The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I welcome to the galleries today sixty Grade XI students from Ascension Collegiate High School, Bay Roberts, accompanied by their teachers, Barbara Pynn and Claude Taylor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have six Grade X students from Long Island Academy, Green Bay, accompanied by their teacher, Joan Brown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have, also, thirty Grade VII students from Mount Pearl Junior High, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Gordon Hicks and parent, Mrs. Bannister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I welcome to the gallery, Mr. Tom Kearsey, Chairman of the Buckmaster Circle Tennis Association, here in St. John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have a copy of this statement. I have already indicated to Members opposite that I was going to do this even though it is not a prepared statement. I want to react, Mr. Speaker, to some comments in the press concerning the publication of the departmental salary details. The stories are very, very misleading and incorrect that appeared last night and as well this morning.

First of all, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are the only Government in Canada that produces these salary details and gives all the details of what has happened to the employees in the public service in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what you see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what you see in these salary details is a reflection of the following realities. First of all, during last year, during the past twelve months, there have been a number of negotiations ongoing, and these salary details will reflect by and large throughout the public service a salary increase of 6 per cent over and above what was included in last years salary details at a net cost to Government, because of the way it was staggered, of 4.5 per cent during the year. So the salaries of all employees are shown in the salary estimates as having gone up at least the 6 per cent. Also included, of course, would be step progressions for some employees who have not reached their maximums. So the annualized cost to Government was about 4.5 per cent.

Also, the details will reflect some reclassification. For instance, during the year the nursing assistants got reclassified, and so the increase, if you look through the salary estimates for nursing assistants, will show increases well above the normal 6 per cent because of reclassification.

Also, Mr. Speaker, at the executive level, because these are picked out individually, I suppose, and they are more easily to see, you also find some of the increases that during the last year amounted to more than 6 per cent on the surface. And in every single case there is a logical reason. And as an example, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Education, two years ago when we took over there were two departments, we put them together. And it took us about a year and a half to adjust the salary accordingly. There were two deputy ministers, now there is only one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: It took us a year and a half to do the reclassification process, and in these salary details then the Deputy Minister of Education would show as having a more than 6 per cent increase because of this reclassification and because of the extra responsibilities. All of the others who were in the normal process will show increases of about 6 per cent and the cost to Government during the year was about 4.5 per cent.

I feel I need to do this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: - Mr. Speaker, because between the salary details in this document compared to the previous one there is no connection in that comparison and a wage freeze that is now underway in the public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, not a bit.

MR. BAKER: There is no connection at all. I know that hon. Members opposite do not let the truth get in the way of what they say. But I hope that at least the press of this Province is not of the same attitude and do deal in the truth unlike Members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that is has taken forty-five or forty-six days for the Government House Leader and the President of Treasury Board to finally table the salary details, forty-five or forty-six days since the Budget was tabled, March 7. And by the way, I want to make the point he was suggesting that somehow the salary estimate details is something brand new brought in by this Administration. I mean that has been done in this Province for years and years and years. And that has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we see here is another example of incompetence, fiscal incompetence on the part of this Government. It is very clear. The question has to be asked are these or are these not the salary estimates details for 1991-92 fiscal year? Are they, or are they not, and what the President of Treasury Board has just tried to lead us to believe is that they are not, they are last years. That is what he is trying to say. What utter nonsense. You talk about confusion, Mr. Speaker. The question is does Edsel Bonnell now get a salary of $95,000 and is that up $7000 or $8000 from last year? That is the question. The Premier says, no. Well, read the salary estimates. It does say it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point. The other thing he mentioned, and I think his quote was something to the effect of: what you see, and then he backed off from completing the statement. What he meant to say, Mr. Speaker, is what you see is not what you get. That is what he meant to say in this particular statement, and it is pretty clear by what he is saying, he is adding to the confusion, he is cheek to cheek with the Minister of Finance who is an expert at confusing the public, and now the President of Treasury Board is simply joining him. Methinks he doth protest too much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, I am pleased to announce that funding in the amount of $590,000 will be provided to revitalize the Buckmaster's Circle public housing project in St. John's.

Buckmaster's Circle was originally developed by the Federal housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but in the mid-sixties administration was turned over to the Province. The project consists of 210 townhouses fro low-income families. Over the past number of years the project has been subject to vandalism and other social problems.

