries of the Newfoundland Information Service public information officers are found in 2.3.07, the head we are talking of, but there are public information officers attached to specific departments whose salary is paid out, and it will be found in the - for example -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, there is no - I mean, I am not trying to hide anything. The person who works with the Minister of Justice and the President of Treasury Board is Mr. John Downton, who is an extremely capable person. He works for Newfoundland Information Services, and I assume the amount we are seeking here includes provision for his salary.

The man named Mr. Carl Cooper works with the Department of Education and Training, and his salary would be found charged against the Education Department estimates. If we look up the salary details, we will find it, and there will be a corresponding item in the Estimates themselves.

I don't know if the Committee wants to go on at any length about this public information officer, but I would be happy to, if they wish. My understanding is that we made two changes when we came in, and when I say `we' I am including or speaking of my predecessors. I wasn't a member of the Ministry in 1989; I joined a little later, as the Committee recalls. The first was to start a central pool, and initially, all officers were attached there. There were eight or nine or ten or eleven, whatever there were. I don't know how many there were, but that is a matter of record. They were then assigned to work with departments, but as individual ministers, and at more than one point individual deputy ministers, realized there was not only a need but a need for more than they could get, individual officers were attached, and have been attached, to individual departments. Is my hon. friend... am I making any sense? Okay. So there is this diverse approach.

The other change we made, I suggest, was even more important. Previously, I believe, it was the practice to have these officers attached to individual ministers' offices, and they reported to the minister and were called, I believe, press secretaries. I don't fault that - that is what was - but we have taken a very different approach. The officials are attached to the department and report to the deputy ministers, not to the ministers' offices. Now, they work with the minister, but they are public servants and they work - they aren't contractual.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Carl Cooper reports to the Deputy Minister, Dr. Len Williams. We have two Dr. Williams as deputies. Dr. Len Williams works with the minister, of course. A Mr. Downton reports in his Justice position to Mrs. Spracklin, the Deputy Minister of Justice, but he certainly works with me if it is a Justice matter, or the Premier, given the situation. For example, Mr. Downton drafted the very fine Ministerial Statement made here the other day by my friend, the Member for Gander, in his capacity as the acting Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I don't know if it was long or short. It said what needed to be said and no more. That was the one on the signing of the agreement with the Innu people in Davis Inlet.

So that is where they are. The votes appear in two places depending on the nature of the position. But they are all there.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just wonder if the minister could inform the House how many, say, departmental public relations people are there? Every department doesn't have one, do they? Would you enlighten the House on how many of them there actually are, in addition to the others? How many are similar to - and I don't want to keep mentioning Mr. Cooper's name, but he is the one I know about most. How many departments have public information officers or whatever they are now?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, every ministry, every department - and I said ministry, not minister - every ministry has a public information officer available to it. Some are stationed in the NIS under the vote we are talking of, others are attached. Let me see if I can - most of my colleagues are conspicuous by their absence, at this stage, but I know that Education and Training has a person. `Roger', maybe you can help me. Do you have a person, a full-time public information officer in Tourism, Culture and Recreation?

MR. GRIMES: In our department? Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Finance and Treasury Board does not, Justice does not, Executive Council does not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Natural Resources has nobody.

MR. ROBERTS: Natural Resources does not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? I don't think Environment does. Works, Services and Transportation does, and I know my friend, the Member for Grand Bank would agree that the Department of Works, Services and Transportation needs all the public information help it can get. I don't think Social Services does. Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I believe, does.

AN HON. MEMBER: Health doesn't.

MR. ROBERTS: Health does not. Industry, Trade and Technology does. I don't know if I've covered all the departments, but as my friend, the Member for Grand Bank can see, they are very - it depends essentially on the information needs of the department. And I will be candid with him, we have added one or two in the last year or so because - for example, originally Mr. Cooper worked with the Department of Justice and with the Department of Education. And as we moved into the Williams Royal Commission and all the work that comes from that, the need was identified to have him working full-time in educational informational matters, so he was moved full-time over there - that is where his salary would appear now. Mr. Doody was assigned to work with the Justice portfolio.

I think I've named all of the departments but if I haven't - I don't think Fisheries, Food and Agriculture has a person. No, they do. Miss Cheeseman, has been there for some years, Josephine Cheeseman. I think I've named all the departments but if I haven't the hon. gentleman can prod me and I will try to recall.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words on the Budget for this year, and a few other odds and ends that have been ongoing.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I can't hear the hon. gentleman.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say, listen harder.

MR. ROBERTS: I am listening hard but I still can't hear him.

MR. J. BYRNE: There must be something wrong with the system.

MR. ROBERTS: Pardon?

MR. J. BYRNE: There must be something wrong with the system.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, the hon. gentleman's voice system.

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, could very well be.

MR. ROBERTS: Try it a little bit louder, `Jack', you might say something that's good to hear.

MR. J. BYRNE: I won't say a lot that I want you to hear anyway, to be honest with you.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Committee meetings. This past week I've attended five of the meetings. The Employment and Labour Relations Committee meeting, Environment, Works, Services and Transportation. Some of the ministers are much more apt to answer questions than other ministers. Take, for example, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Asking him a question on anything with respect to Tory districts and the only answer you will get from that minister is: You are a Tory district, not a cent, not a rock - all going in Liberal districts.

The Minister of Environment is taking his job very seriously. You can ask him some questions and he does his best to answer the questions and if not, gets you the answers as soon as possible afterwards.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology - I have not attended any of his meetings yet to ask him any questions in particular to the committees but not long ago in the House I was a bit disappointed - actually not in the House, there last fall after the EDGE legislation was announced and at the time I certainly supported the EDGE legislation. I thought it was good legislation. Shortly after that the minister was on TV talking about two new companies coming into the Province that would - basically I think they put it on TV that there would be no provincial monies going to these two new companies. I think the words were: There will be none, nil, not one iota of provincial dollars going to these two new companies. Basically afterwards it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, it may not have been none, nil, not an iota. Maybe not an iota, none, nil or whatever but there was one - I saw it, I heard it with my own two ears - he said: No money, none, not an iota from the provincial government. It ended up being $1.6 million, I think it was, for the two companies, in that general area. Is that right, $1.6 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is nothing to him you see.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is nothing. I suppose it is nothing to the minister but a lot of money to me. I would not mind having it in my bank account.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Probably so.

Anyway with respect to the EDGE legislation, again it may be good in the long haul but at this point in time all I have seen happen is that the companies are replacing jobs basically because this government has had an abysmal record of destroying jobs in this Province, Mr. Chairman. The EDGE legislation so far has not nearly replaced one-tenth of the jobs that have been lost since this government has taken over but maybe in due course it may help out somewhat within the Province.

The President of Treasury Board loves to get up and talk about Sprung. Now that is a word that a lot of people don't like to hear, on this side I would imagine, but the majority of people on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, had nothing to do with Sprung. They were not around in the House of Assembly when Sprung was approved and put forward by the previous administration but, Mr. Chairman, there was $23 million spent on Sprung, as far as I know, somewhere in the general area of $23 million but I have to compliment the previous government, at least -

MR. TOBIN: Stop saying bad words.

MR. J. BYRNE: I know you don't want to hear it but at least what they did, they created 300 jobs for two years. Now what do we have here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, 200 to 300 jobs for two years. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is what happened. Now what has this government done since it came into power? Only cut, cut, cut and take care of their Liberal districts as the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation so proudly announces all the time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, get a better one. That is no problem. Like yourself, I will get you to write a few for me, how is that? I will get you to write a few for me.

MR. ROBERTS: It would be better than the one (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, sure they would, no doubt. As long as the President of Treasury Board believes that, that is fine but then again - and the President of Treasury Board always loves to bring up the situation with Sprung and how much money we could -

MR. ROBERTS: Sprung springs to mind.

MR. J. BYRNE: Good, that's not bad. Now I say to the President of Treasury Board he will be up again this evening at 4:55 p.m. and before he sits down he will have his opportunity to insult someone else. That is his forte.

Anyway I would like to bring up the situation with Churchill Falls. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation talks about - he has $15 million this year, $15 million to put into the roads in this Province. We have the Department of Social Services cut $10 million. We have $10 million going into the Strategic Economic Plan which is a complete waste of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is going on?

MR. J. BYRNE: What is going on? I don't know what is going on but if we could get back, somehow or other, the $800 million that we are losing every year, going down the drain or down the river or maybe up the river to Quebec, $800 million. Do you know what we could do with this in this Province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, just a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member opposite is one of several members opposite who keep referring to the Churchill Falls deal as if they had nothing to do with it. The people who sat in the Legislature representing the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador voted for the Churchill Falls deal, every single one of them. Every single member in the House voted for that deal, so he now sits with members of the party that supports that arrangement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may be a good point but it is not a point of order.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I expected that argument to come forward, Mr. Chairman, with respect to Churchill Falls when I brought it up, but I say to that, that the government on that side of the House, the Liberal government at the time, brought it forward, pushed it, and convinced people, or whatever have you. The Liberal government of the day had the majority in the House of Assembly, it would have been carried anyway I say to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

That is what would have happened anyway and this side of the House had no bearing on it whatsoever. It is like the government at this point in time trying to bring Hydro through. If they had the guts to bring it through the House, only for the backbenchers, the caucus over there, the back caucus put a stop to it. If they had to bring it through the people on this side would not have voted in favour of it but over there they would have. They would have been told to vote for it and they would have voted for it.

Mr. Chairman, there are three caucuses on that side of the House from my perspective. Of course we have the Cabinet caucus who believe they are running the show on that side of the House, but they got a lesson in democracy last fall when the private members' revolt happened and put a stop to the Hydro deal. They put a stop to the importation of garbage into the Province when they put the pressure on the Premier because he is the man who makes the decisions on that side of the House.

He was out of the Province and when he came back the private members over there, the private members of caucus put the pressure on the Premier to back off on the importation of garbage into the Province. Also, you have the fabulous four that I refer to, the Member for Fogo, the Member for Twillingate, the Member for St. John's Centre, and the Member for Windsor - Buchans, who all of a sudden, when they were removed from Cabinet, got the courage to speak up and speak out against the Premier.

There is only one member at this point in time of the fabulous four who is still continuing to do that, of course, and that is the Member for Twillingate who I believe yesterday voted in favour of the resolution put forward by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes. Some of the people on that side, Mr. Chairman, had signed the petition from the Member for Twillingate last fall to form one department for fisheries, but they decided for whatever reason not to go ahead and support the resolution brought forward by the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

Again, with respect to the Budget brought down this year, a balanced Budget. If you do not spend any money and only take money in in revenues and taxes, it is not too much trouble to balance the Budget. We see the cuts, as I mentioned earlier, in social services, highways, municipal affairs, and the environment. Every estimate you go through there are cuts, cuts, and more cuts. Now, the previous Minister of Environment and Lands is sitting here next to us and at this point in time she agrees there are too many cuts going on in this government, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would do with $30 million if he had it? Basically, that is what it is going to cost the people of this Province for the Trans City fiasco. We have four members of Cabinet on a committee who decide to basically give their buddies a lot of money for no particular purpose, only as a payback, I suppose, for helping to finance the Premier's salary a few years ago when he took over as Leader of the Opposition.

There was $30 million, plus $3 million that is now in the courts. Judge Orsborn has basically awarded $3 million be paid to the contractor who should have received the contract. Now, this all goes on and on and it is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province a lot of money in the long haul, and it is also the buy back. If I understand it correctly the government now is prepared to pay 60 per cent of the fair market value of the buildings at that point in time, those three buildings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member has leave, I guess?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of ITT that if he would sit back sometime and listen to the people speaking on this side of the House who speak with all sincerity, he might learn a thing or two about where the money should be spent in this Province, and not be giving it out to his buddies.

Basically the government now has agreed, under their new contract - and this wasn't a part of the contract when it was first awarded - the hospitals would be bought back after twenty or thirty years, I am not sure which, for $1, but the government decided that wasn't good enough for their buddies so they decided to give them 60 per cent of the fair market value at that point in time, more millions of dollars that the minister -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: For the buy back of the hospitals, the buildings themselves, after the contract is up, the lease buy back.

Mr. Chairman, the people of this Province will receive nothing from that buy back only buildings that they have paid for during the lease.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, I have some nice questions for the Minister of Environment in due course, let me tell you. I have been taking it fairly easy on him up this point in time because the Minister of Environment seems to be a very dedicated minister, more so than some of the other ministers over there. He takes his job quite seriously. I am half afraid, though, that the Minister of Environment is going to get ulcers over there from working that department. You can see, when you ask him questions at the committee meetings, his face becomes very wrinkled. He is very determined but very concerned, so I would say to the Minister of Environment that he should not take it so seriously, and join the majority of the ministers on that side of the House who don't take their jobs too seriously.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack, what page are you on?

MR. J. BYRNE: Page 52, copious notes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not copasetic.

MR. J. BYRNE: Not copasetic, no.

The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, at the committee meeting hearing the other night, I asked him a number of questions, and the minister was very vague, also, in his answers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, who has the floor here, myself or the President of Treasury Board?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Or the Government House Leader, I mean. It is hard to keep a handle on the Government House Leader. You don't know if he is acting Premier, or acting Finance Minister, or acting Minister of Justice, or half Minister of Justice, or whatever, so it is hard to keep a handle on the Government House Leader.

Back to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. A few nights ago we were asking the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs certain questions with respect to his department, and he loves to be very vague. He is another minister who is very biased when it comes to Liberal districts, I believe. He is now talking about regional government, and he doesn't like the word `government' - regional government - he would prefer to have the words `regional councils'. I believe that possibly regional councils throughout the Province may be beneficial to the people living in certain towns, in particular when you come to certain services such as, maybe, waste disposal, water and sewer, what have you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I would say now that the Government House Leader should go back to sleep. He often pretends that he is sleeping over there, but he has a keen ear.