The funds will be used to convert three units for a community centre to address the social and recreational needs of area residents, to upgrade thirty vacant units in the Kings Court area of the project, and to carry out a major on-site road realignment which will allow for better traffic flow within the project.

As well, funding has been allocated for other exterior repairs as needed.

The Community Centre will provide the Tenant Association with a place to introduce support programs as well as social and recreational activities for tenants. The Centre will also serve as a base for the St. John's Boys and Girls Club to offer its many worthwhile programs and services.

Funding for this major refurbishment of Buckmaster's Circle will be cost shared on a 75/25 per cent basis by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and NLHC.

The physical changes combined with the efforts of NLHC's regional staff, the Tenant Association and the St. John's Boys and Girls Club, will go a long way toward improving the quality of life for the residents in the area. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that through these efforts we will be able to make Buckmaster's Circle a safer and more attractive place to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I guess the fact that it is old news, the fact that it was announced by the media yesterday, probably gives an explanation as to why the Minister just had the copy delivered to me before making the announcement.

I want to, on behalf of this side of the House, say how pleased we are that this work is going to be carried out. I think it is a very positive announcement and it is one that we would like to hear more of.

I also want to, obviously, pay tribute and commend the people from the Buckmaster's Circle Tenant Association which has made a significant contribution no doubt to convincing the powers that be of the necessity of this work. And they are certainly to be commended for their efforts in having this work done. But when the Minister gets up, he announces a $590,000 project, and he would almost make you believe that this Government was paying $590,000. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Crosbie, the Federal MP for the district, was able to get $470,000 and this Government is putting in $120,000. So the fact of the matter is clear. That it is not this Government paying $590,000, it is Mr. Crosbie's Government which is putting up $470,000 and I think the Minister should do a better service if he pointed that out from the beginning.

But in any case, it is a very positive announcement. It is something that I hope the Minister will continue to do for the tenants for Newfoundland and Labrador Housing throughout this Province, as there are other areas I am sure that would appreciate this type of support from both NLHC and CMHC.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the Minister of Finance on some of the projections that he has in his Budget. If you look closely at the Budget you will find that 77 per cent of the growth in the current account revenue will come from provincial revenue sources this year; in past years, provincial revenue sources have accounted for 50 per cent or less of the growth in current account revenue. Would the Minister like to explain to us, how he projected this year that he is going to get such a high percentage of revenue growth from Provincial sources?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. We are faced with a number of federal cutbacks and that explains a fair amount of what he is saying.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will be charitable this morning; it is early in the morning, maybe the Minister did not understand the question; I was talking about revenues, not expenditures; what has cutbacks to do with increased revenues, Mr. Speaker, what a stupid answer. Would the Minister like to explain how he expects provincial tax and general revenues to increase by $126 million in 1991, a growth rate of over 8 per cent, when last year's revenues increased by only $74 million, a growth rate of 5 per cent or less, in the face of all layoffs and cutbacks in the public service, how can he be so optimistic for this year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the Member Opposite is wearing his chicken little hat again, where he is trying to down-grade the economy of this Province. The economy of this Province this year will be better than any other province in Canada except the province of Alberta and nothing he can do will change that fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister told us that last year and he went from a $10 million surplus to a $117 million deficit -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: - so he need not think that we are going to believe him this year. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not confess, that, in fact what he is doing is, taking $40 million of this projected increase in provincial revenues, one third of the total increase in revenues for this year from the sinking fund, and that he is in fact, borrowing from savings which are set aside to pay off the debt of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. We invest our money in the sinking fund and it raises interest and that helps us as well. But the increase in revenues is to a large extent due to increased taxes and also to increased earnings on the part of the people of Newfoundland and increased expenditures.

AN HON. MEMBER: Revenues from expenditures.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we saw yesterday where people have less income and yet they are going to spend more so the Minister is going to get higher retail sales tax. Would the Minister like to concede that taking one-third of the revenues from the sinking fund to pay day to day operations, from savings set aside to pay the debt is hardly evidence of a healthy economy or for good fiscal measures?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is dragging in all sorts of strange points here. Yesterday he was referring to a page in our document which says that real income might be down this year. And he could not understand how we could get increased revenue from personal income tax when real income was down. But actually the personal income tax is levied on nominal income-

AN HON. MEMBER: Inflation.