MR. ROBERTS: I am staying awake in the hope that the hon. gentleman will say something worthwhile.

MR. J. BYRNE: I would prefer for you to go to sleep.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: The regional council ideas can be very beneficial to the people living in certain towns within the Province. It would all depend upon the approach that government takes. Again, the approach the government took with respect to amalgamation was the heavy hand, do it or it is going to be done to you. That is something that is still on the agenda. That is still on the government's agenda, the amalgamation.

AN HON. MEMBER: What? Amalgamation?

MR. J. BYRNE: It is still on the government's agenda, I would say. What do the Cabinet Ministers talk about when they are sitting around the Cabinet if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology doesn't know that regional government is still on the agenda of this government? You talk to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and it is number one on his list. That is the be-all and end-all of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. It is the answer to all of his problems. Sit back and talk to him.

Now, I am going to try to give the minister a bit of advice, although he is not here. Maybe he will pick up this and read it. I remember giving the former Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs advice, the man who is in the media a lot these days. What is his name? Eric Gullage, that is the guy. I remember sitting down and talking to him about amalgamation when I was Mayor of Logy Bay - Middle Cove - Outer Cove. One morning, 7:30 a.m. this happened. We had a meeting on a certain matter. He is the one who brought it up. I gave him some good advice on how to accomplish his goals with respect to amalgamation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: But no, no, listen. He wanted to do what he wanted to do and use the heavy hand and force it. If he had listened and paid attention - and I'm not going to give the present Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs the same advice because there is no point, he is too biased. He is going to do what he is going to do.

If he would not take the same heavy-handed approach with respect to regional councils, go out and meet with the councils across this Province, show them the benefits, put it in dollars and cents the exact benefits that would come to the various municipalities involved in regional councils, and he may get some co-operation from the towns involved.

As I said, there are benefits with respect to roads, water and sewer, waste disposal, all these types of concerns, if the towns come together and possibly cost-share, but it has to be promoted in the right sense. One of my concerns with respect to regional councils would be how they would be formed, the representation on the regional councils. Would they be appointed, will they be elected, and would there be increased costs to the towns?

The towns themselves, will they be required to take certain services? Will there be certain services forced upon them? Will there be services available that they can take if they want them, if they require them, and will they have a choice? These are some of the questions that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs should look at. They should only have to pay for the services that they receive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm going to - well, it is up to you guys. If someone wants to get up on that side they can get up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, we don't want to hear - the Member for Eagle River. I was on that side of the House last night in the Committee meetings and I got a copy of your estimates. Did you check the copy of your estimates today? Did you have a look at it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is withdrawn.

MR. J. BYRNE: You don't have to look at it. Leave is withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is withdrawn, yes.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to speak to this debate because of the intervention by the Member for Burin - Placentia West. He was really indignant over there about the way that the Premier of the Province has been spending his money and going through the taxpayers' money for the last number of years, but the last year in particular.

One of the questions that he had, of course, was that the Premier was taking entertainment and other expenses and charging it off to other departments. That was the way he says this was being hidden. I was sort of confused by that because I didn't think anything like that could ever happen any way, that any entertainment and any stuff like that would be charged to another department. I guess the best people to ask the questions are some who know some type of the answers that were there before.

The Member for Burin - Placentia West, of course, would know, as a parliamentary assistant to the Premier before, how the previous Premier used to do things. For instance, some time ago, the year after Premier Peckford spent $51,000 in sixteen days, a year after that he says: Here are some of the new documents. Billings to Executive Council have been crossed off and Energy hand-written in the margins on the travel expenses and the entertainment expenses, and all of that. Where it was supposed to be to the Executive Council, Executive Council was scratched off, as hard as they could scratch it to get it off the list, they scratched it off and wrote Energy in there. You see, they wrote Energy in there, because at the time the Premier was supposed to be also the Minister of Energy. So we had the hand-written Energy put in there changing the department to which the services were charged. The cost, of course, air travel and other things, for thirteen days this time, just a little over $15,000.

There is no doubt that there was a very clear way of doing things under the old Tory Administration. There was a clear way of trying to hide things but, obviously, as we have heard in this House, as we have seen, frugality is the order of the day. We are spending less now in the Premier's Office than we have spent for the last ten years. We are spending less now in the Premier's Office - it is there on the record for all to see - in 1994-'95, with inflation and everything included, just dollars compared to dollars back then, we are still spending somewhere around $100-and-some-odd thousand less now than they were the last day in 1988 when Premier Peckford was in office. Now, that is the record. It is the truth. They are the exact figures that were there, and obviously there are things that were cut out.

I know that the Member for Burin - Placentia West would like to have the Premier's dining room back. I know that is the policy over there, that they want the executive dining room back, and no wonder they want it back. Here we have a requisition for supplies and services: Please issue a standing offer for liquor and beer to be picked up on an as and when required basis for the private dining room. I guess that was probably a dozen beer, or a dozen-and-a-half beer, or something like that, I suppose, $20 or $30, I suppose. If there happened to be somebody come back on a hot day, and he might want a cold beer or something, they might have half-a-dozen around that they could give out; but, no, it wasn't anything like that - $20,000, one order.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DUMARESQUE: One order, dated April 1 - April Fools Day, no doubt, in 1989, just before the people woke up and booted them out on April 20, 1989, there they were, ordering $20,000 worth of booze. Who ordered it? Obviously, he knows who ordered it.

Here is another one, requisition number 030013. Please issue a standing offer for the supply of tobacco products.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Tobacco products.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tobacco?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Tobacco for the Premier's private dining room, to be picked up on an as and when required basis. Now, it wasn't tobacco products, one cigarette, or two cigarettes, or something so that when someone had a nicotine fit they had to have a cigarette; it wasn't something that was there on an emergency basis. It wasn't one pack, it wasn't ten packs - $5,000 worth of tobacco products. Make no wonder their vision was blurred. Make no wonder his mind was blown. Make no wonder that we had a Premier there with the blown mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The member is making some wild accusations.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) former Premier Peckford.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, and he has mentioned Premier Peckford. Now, the date that is on that, I think, in all fairness, he should at least be honest and say who was Premier at that time. It was not Peckford, and I asked the member whose signature is on it for that reason. It could be that Premier Wells ordered it, you know. He should not blame it on Premier Peckford because I believe he was gone then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, if I was allowed to table the information I would table it. Certainly, yes, if the people of this Province could have gotten us in there on April 1, March 1, or February 1, anytime in the last seventeen years, if they could have gotten us in there they would have put us in there, they would have wanted us in there, but obviously on April Fool's Day some Tory fool went and signed for $500,000 worth of tobacco products, the big cigars. Make no wonder they did not know who the Premier was. They did not who the leader was. They did not know what time to call the election. They did not know where they were going. Can you imagine the smoke that was coming out of that private dining room, Mr. Chairman? There were Cuban cigars as big as the Mount Pearl cucumbers, I would expect.

Here is another one. Requisition No. 03315 purchased April 1, again. Please issue a standing offer for the dry cleaning of tablecloths, etc., on an as and when required basis. Now, when would you require that all the tablecloths be cleaned? I suppose if you were really in there, and you were smoking as much as that, and drinking as much as that, I guess, it would not be unusual that there might be a little spot of something on the tablecloth, and maybe you want to have a little bit of cleaning done.

My normal dry cleaning is about $18.00 a week, but here we have $1000 for the dry cleaning of tablecloths. They must have had tablecloths draped all around the Cabinet room, all around the dining room, and all around themselves. They must have had tablecloths everywhere, Mr. Chairman, and here they have the audacity to come in here and tell the Premier of this Province, who is spending $100,000 less today than was spent in the Premier's office in the last days of the Tory government, telling us we should be learning lessons from them, that we should be following in their footsteps.

Well, I have to tell it, and I do not always speak for government, but I will tell them today that as far as this government is concerned we are not going to dry clean any more tablecloths, we are not smoking any more of those cigars, we are not drinking any more of that booze that was down in the dining room. You can bawl, shout, and you can scream, but we are not reopening that dining room for the Premier of the Province. No, we are not going to have it done, Mr. Chairman. We cannot do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Before I recognize the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West I would like to announce the questions for the Late Show:

Question number one: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, re my question on Workers' Compensation Review Division, the hon. Member for Kilbride.

Question number two: I am not satisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health, re my question on the Burin Peninsula Health Care, the member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

Question number three, I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, re fire fighting services, re airports, and that is the Member for Humber Valley.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Member for Eagle River got up to speak I do not know why he would refuse to tell us who signed the documents that he is referring to. Either someone signed the documents or it is conceivable that what the minister is saying here -

AN HON. MEMBER: You could not see what you were signing with all the smoke.

MR. TOBIN: My belief is that no one signed the documents and that the documents are probably fabricated. That is my belief, Mr. Chairman. If somebody signed them, then tell us who signed them, I say to the Member for Eagle River. If somebody signed the documents tell us who signed them and if they are not signed by anyone then they are not documents.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know, I don't smoke.

MR. TOBIN: I don't smoke them either, I say to the member but I can tell you one thing, if what the member is saying is true and the booze was down in the dining room that he says is down there, I believe it was opened today before lunch for the member. I believe it was opened today for the member.

Now, Mr. Chairman, someone referred to him the other day as Mr. Doomer than the rest. I did not know what they were saying. Dumber than the rest they were saying. No, they said: Mr. Doomer than the rest. It was someone with an accent, Mr. Chairman, and they referred to him as Mr. Doomer than the rest and I thought they were saying: dumber than the rest. Mr. Chairman, what they were trying to say was Dumaresque but they were saying doomer than the rest and I believe I was right. Mr. Chairman, today -

AN HON. MEMBER: Dumber than the rest, carried.

MR. TOBIN: I must say that both the Member for Conception Bay South and the Minister of Finance, look really good together.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A beautiful couple, let's marry them now.

MR. TOBIN: No, they do. I don't know where the Minister of Justice is gone but probably we could get him in. I understand he has some extraordinary powers.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what Mr. Doomer than the rest is saying but one thing we do know, today in this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and in case he doesn't know, Peckford won the leadership of this party in 1979. The person we had organizing for him on the northeast coast of this Province was one, Chris Decker, who lost every district that he organized and ran three times provincially after that before he got elected, I say to the Minister of Health. So you ran as often as you have been elected.

Now today in this House I said to the Premier: I said the other day it was discovered that you were out spending money from other departments, not just the Executive Council. No, he said, no, no, no. And I said: Yes, yes, yes. He said: It all comes from my office. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I said: Premier that is not what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said the other day when he came in through the door like a (inaudible). The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said: Premier... and what he whispered to him and the Premier got up and he said: Well now, when I am invited to do something for another department then it comes out of that department. For example, I went to China and I went to... Where else did he go, Hong Kong was it? Now he said: I charged that off to the ITT Budget. Then he said: I went to Vancouver, Calgary and Montreal and I charged that off to the ITT Budget. Then he said: I went to the Eastern Seaboard and obviously the ITT Department paid for that as well. Now, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, and it is quite clear, that the Premier of this Province no longer has his budget up front in the Premier's office, and I said it the other day and I say it again, that it is costing more today to keep the Premier in food, entertainment and all the rest that goes with it, than it cost when the private dining room was there.

MR. SHELLEY: It is covered up, that's all.

MR. TOBIN: It is covered up in other departments. Two hundred and twelve thousand dollars, almost a quarter of a million dollars, for Purchased Services in the Protocol budget.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: What is included in that? Tell them.

MR. TOBIN: What is included in that? Entertainment at the Premier's home for all his dignitaries, and the ambassadors, and the foreign people.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Is that (inaudible) when you were over there?

MR. TOBIN: No, and you be careful now or I will report you to the SPCA, and the member knows exactly what I am talking about, what he was going to do if he didn't get into Cabinet.

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No it is not, Mr. Chairman. The Member for Trinity North knows what I am talking about, I say to the Member for Eagle River. If the Member for Fogo were here he would know what I am talking about.

MR. DUMARESQUE: You don't believe that, do you, the Member for Fogo?

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, that is not very nice, to refer to another member as `that'.

Mr. Chairman, I would say the Member for Eagle River should be very quiet with the information that I have, of a threat that he issued, and I won't say it unless I am forced to.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who did he issue it against?

MR. TOBIN: Oh, I can't say that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier?

MR. TOBIN: No, but I can tell you it would take the SPCA to deal with it.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Premier's dog? The Premier's cat?

AN HON. MEMBER: Time is up.

MR. TOBIN: No, it's not half up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You be careful.

Mr. Chairman, I can say that the Premier of this Province is probably the most expensive Premier that we have ever had, if we could only get at the real cost, if we could only see how much is covered off. He admitted today trips to Asia, to the Eastern Seaboard, all across the country to Vancouver, were charged off to ITT.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do that.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) do that.

MR. TOBIN: I am not arguing, I say to the minister, that he shouldn't do it. Stop being as sanctimonious about it as you are, I say to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. Be up front. Never mind going under the table like you did with Trans City.

I would say the minister doesn't remember half the places the Premier goes, because he has a lapse of memory occasionally, and I cannot fault the minister if he can't tell me - in the budget - the other day he said it was all included in the Premier's Office, and the Minister of ITT said the difference, but knowing that the minister has had a lapse of memory in the past, I can only conclude that he had it the other day. I would never accuse him of misleading this House. I just wrote it off to another memory lapse.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Then he goes down to the court and tells the judge he lied in the House. He said: I lied to all of them in the House.

It is a good thing we sort of like the hon. minister. If we didn't like you, we would have you gone out of here long ago. If it was the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, for example, he would be gone long ago.