DR. KITCHEN: - not after inflation, nor after taxes are taken out. So the type of figures that are thrown across the floor by the hon. Member, and I cannot understand why, being a former Minister, he would be so foolish as to be throwing these strange figures across the floor when they have no substance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slide rule (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: When they are delivered in such an authoritarian manner you would think there was something to it. But the experience that we have had with the hon. Member's questions is that they are nonsense and they have to be treated accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: They were nonsense last year too, were they not?

MR. WINDSOR: We just cannot explain the deceit (inaudible).

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: My question is to the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. For the past number of years the municipalities in this Province have received electrical power subsidies from the Provincial Government for the operation of major recreational complexes like stadiums, swimming pools, and so on. Will the Minister confirm that the cutback program has significantly reduced this program? And the subsidy paid has been reduced by as much as one-third?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Budget does reflect a reduction in this subsidy to municipalities for the electrical subsidy program.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this was not a freeze, this was a cutback. Will the Minister explain then why he did not inform councils of this decision prior to April 10, almost four years into this fiscal year for municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four months.

MR. WINSOR: Four months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: How does he expect municipalities to find this $5,000 that many of them have to find in light of the new grant structure they got? The increased debt charges? How do municipalities find that $5,000? And why was the Minister so late informing municipalities of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not have a crystal ball. It is very difficult for me to predict what is going to come out of the Budget process. So I could not inform them in advance.

As far as the grants program is concerned, we have the finest municipal grants program in Canada, bar none, so I am told. So we are working with the municipalities constantly monitoring their budgets and those who are affected, which will be very few, very few will be affected by this particular subsidy, we will work with them as we do throughout the year and help them and assist them where possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister knows that the Budget was delivered on March 7 and municipalities were not informed until April 10. The Budget was done sometime in February so the Minister knew. My question again is to the Minister. How does he expect municipalities to find $5000 now, at this late stage of the year, having done their budgets three or four months ago? They were already approved by the Minister based on the fact that the electrical power subsidy was the same this year as it was last year since there were only freezes and not cutbacks.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of budgets have been submitted to me, balanced. There are still a couple outstanding but the vast majority have been submitted and are balanced. I have heard no complaints. The hon. Member happens to be the only one complaining and if this were a real concern you would think I would be hearing from the municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a final supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: How could they complain, Mr. Speaker, when they did not get this letter? It was dated in St. John's on April 10. In addition to that the Minister has never yet tabled the list of communities, or recreation commissions, who received funding under the miniscule capital works programmes he has for recreation. In fact the Minister has not even tabled his list for 1990-91. Will the Minister see if he can find some time over the next days to provide the list for both 1991 and 1991-92 of his Capital Works Program?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the list of capital works last year, both water and sewer, roads, recreation, and so on has been available for 1989-90, 1990-91 for some time. I do not know what the Member is referring to. There is nothing secretive about it. All the MHAs in the House of Assembly, including the municipalities, know the capital works that have been put in place for the past two years.

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

MR. TOBIN: I have a question for the same Minister. I understand he will be speaking in St. John's this weekend to the seventh annual meeting of the tenants who are renting from NLHC throughout the Province. When the Minister is speaking to these people will he be announcing that there will be a significant increase in the amount of rent to be charged to those tenants this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Is the Minister aware that NLHC had a major meeting in Gander this past week, as a matter of fact, and will he not confirm that one of the topics of discussion was indeed a very significant increase in the amount of rent to be charged various tenants throughout this Province? And, will he not table the working documents, or the briefing notes that the officials had at that meeting?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, every year, of course, NLHC reviews its rents and rent adjustments are made. As to whether or not these adjustments will become in place is something I will be discussing with the officials, and I will make a release as soon as I do that.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows, and a lot of other people know full well, that there will be a significant increase, or that there has been a proposal for a significant increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister, in the name of fairness and balance, will he assure the people renting from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that the increase in the amount of rent this year will not exceed the amount of increase in wages this Government gave the public servants?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member is talking, of course, about units that are in the market sector and not in the social side of our mandate with the Housing Corporation, and these market units are not meant to be kept artificially low and unfairly low in competing with the private sector. We want to make sure that they are charged reasonable rents. The rents will be kept reasonable, Mr. Speaker, but adjustments have to be made from time to time to reflect the cost of operating and maintaining these units. You cannot forever freeze rents in market units because you do have adjustments from time to time because of the cost of refurbishing, repairing and so on. These adjustments have to be made, and they will be made, Mr. Speaker, in fairness when we finalize the details.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on a final supplementary then, based on what the Minister has just said. Will he assure the people who are renting from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that any increase will have to be first approved by the Tenants' Board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who is responsible for the Public Service Commission. I wonder could the Minister give the House an update on the investigation being conducted by the Public Service Commission into the allegations of interference with the Public Service competition by officials of the Minister's office?