Now, I believe the minister has been misled there. I don't think he should take too much advice from the Member for Conception Bay South. I believe she is advising him on what to say.

MR. EFFORD: What are you saying?

MR. TOBIN: What am I saying? I am saying that I wish there was a Minister of Works, Services and Transportation in this Province who could go into Cabinet and get more than $15 million for the road work, could go into Cabinet like I did and come out with $49 million. If we only had another minister! When I was Minister of Transportation, we got $60 million for provincial roads in this Province, and look what that minister got - $15 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education and Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I remember, for the few short years when we were in Opposition over there, we took advantage of every minute to outline for the people of this Province our vision, what we would do when we became government. The time that we would do it, when we would take advantage of that, would be in a money bill, would be in the Budget Speech or whatever, Mr. Chairman, where we would have the opportunity to have a wide-ranging debate. I remember when we were over there in Opposition, how we talked about our plan to put the economic zones in place. We talked about our plan to have a Strategic Social Plan in place, which we are now working on. We talked about our plans to make reforms to the health care system and to the education system, which we are doing, Mr. Chairman. So nobody will be surprised if I have been expecting that in this Budget Speech the Opposition members would outline their plans if ever they got in power.

So, Mr. Chairman, I listened with open ears when the Opposition Finance critic, the Member for Mount Pearl, outlined his plan for the economy when they get back in power. I was shocked, Mr. Chairman, when I heard their plan. He said, `Just think about the contribution that the Sprung Greenhouse made to Newfoundland. Eighty jobs,' he said, `in Mount Pearl.' Remember that? The sky in Mount Pearl was lit up for miles around and birds were staying awake all night. Remember that? The birds were laying double. Did you hear that one? The robins were laying double and then when the young robins came out, for the first time in the old robin's history, she ended up with six or eight chicks and she couldn't keep the food to them, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: So she fed them cucumbers.

MR. DECKER: So when I sat here and listened to the Opposition put forward their grand design, their plans, did they say they were going to come up with an economic plan for the Province, Mr. Speaker? No. Did they say they were going to invest in aquaculture, Mr. Chairman? Did they say they were going to reform the medical services? No, Mr. Chairman. He said, `We are going to go and look for Dawn Sprung. We are going to build more greenhouses.' They haven't been chastened one bit. They have been over there now in excess of six years and they haven't learned a single thing. All they want to do is talk about what a contribution Sprung made, and if we are going to get in power again we are going to build twenty-five greenhouses. The coastline will be littered with greenhouses and instead of paying off $25 million we will pay off $100 million, $200 million, a billion dollars, Mr. Chairman, and every cow in this Province will develop a taste for greenhouses.

Just as an aside, Mr. Chairman, my friend, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation showed me this cookbook. You know, this cookbook has cost the Province a tremendous amount of money. This cookbook was written to get Newfoundlanders to develop a taste for cucumbers. Most of us grew up in the outports and we didn't know what cucumbers were for god's sake, but this book was published and it got me eating cucumbers. I developed a taste for cucumbers and there are hundreds of thousands of fellow Newfoundlanders who have become addicted to cucumbers. This is what this cookbook did to them, Mr. Chairman. Now, they are having withdrawal symptoms. Think of the strain that this is putting on the health care system of the Province. We only look at the $25 million, we don't look at the hardship that has been put upon people. What does the Opposition Finance Minister talk about the Tory dream for the future, the Tory plan for the future? He talks about building more greenhouses, Mr. Chairman. Now that is one part of their plan if they were ever to become government again.

So I continued to listen as the speakers got up and finally I listened as the Leader of the Opposition got up and outlined his plan for the future. And, you know, when he dealt with it, Mr. Chairman, in discussing with my friend, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The Leader of the Opposition got up and started talking about `when we were in power, what we used to do every year. We would take $4 million or $5 million and we would have make-work programs. What a surprise, Mr. Chairman! Why can't the present Administration put $5 million, $6 million, $7 million, or $8 million into make-work programs? What a novel, unique idea, Mr. Chairman! What a message! They have an opportunity in the Budget Debate to put forward their plans, their visions for the future of this great Province, and then, lo and behold, the Opposition Leader got up and proudly proclaimed, `Look what we used to do.' Make-work programs, lugging rocks from one place to the other, putting up graveyard fences this year, painting them next year, and the year after, knocking them down, and the year after that putting them up again. Where Have All The Flowers Gone? Remember that song? It goes around and around, and around, Mr. Chairman. So, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador here is what the Opposition are saying. First, they are going to build some Sprung greenhouses, and then, they are going to have some make-work programs. What a vision! Is it any wonder we stand as proud Newfoundlanders and Labradorians when we have an Opposition with that kind of a vision?

But, Mr. Chairman, the third plank was laid down today by the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and now he is giving his vision - and I take it he is speaking for the Opposition, their vision. What are they going to do when they get in power? Do you know what they are going to do? They are going to re-open the Premier's dining room. Now, Mr. Chairman, what a vision for the future! One chef would get a job. Think what it would do for the economy.

I remember, after the government changed, we found some of the receipts in the Premier's dining room. Well, by sheer coincidence we just happen to have them here. Don't brush it aside too lightly when the hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West talks about this vision, to bring back the Premier's dining room. This was an order from the Executive Council. April 1, 1989 - do you realize the date? Now, remember - was that after the election?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nineteen days before the election.

MR. DECKER: It was just before the election. Please issue a standing offer for liquor and beer to be picked up, on an as and when required basis, for the private dining room and various committees of Cabinet, Treasury Board - the hon. the Minister of Finance should be listening to this, Treasury Board. We have never had anything in Treasury Board. I believe we had a pizza once, Mr. Chairman - Treasury Board, Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat, for the period of April 1 to March 31, 1990, for $20,000. So I will wait now as their vision continues to unfold and we will see what other great visions they have for this Province, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the minister got up in the House and all he could shout and scream about was Sprung - $22 million, he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is your vision for all over Newfoundland.

MR. TOBIN: No, that is not my vision at all, but I can tell you the vision of the party you supported, which was to give Quebec a deal for $880 million a year, and your Premier and your House Leader were members of Cabinet when it happened, $880 million in one year - for sixty-five years? For sixty-five years, Mr. Chairman, $880 million a year to Quebec Hydro. Now, that is division. No wonder they got the boot. And it didn't stop there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: All I say to the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island is that when you had the courage to sign Beaton Tulk's letter, you should have stood in this House yesterday evening and voted with us. Any man who ran out of here, any man who signed that and didn't vote for it, Mr. Chairman, I'm not even going to talk to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right. Did you sign Beaton Tulk's paper, I ask the member? And did you refuse to vote yesterday evening, and did you stay here like a scalded cat, I ask the minister?