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

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member is aware the matter is under investigation, and I certainly will not be giving any information until such time as the information is complete, and the Chairman of the Commission will then make his report to me.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Social Services told the House that that report would be made public and tabled in the House. Can the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation confirm that that will be the case?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Stand up, stand up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No answers? We will go to questions.

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, when the investigation is complete the Chairman of the Public Service Commission will be reporting to me and then I will decide what is going to happen to the report then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplementary is to the Premier. In view of the fact that the Minister of Social Services promised the House that it would be received, this full report, and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is not willing to confirm that, can the Premier tell the House that the House will be informed of the results of this investigation as to whether or not there has been any interference by the Minister's office in the competition, and that the report will be tabled in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that full information will be made public. The whole public of this Province will be able to judge the validity or otherwise of the allegations that have been made. And if -

AN HON. MEMBER: By the Member.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, the allegations, I believe, made by the hon. Member so that the public of the Province will be able to judge the actions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Social Services. Last Wednesday I asked the Minister a question about the children on the streets of St. John's. And I asked him about the plight of those young people who are between the ages of sixteen and nineteen who find themselves, through no fault of their own, that they cannot live at home. The Minister said that the Department was providing at that time lots of services for them, and I quote him: in different houses in St. John's.

Now, Mr. Speaker, does he think that boarding homes which are meant to accommodate adults are appropriate places for these young people?

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

MR. EFFORD: I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question. Do I think that boarding homes which are meant to accommodate adults are good for people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen? Boarding homes that are meant to accommodate adults, we do not use them for those children. We provide board and lodging with proper therapeutic foster homes, foster homes which want to care for these children, if they can be called children. Between sixteen and eighteen it is a job to determine because there is nothing in the Child Welfare Act to take care of them. But we do not put them in boarding homes for senior citizens or adults.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has a number of homes -the Minister must be aware, so I will ask, is he aware that the Department has homes which they identify for people when they are needed, such as these young people. And that in some of those homes there are other people who at times - who have other boarders, or other people who have been directed there - who themselves may use alcohol or drugs. And that many of these young people as a result of this do not feel -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this has been brought out in the public media. But the young people do not feel at home in some of those situations in which the Department has placed them and for that reason they do not go there. And does the Minister think that - and believe, does he really believe? - that the system that he has for these young people between sixteen and eighteen are appropriate places? Does he really believe that?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. Member, first of all, he does not have a great deal of knowledge on what he is talking about. Somebody else must have written that question for you.

First of all, the only homes we have in St. John's, if you call them homes, I would not call them homes, are places like Kirby House and Patrick House. We do not use personal care homes or senior citizens homes. Those individuals are between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years of age, and there is nothing under the Child Welfare Act to cover them, we cannot force them to go into any situation. The hon. Member knows that we are presently drafting a complete new Child Welfare Act to deal with that. And the hon. Member, being from the former administration, knows full well that they did nothing for those people. There is very little adolescent service for these people in the Province. There is very little mental health service, but let me assure the hon. Member and all people that we are very concerned.

We are presently meeting with a group in St. John's, a group of volunteers, by the way, who are looking at providing the capital funding for an adolescent centre for troubled teenagers. That is one positive thing that is happening, and we are talking very positively with that group. We are also working with young people who find themselves in trouble. We find board and lodging. We will pay the board and lodging for these individuals. We cannot force them under the law, the RCMP, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, nobody can force those individuals. But as far as having people live with other people who are taking drugs, absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting for the hon. Member to even suggest that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: The Minister must be aware, Mr. Speaker, that there are inadequate housing for those people, that there are a lack of social workers on the street to help those people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain why his department will pay for a boarding house or board and lodging for these young people, but will not pay for accommodations in Patrick House? And will the Minister reconsider his position and introduce - and we made the offer here last Wednesday - and introduce amendments to legislation, and we again, as we did before, will promise to co-operate to bring this through the House as quickly as possible.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will answer that last part of his question first. No. The Child Welfare Act is a very, very important piece of legislation that needs to be up dated and have a complete overhaul. I am not going to rush, on the Oppositions whim, to bring that into the House.