Mr. Chairman, what about the privatization of Hydro, I ask the Minister of Health. The minister wants to talk about visions - a great vision. What about privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? Seven million dollars spent to privatize Hydro. What is the Member for Eagle River saying about that? Does he still support that, I wonder. Seven million to privatize Hydro, and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board goes on the Open Line program and he says the way to go now is to nationalize the power companies in this country. I heard him. Not only did I hear him, we have the transcript, I say to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, we have it! I'm sure the minister - Mr. Chairman, I hope he recalls what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: He got on Open Line and he said the way to go now is to nationalize the power corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Didn't you listen to him? Well, I did. I was driving from Marystown, I say to the minister of - and my tape deck wasn't working very well. I had nothing to do except listen to the minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: It could have been worse - it could have been Lynn Verge.

MR. TOBIN: Could have been what?

AN HON. MEMBER: The collected speeches of Lynn Verge.

MR. TOBIN: I would rather listen to hers than yours.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you will, you will have to.

MR. TOBIN: Probably I will. Mr. Chairman, one thing about me, I'm a good listener.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't let him throw you off there, `Tobin'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, what he said was: Yes, we spent $7 million to privatize Hydro. What has not been told here yet in this House - for some reason, it has been intentionally or otherwise withheld from this House - is how much money went to a legal firm for the attempt to privatize that corporation?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

MR. TOBIN: It is a good question. Would the minister believe it would be close to $1 million?

MR. ROBERTS: I acknowledge (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right. What did it accomplish? From one session of the House to the next they were going to privatize it come hell or high water, wasted $7 million, and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board goes on Open Line and says: Now we have to look at nationalizing the other utility company because of the changes in Paul Martin's tax structure. Mr. Speaker, what does it mean?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman. I thought you were trying to get me to call you a gentleman or something.

MR. ROBERTS: Chairperson. No, I wouldn't expect the hon. member to do that.

MR. TOBIN: I will always refer to you as an hon. gentleman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you rise the Committee now?

MR. ROBERTS: You can rise it and go on, now.

MR. TOBIN: I would. What?

MR. ROBERTS: We have to have the Late Show now.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, we are going to have the Late Show. (Inaudible) see a few Late Shows, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is where I met you first, as a matter of fact.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, $880 million a year for sixty-five years we gave away to Quebec for hydro, when they sold out the deal, $7 million to privatize Hydro last year, almost $40 million to their buddies with Trans City, and they have the gall to come in here and talk about $20 million Sprung. All I say is, shame on the members opposite and, if it is necessary, I will adjourn the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, would you please rise the Committee, report astonishing 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 (L. Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply have considered the matters to them referred, wish to report tremendous progress, and ask leave to sit again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

On motion, report received and adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, I guess we can move on to the adjourned debate and call it 4:30 p.m.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

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

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

Earlier this week, I asked questions of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board dealing with the investigation on the Workers' Compensation Review Division. The questions centred around - the minister, I think, responded at the time that we are investigating and when the information is ready and prepared it will come before this House.

Over the course of the week, I have presented to the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, a number of pieces of information, research, evidence, on the issue of double billing and over billing, and it begins with the day that the Workers' Compensation Review Division became that, July 1, 1994, and heads up to September 8, the appointment of Mr. Gullage as the Chief Review Commissioner, of when he was appointed.

Between July 1 and September 8 there were no double billings for postponements, but then, on September 12 they begin, and it centers around one central question: Who authorized postponements to be billed $500? That is the issue we are after. We want to find out, as an Opposition, who authorized those payments. After all, all of that money comes from the injury fund of this Province that was set up and established for injured workers in this Province.

More importantly, the minister, in some of his responses to me over the course of this week, has indicated that my review would be less than impartial. I say that at least my review and research should be as impartial, or is as impartial, as his.

Now, as the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and Deputy Premier, who launched the investigation - and I believe Mr. Gullage said in Saturday morning's paper, I think he said Saturday morning - that `Winst' must have woke up one Friday morning and said, `I think I am going to call an investigation into this matter'. But there is more than meets the eye on this very important issue.

Now, what are the terms of reference for the investigation, I ask the minister? Who is performing the investigation? What direction have they been given? What are they looking for? What is the scope or magnitude of their investigation? Those are the questions that have not been answered here and that have not come forth.

I want to say to all hon. members that this is an important issue, and at no time did we say, or will we say, that being paid $500 per case is extravagant - it is a legitimate fee - but double billing and triple billing for the same case is unacceptable. It is outside the rules and regulations accompanying the act, Bill 27, which was brought in by the former minister and his government, and that if - and I suspect he will find it - wrongdoing is done, that he report to the House who did it, who authorized the decision to be made, and whoever is responsible for this, that they either be fired or let go. That is the issue, and people are waiting for the response from this government.

Now the last thing I must say is this: What is taking so long? On Saturday afternoon I was in the Arts and Culture Centre library three-and-a-half hours. I dug out fifty-four postponement cases - fifty-four - clearly shown. I passed it to the minister, the same claim number, the same case number, postponed the hearing again, $500 for a postponement, for a paragraph - for writing a paragraph - based upon the request we found it acceptable, postponement granted; five hundred bucks, just like that.

The hearing, it took me three-and-a-half hours to find that out. I have no staff, just myself. The minister has two departments at his disposal. He has a lawyer from the Department of Justice, I understand, and he has the Department of Finance, with all of its employees, with all of its resources, and here we are on Thursday and still no response. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because this government, in my estimation, my suspicion is that they don't want to release the results of their investigation until they leave this House before Easter. We will not hear about it; that is what I say. That is what I think.

It does not take long to conduct an investigation into fifty-nine postponed cases. If the minister would release the lawyer from Justice, and his official from the Department of Treasury Board with me on Saturday afternoon, I would direct them; I would go over and show them where to find the information. I would show them exactly. It is not very difficult. If you know how to use a library you can find it out.

In terms of what has happened, you mean to tell me that the Chief Review Commissioner and the administrator of the Workers' Compensation Review Division have not been in his office yet? Malarkey.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. E. BYRNE: He is stalling the investigation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman raised some concerns in the House, and these concerns are being dealt with properly. The review is being conducted by the Internal Audit Division, with the help of somebody from the Department of Justice.

The review is an extensive review into not only the postponed cases, but any other cases that need to be looked at, and a report will come back in due course, but I think that everybody recognizes, after what happened today and in the last five minutes, that the hon. member opposite does not really want an examination. He is getting increasingly more shrill in his outcry, increasingly more strident, making increasingly more extreme statements and so on. It is quite obvious that all he is after is a soapbox. All he wants to do is to posture in the House and try to make political hay out of a situation that is in the process of being examined.

His very words betray him. First of all, he calls for an investigation and then, without even considering that an investigation should be done, makes the pronouncement that there were all of these double and triple billings - that is what the examination is supposed to find out - and all of a sudden he has everybody convicted and everybody is going to be fired.

Mr. Speaker, obviously we need cooler heads than is being displayed by the member opposite. His attitude and performance is not what I would expect from him. I expect more, quite frankly.