Again, since the hon. Member asked the question the other day, I went back, because I have a great deal of concern about the Child Welfare Act, I went back and I spoke to the Director of Child Welfare and I asked would it be possible to bring in an amendment to deal with this vacuum age of these individuals, and he said the same thing that I said in the House of Assembly last week, that we are waiting for input from all of the concerned groups around the Province, that proper legislation will be done and that we cannot rush an important piece of legislation such as this.

To the next part of the question, will we provide funding for young people to stay in places such as the Kirby House and Patrick House? Yes, when it is necessary. We do not refuse anybody. If there are no family Members or no private board and lodging with a proper foster home, we will provide that. Only in the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We have so done it.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the young people of this Province are a great concern to this department, the Department of Social Services, and to this Government. Unlike the former administration, we are looking at a number of ways to provide adequate services, but we have to deal with the legislation first. We cannot force those individuals into any situation that they do not choose to go into. We have no authority, and we cannot take the law on our backs and do whatever we wish to do with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. During the past couple of years, the federal and provincial government constructed two large, modern fish plants in Nain and in Makkovik. I understand there is a five year lease with the Department of Fisheries and Torngat Fisheries with the Makkovik fish plant -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is some other questions or conversation going on making it difficult for the Chair to follow the question.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he has finalized any plans with the operation of the new fish plant in Nain with any particular operators for this coming summer?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the operation of the Nain fish plant is still a matter of negotiations with the LIDC and the last briefing I received on that issue indicates that they were still looking at it; they have some reluctance to operate it this year but, they were going to get back to our officials within a couple of weeks and let us know.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains, on a supplementary.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplementary - I understand that last year's operation at the Nain fish plant, roughly cost the Provincial Government between $300,000 and $400,000. If the Provincial Government will be leasing this to the LIDC, would they be expecting or would the Government be considering subsidizing the operation of this particular fish plant?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that is something I am not prepared to say now, but certainly I suppose, it is a matter that will be part of the ongoing negotiations with the LIDC.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. We are all aware of the plight of the St. Lawrence fluorspar mine, a couple of deadlines have come and gone without any significant proposal being received for the operation of the fluorspar mine, and I am wondering if the Minister of Mines and Energy could advise the House and consequently the people of St. Lawrence, what the status of the St. Lawrence fluorspar mine would be right now, and if there is any possibility of a new operator for that mine?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time there is no progress to report on finding a new operator. We are still looking, the receiver I guess, is still looking, but we have no progress to report at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am having numerous enquiries from workers, laid-off workers of St. Lawrence Fluorspar, in a few short weeks their UI benefits will be expiring and so on, and some of them are seriously considering looking for work in mining operations in other parts of Canada, and I am wondering if the Minister - they need a signal from the Minister and from the Government because up to now, they have been led to believe that there was some possibilities of one or two interested parties who may be going to put forward a proposal to operate St. Lawrence Fluorspar. What message can the Minister give those people today, I mean, is St. Lawrence Fluorspar finished, is that what the Minister is telling the people?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, no. I am not saying that St. Lawrence Fluorspar is finished, but there certainly does not seem to be much interest in the mining community to come in there right now and take it over and start operating it again very quickly, so in the short term, this year, I do not see any possibility at all that there would be a re-opening at this time.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. My question would go to the Minister of Environment and Lands, but seeing that he is absent, I would like to ask the acting Minister of Environment and Lands.

Is the Minister aware that last fall, St. John's City Council advised other towns on the Avalon Peninsula that it would not allow them to continue to dispose septic waste at Robin Hood Bay after the end of June; the city clearly has legitimate concerns about the future operations of Robin Hood Bay, equally, the many residents of the Avalon, who use septic tanks are concerned about the disposal of the waste from septic tanks.

I was made aware yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that twenty-two of those towns have already been contacted; it is a serious problem out there and I wonder what decision has the Department made or, what is the position of the Department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the matter is under active consideration between the Department, The City Council and I know the other communities that are concerned. I cannot tell the House at this moment what will be the end result of it and I do not even know that the Minister, if he were here, could give the House, what will be the final result at this stage, but I can say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, I have no doubt will be back on Monday and we will take this as notice and the Minister will give the House an updating at that time.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, then, I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, has the Minister identified an alternate site and a plan for the disposal of the septic waste?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment and Lands and myself met with the mayors of the councils in this region last week, with our officials. We had a good meeting. We discussed several environment issues, as well as the problem with Robin Hood Bay in particular. As the Premier has said, the Minister is currently studying the problem. We have identified there are several sites on the Avalon used now by the municipalities. Unfortunately those sites have been deemed unusable and consequently Robin Hood Bay has been overused and it has created the problem.

So we are looking at it. The Minister of Environment I am sure shortly will be reporting to the House. I think in the meantime the deadline that the City Council has imposed upon us will be reconsidered by the St. John's Municipal Council, if we cannot come up with a solution in the short term. But I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that within the next week or so the Minister of the Environment will be reporting on the matter to the House.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, from what we can read in the media the St. John's City Council is not going to renege on that deadline. And, Mr. Speaker, because the deadline is the last of June, and because of the seriousness of the situation, when does the Minister expect to have a new site? Or will he force the City Council to continue to allow the use of Robin Hood Bay until that site is rendered unusable for landfill generally creating yet another problem for the citizens of the Northeast Avalon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is premature to be talking about forcing councils at this stage to do anything. I mean St. John's City Council is very concerned about Robin Hood Bay, not just with the matter of septic waste disposal, but also with the fact that dump has a very short life. I understand it is about five to ten years maximum, ten would be stretching it. And we do have the problem of identifying another dump site in the Northeast Avalon. That problem has been with us for some time. I know the Minister is looking at it. We are consulting with the municipalities in trying to solve the problem. It is premature to say whether or not we will be seeking an extension to the deadline for Robin Hood Bay for septic waste or not at this point. I can only say and repeat what I said, the Minister is examining the problem and I am sure that within the next few weeks we will arrive at a solution.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

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

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an answer to a question that appeared on the Order Paper of April 4 concerning my travel for the previous year.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 279 citizens of this Province which petitioners say as follows: as a voter, taxpayer and supporter of a right to a quality health care system I strongly oppose the suggested cutbacks to the health care budget which will force health care facilities to reduce services to the citizens of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I join with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour in calling on the Provincial Government to consider quality health care as a right of all citizens, and as such to be exempt from fiscal restraints that will see a reduction in services.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by these residents, many from Gander, Glovertown, Appleton, Mount Pearl, Catalina, Harbour Grace, various places in the province, including Upper Island Cove, Southern Shore, Bell Island and Colliers.

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Placentia? Any names from Placentia?

MR. HARRIS: I think there may well be some names from Placentia. I think there are some names from Placentia. We have heard a lot of complaints from Placentia. There is a number of signatures here from Colinet and Salmonier area which is served by the Placentia Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, many Newfoundlanders, and indeed in fact other Canadians, are concerned about what is happening to health care in this country and in this Province in particular. And they are concerned that this Government does not have the care that it ought to have about health care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if - I can not hear myself, I do not know if the hon. Members want to listen, but the Member for Placentia is making so much noise that I cannot hear myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is rather concerned about the noise level that has been here since Question Period, actually. And the Chair has not been probably getting up as much as I should, because I want to leave it to hon. Members to establish the kind of noise level that they want in the House. And I do not know if they find it as difficult to speak as I do to hear. And I am saying that in all sincerity because I do not know with the new House whether hon. Members do find it difficult to speak, but I know that I increasingly find it difficult to hear as hon. Members get talking. I shall ask hon. Members to take that into consideration. And the onus is on an hon. Member when he is speaking, if he finds it difficult to speak, to certainly ask the Chair to intercede.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling.