The examination will be done. The results will be released in the House. It will be done properly. It is not going to be done by me. I am a politician; it is not going to be done by me, and I will say it is not going to be done by the hon. member opposite, because he has his motives, as is obvious. It will be properly done. It will be properly handled, and will be properly reported to the House and, as I indicated, if there is, in fact, double or triple billing, then the money will be recovered. If there are breaches of the directives, then that will be handled in the appropriate manner.

Mr. Speaker, I can say no more; it has been dealt with adequately.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak again about the question I brought up on Tuesday, I think. Specifically, it was a case in point of a call I received approximately 10:30 that morning from the neighbour first of the gentleman I'm about to speak about, and also from his wife later. I talked to her.

From what I gather from that - I ran through the case rather quickly when I asked the questions, but I would just like to update it a little bit and then get the minister's response on it. Basically it is a Mr. Henry Matthews from Burlington on the Baie Verte Peninsula. He is a fifty-four-year old logger who has a history of back problems and had an operation some ten years ago. January of this year he had an appointment with a Dr. Chrappa in Corner Brook, a back specialist, who told him then that the only way to correct this problem which was getting increasingly worse was to have surgery. Of course, in order to have the surgery he was told that he would have a myelogram before he could have the surgery. The catch is is that the man was also told at that time that he had to wait until November - this November, November of 1995 - before he had the myelogram. Then he could have the operation later.

Of course, the gentleman goes back home, waiting, getting worse and worse. On April 3 at approximately 12:00 or 12:15 an ambulance was called to Burlington because the pain was unbearable and he wanted to take a trip to the Baie Verte hospital to see if he could get something to comfort him for a little while, anyway. He waited for five to five and a half hours for the ambulance to arrive. The reason they give why the ambulance took so long - and the ambulance usually does handle the calls pretty good on the Baie Verte Peninsula - but in this particular case, the other end of it, which was the Grand Falls hospital, was off-loading two patients at that time waiting to get in beds in Grand Falls.

So here is the Baie Verte Peninsula in the middle of all of this. The Grand Falls hospital is affecting the ambulance return to Baie Verte, and at the same time the gentleman in Burlington can't get into the Corner Brook hospital because they had to wait for eleven months for a myelogram.

In the first aspect of all of this we have to remember that the Baie Verte Peninsula hospital was told when it is downgrading for six acute care beds and one cardiac bed - so seven acute care beds, I guess you could say - was that the Grand Falls hospital and the Corner Brook hospital would handle the caseloads of the Baie Verte Peninsula. In this one particular case this particular gentleman was inconvenienced by both hospitals: in Grand Falls because of the ambulance, and because of the myelogram in the Corner Brook hospital.

I think it was only fair to ask the minister that he look into this particular problem and that some kind of relief would be given to this lady and her husband to let them know that they wouldn't have to go until November with this type of pain and this type of misery on the whole family. Because it has been distraught for the whole family. Also his neighbours even called me to tell me that somebody had to do something for this gentleman. It is not good enough in this day and age that you go to a health centre - it is bad enough that it was a forty-minute drive from Burlington to Baie Verte over a rough road, with a person with a back injury such as this gentleman, to have to go through that. The other part of this equation is that the gentleman also has a problem with his stomach and therefore couldn't take the oral prescriptions that the doctor was reluctant to give him when he sent him back home.

Therefore she wanted to admit the gentleman to inject him with the painkillers. That was the understanding I had from Dr. .....? But of course I don't guess you can do injections and then let the patient go, I guess the patient has to be admitted. That is the understanding I had from that.

From the last couple of days I'm hoping the minister - I don't know what he has done with it, but I'm hoping he has checked into it and I'm hoping he can give some relief to this family so that he doesn't have to wait until November to find a solution to this particular problem. Mr. Speaker, I will let the minister respond to that.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have taken the time to look, through my officials, into the situation that was put forth regarding this individual a couple of days ago in the House. There are two or three things I think that need to be said to put the record as accurately as we can.

Number one, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the availability of ambulances on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It is not factual that there was no ambulance available for an emergency situation when this individual called in. There was an ambulance available. In fact, there are three ambulances in Baie Verte and there is one in La Scie. The third ambulance, with the two ambulances out of the area, is held for emergency situations. In the opinion of the Baie Verte Health Care Clinic there, the doctor who took the call did not deem this particular call to be an emergency and therefore he did not dispatch the ambulance on that basis.

Now as far as the capacity or capability of the hospital in Baie Verte, Mr. Speaker, that hospital or clinic as it is now, does not have, never did, nor it never would have the capability of providing the service that this individual wanted. I am given to understand that the individual also insisted on going to Corner Brook as opposed to Grand Falls to see the doctor that my friend across the House referred to. Again, when he was seen by the specialist in Corner Brook his case was still not deemed to be of an emergency or urgent nature and he was put on a waiting list for a myelogram as the member refers to. There is no difficulty for emergencies to have myelograms completed in a period of one to two weeks if the physician deems the procedure to be of an emergency nature. Now I cannot, as much as the member might want me to, I cannot supersede or impose my judgement or even his judgement over the doctors and if the doctor, any particular doctor, deems the case to be of a certain nature, whether it is an emergency, non-emergency or otherwise, then I guess that is the judgement that we have to rely on.

My information is that had the individual been willing to go to Grand Falls and have the myelogram done, it could have been done within the next week or so but I think he had a preference for being seen in Corner Brook. In Corner Brook, the member is right in that, there is a longer waiting list in Corner Brook for myelograms and that sort of thing, mainly because, I understand, there is a Dr. Lewis there who is so recognized for his orthopaedic surgery skills that many people from across the Province, even, prefer to go to him for attention. The individual that the member referred to, my last information was is that he was back home, and that the health care facility at Baie Verte had arranged for a community health nurse to visit the individual and administer pain control medication, if he so chose, under the direction of a physician. I understand that the individual was of the preference not to have the nurse involved in his case and was wanting to wait and talk to a physician that was off at the time and was scheduled to be back to work yesterday. However, I think the individual was off sick yesterday and he maybe back to work today. I hope that the case in question, and the individual in question, is getting the attention he thinks he deserves, and that, in fact, he is entitled to, if in fact he is still in pain and having difficulty.

My best information, Mr. Speaker, that I can give the member, after having done a thorough investigation of the whole situation, is given the circumstance and given the preference as to where the individual wanted to have his treatment effected, that it was dealt with in an appropriate manner and that the health care system is alive and well on the Baie Verte Peninsula, and I hope that the hon. member will not take umbrage with that statement.

I told him the other day in the House that I went to the Baie Verte Peninsula a couple of months ago and visited that clinic, and I discussed it after I went from the House the other day with my deputy. The impression we got, the distinct information we got, was that the clinic on the Baie Verte Peninsula is serving a useful purpose, an appropriate role, and giving good service to the people in that area, as it should, of course, do. That is basically the situation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the minister has other meetings, or does not think it is important enough, concerning the question I asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation today, but there are two concerns I have. The first concern is, when the federal government came out with privatizing the airports, the idea they had was that first they would give the Province a chance, secondly, they would give the municipalities a chance, and thirdly, they would let it go to local authorities, and the last option would be privatization - outright privatization.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Province cannot run and cannot look after the services that are supposed to be looked after in this Province today. They had to cut because of some downloading from the federal government, and because of the way the economy is. There is no avenue, and there is no opening under the Municipalities Act, for a municipality to take over the airport. Local authorities are very reluctant to touch it, so it leaves the private sector the only other sector that would be willing to take a look at it.

Now there is only one reason the private sector would take a look at it, and that is if there is dollars in it, if there is profit. Well, my question to the federal government on that was answered like this, and that is, we don't want anybody to realize a profit from the privatization of airports in the Province. They would like to give it to someone who would roll back whatever profits were made into the airport system. This is one of the reasons why they don't want to see someone in the private sector really take it. If a local authority took it, if a municipality took it, or if the Province took it, whatever was realized from the proceeds or revenues from that particular airport, it would be put back into it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, wishful thinking on the part of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board that the airport in Deer Lake is going to be... Now, one of the things the airports had to do was bring in line their deficit. All deficits had to be done away with, and a balanced budget obtained in the fifth year. That now has been done by some airports; I know the one in Deer Lake has produced a balanced budget and shown how they were going to get the revenues in the next five years to make the budget at the Deer Lake Airport a balanced budget, and be able to operate the airport without being in a deficit position. But the one that is really going to break the camel's back is the decision by the feds to do away with the emergency response services that are on site at Deer Lake and Stephenville. That is not talking about municipalities, or volunteer fire brigades, or anything like that. It is the on site fire-fighters.

Now in Deer Lake, Mr. Speaker, there are two fire trucks, that will be reduced to one fire-fighter and one fire truck going to look after the whole of the Deer Lake Airport. Now that to me, Mr. Speaker, certainly does not say much for safety in this country and certainly does not say much for the safety factor of the airports in this Province. Something has to be done about it. The reason why I asked the minister today about that was that - the first question I asked him: what representation did the Province make to the feds? I mean this is very, very important to the safety of the travellers in this Province and not only that but to the economies of certain towns in this Province. What representation did the Province make? I remember just a couple of short years ago there were all kinds. If the least thing happened to a transfer payment, the least thing, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I should sit down now and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: If hon. gentlemen opposite demand, I am quite prepared to let their eloquent desk pounding pass for an answer but I would like to make a comment or two in the absence of my friend and colleague the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

First of all I want to say that I think my friend for Humber Valley raises a legitimate issue and makes a very legitimate point. The only difficulty that we have on this side is that the issue is not one with which we can grapple and the point is not one that we can resolve. We are all aware of the Constitution of this country. The basic rules of the country divide governmental activity into two separate and distinct areas and within those areas each Legislature is sovereign. Within the area that the Constitution assigns to the Legislature of a Province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is sovereign. We do not answer to the Parliament of Canada for the laws that we pass in property and civil rights or with respect to matters of education or what have you and in turn the Parliament of Canada is sovereign within the areas that fall within its area of competence.

Although the Constitution Act, when it was written in 1867 by that marvellous person, Lord Thring - for the benefit of the ladies in Hansard who have to try to transcribe this - Lord Thring did not think of aeronautics. The law has evolved to the fact that airports and aeronautical matters fall within the responsibility of the Parliament of Canada and therefore the Government of Canada. So there is nothing we can do about a decision by Ottawa to reduce the services, as they have, at a number of airports in this Province. They have withdrawn them entirely from the airport at Wabush in Western Labrador. They have reduced them, I understand, at Deer Lake and at Stephenville, but I am not sure what they have done at Gander or here at St. John's. There have never been any in St. Anthony. There is a federally operated airport there but there have never been any emergency response services. At Goose Bay we have a little different situation because the airport there is run by the Department of National Defence in connection with the operations of Five Wing at CFB Goose Bay.

I do want to say to my hon. friend that we have made representations. My friend the minister spoke of those today. They have not produced the result we desire and the government at Ottawa, the Ministry of Transport, will have to answer for this. It is my understanding that Mr. Young, the Minister of Transport for Canada, is quite prepared. He says what they are doing is appropriate, and right, and proper.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend differs with him on that.

MR. TOBIN: Do you?

MR. ROBERTS: I have some difficulty understanding it but I would say to my friend for Grand Bank that I long ago learned not to put myself - I am sorry, my friend for Burin - Placentia West - I apologize to my friend for Grand Bank for confusing him with the gentleman for Burin - Placentia West. I did a disservice to both of them by doing that.

Your Honour I long ago learned not to try to substitute my judgement when I do not have all the facts for the judgement of those who ought to possess all the facts. What we have said is that no municipality may try to take up the slack because we believe that would simply be a means of Ottawa trying to get municipalities to take on responsibilities that they should not have to handle, and probably are not able to handle, at least financially. I think my friend for Humber Valley agrees with the position we have taken in that sense.

Now, I suspect the debate is not over. I am struck by the fact that there is wide disagreement on what is safe and what is not safe. What is being done is to reduce the level of services. There should be no doubt about that, and that means a number of men and women are being laid off, and services that have been in place are not there. What I do not know, and what I cannot speak to, because I simply do not know, and I have not heard any definitive discussion of it, is whether the level of safety has been compromised or not. One can do without services without reducing the level of safety, and that I suggest to my hon. friend for Humber Valley really is the issue.

With that said, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to let the matter rest. We should hear more of it in this House and outside, and so we should, because these are important issues.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to my friend for the Strait of Bell Isle that I already agreed to buy him dinner. He does not need to be that enthusiastic at pumping his table, but I note -

MR. TOBIN: I see Joe Ghiz got appointed to the bench.

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. TOBIN: Joe Ghiz (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, Mr. Justice Ghiz, as he now is, of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island. He is in fact the second Liberal premier of P.E.I. to sit on the bench. Alec Campbell has sat for a number of years.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) any hope for Clyde and yourself?

MR. ROBERTS: I would think any Supreme Court in this country that had the Premier as a member would be well served. I think the Premier would make a superb judge.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) I would rather have you (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend for Burin - Placentia West that surely he would agree I don't have the judicial temperament. I say to him, I find it hard to put up with nonsense without taking part in it, as he may have noticed.

Your Honour, before you put the adjournment motion, tomorrow we meet at 9:00 a.m. in accordance with the Standing Orders. We will be carrying on with the Estimates that are dealt with in the Committee on Supply. I'm really not sure where we are - I don't think anybody in the Committee knows where we are - but what we are doing is working towards the seventy-five-hour deadline. We shall get there, as I recollect, about 4:00 Good Friday afternoon, so we will soldier on to that.

With that said, Your Honour, perhaps you would be good enough to put the adjournment motion. Let's call it 5:00 p.m. I predict the motion will probably carry.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday at 9:00 a.m.