I know that some of the Members opposite may not want to listen but I would like for at least the people in the gallery to be able to hear statements that are being made in this House. When petitioners are petitioning the Government and showing their concern for health care in this Province at least people sitting in the House watching the process of the House ought to be able to hear what is going on. Now, Mr. Speaker, I raise this petition because the petitioners are very concerned about this Government's attitude towards health care. I know the Premier is listening now and he has expressed some concern about what is happening with the federal support of health care, but in his response to the Evening Telegram on March 5, 1991 in talking about the health care system it seems like he might have given up on it. He says in commenting on the health care system, the federal approach may well spell the end of Medicare in its present form. I have no doubt that some kind of programme will be continued but doubt very much if it will be exactly as we have it today because it simply cannot be paid for. Here is a direct quote from Mr. Wells. 'It may well be that we will have to abandon the program altogether.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier has said about the Medicare system, and the health care system of this Province, and I do not know if there can be a more depressing statement coming from a Premier of this Province who has the responsibility to show leadership in this issue, and ought to be at the forefront of a challenge to the federal approach to health care generally, and who ought to be looking to other provinces, looking to other leaders across this country to bring about some renewed fight for the Medicare and health care system, and not, Mr. Speaker, say as the Premier of this Province that we have to throw up our hands and perhaps even abandon the whole program. It is not a response that Newfoundlanders expect from their Government when we have had in place in this country a health care system that has been well respected around the world. The Federal Government in Ottawa, through Mr. Mulroney and his policies, with the consent of many provinces have started to deteriorate this health care system and are forcing provinces like Newfoundland to try and find the money to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I had another petition but I think the hon. Member was going to speak in support of the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has no idea.

MR. HODDER: I will yield to the hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, standing to support the petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the petition presented by my colleague, which, as he stated, was circulated and supported by people throughout the Province of Newfoundland. It states, and I repeat, `As a voter, taxpayer, and supporter of the right to a quality health care system I strongly oppose the suggested cutbacks to the health care budget which forces health care facilities to reduce services to the citizens of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are calling on the Provincial Government to consider quality health care.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about quality health care in this Province for some time and I think there is even more evidence of the total disregard that this Government has displayed for the sick, suffering, and the poor of this Province. When one looks at the departmental detailed salaries and the increases that have been granted to the senior management people, and indeed the political staff of the Premier's office, it makes one wonder how serious this Government is about fiscal responsibility. Are they really serious, Mr. Speaker, or are they just sort of attempting to gang up on the sick and the suffering of this Province? Because, one look at the salary details in this department, Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder why the people from Placentia, for example, have been forced to take days off work to come in here and demonstrate to this Government the need to have an improved health care system in this Province. Why the Member for Placentia, Mr. Speaker, was forced to stand, as was the Member for LaPoile and other places and basically condemn the Government for the action that they have taken towards really paying no attention, indeed destroying the health care facilities that we had in Placentia and in Port aux Basques, and my colleague, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker had to stand in this House and present petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it took forty-five days for this Government to table the report and it would never have been tabled had it not been for the Opposition House Leader who suggested that the Committees would never be struck. It would still be covered up, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - except that the Government House Leader knew that the Committees would not get off the ground because it was a debatable motion, unless they provided us with this information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right.

MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East is a very important petition, and deserves to be dealt with in a proper manner. Mr. Speaker, the proper manner is that the speakers confine themselves to the signatories and to the statement and the prayer of the petition, and it is a very important statement I would suggest. And if the Member for Burin -Placentia West cannot find enough important to say about the health care system that he has got to go off into tangents, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he sit down and let somebody else respond.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all there is no point of order, and I am sure Your Honour knows it, as does the Government House Leader. Secondly, my colleague is saying that if the Government had done this, then they would have been able to carry on with improving the health care system of this Province. So the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, should take a second Nicroette and stop interrupting the speakers on this side of the House.

MR. SIMMS: A double dosage.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. Members by now ought to know the rules for presenting petitions, and I ask hon. Members to abide by these rules.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Now we talk about Government and they have no money. Now there is an extra $100,000, for example, almost the same as the salary for Edsel Bonnell to provide, Mr. Speaker, emergency care for Placentia for a certain period at this time. $100,000 that they did not have in the Budget, but when people came in and forced this Government they came up with $100,000 for emergency care, not for twenty-four hours, Mr. Speaker, so what is going to happen if an emergency occurs outside of that? They will have to scrape, Mr. Speaker. People will have to come in here to get the same amount of money for emergency care as the Premier had for his Chief of Staff.

MR. SIMMS: The crowd from Grand Bank came in, in twenty-four hours they had (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the crowd from Grand Bank came in and the Premier said I would if I could, but I cannot. When they asked him for money. Within twenty-four hours they had money. So what kind of a message is being sent to the people of this Province. Is the Government really being fiscally responsible in their cutting of health care beds, of their laying off of nurses, and nursing assistants and other support staff in this Province? Are they really being serious, Mr. Speaker. I do not think they are because a hospital bed in Placentia or in Port aux Basques or anywhere else is just as important as a hospital bed in any other part of his Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the sincere concerns raised by the Member for St. John's East. The political blatherings of the Member for Burin - Placentia West I will deal with another time, when I demonstrate that the actual cost of running the Premier's Office has decreased year after year, after year for the last three years in a row.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Indeed you will. So I will deal with those political blatherings later, Mr. Speaker. Let me deal with the question raised by the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the health care system that I was speaking about to The Evening Telegram, as the hon. Member quite correctly quoted was the health care system in its present form. That is what I said I would expect will not survive if the Federal Government maintains its position. The health care system in its present form. I repeat my opinion, that the health care system in its present form will not survive if the Federal Government continues its progress towards elimination of their contribution of their share which will occur about 2003 as far as Newfoundland is concerned. If that happens I express my opinion again that the health care system in its present form will not survive. Now all I am saying to the people of this Province is I am being honest with the people. I am not prepared to stand in this House for the sake of trying to court political favour with the voters and say I promise you that I will fight Ottawa and I will rant and rave as the former Government did and say that you cannot do this and I will go up to Ottawa with a sword and a white charger and put on all kinds of political shows. I am just being honest with people. And let me remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that while I have no particular support for the present Government in Ottawa I have an understanding for the financial position that they find themselves in and this House not overlook the fact that a major portion of our Budget is contributed by way of transfers directly from the Federal Government. They are now in a position where they have a persistent deficit of about $30 billion plus a year and they are piling up uncontrollable debt. The debt has doubled since 1984 when the present Government in Ottawa took over, and we now have to spend 35 per cent of the total federal revenue simply to pay the interest on the debt.

Now, Mr. Speaker, quite apart from our concern as individual Canadian citizens about that terrible state of national finances, if the Member for St. John's East wants the answer and has asked for an answer, he should, at least, give me the courtesy of listening. If the Government is to deal with this terrible financial state, Mr. Speaker, and we are concerned as Canadians, they have to come to grips with this problem. But let's just look at it from a purely selfish Newfoundland interest point of view. Just think of it from only our selfish point of view if the Federal Government gets into financial trouble and cannot make transfers to this Province, where are we going to be then. If you want to see cuts in health care and education, just look at what will happen if that occurs. So from a purely selfish point of view, Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House should recognize the national financial situation and bear in mind that steps have to be taken to deal with it in a responsible way. Mr. Speaker, that means that we have to take a look at our services that we provide the public and ensure that we provide good quality health care and education care, and we ensure that we provide it to the people who genuinely need it, and provide it in the most efficient and effective way possible, and try to put in as many improvements or increase the efficiency as much as we can and deal with it within our financial ability to do so.

Mr. Speaker, when I made those statements, and I repeat and re-affirm them now, I made them being honest to the people of this Province in saying this is the financial problem that the nation is in. They are cutting back on these payments, and I say to you honestly voters of this Province, if that continues we will not be able to maintain the health care system in its present state. We want to maintain a first quality health care system for this Province, but we will not lie to and deceive the people of this Province with political platitudes to try and attract their votes without honestly facing up to the realities of the whole nation as well as the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we just heard a speech from Michael Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is on behalf of eighteen residents of the community of Piccadilly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia on a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I have recognized the hon. Member on a point of order.

MR. HOGAN: I just wanted to rise on the last petition that was presented in the House. I got up at the same time the hon. Member did, Mr. Speaker, and Your Honour chose to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HOGAN: A point of order on the petition, Mr. Speaker. The last petition that was presented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The reason why I did not recognize the hon. Member was number one, the hon. Member said nothing to indicate whether he was getting up to speak on a point of order. I knew he could not speak to the petition because the petition was spoken to by two Members on this side, and the Premier was responding, so that is why I did not recognize the hon. Member.

Now I am not certain whether it is appropriate for the hon. Member to stand up once a petition has started and to speak to another petition. If the hon. Member could agree that he would not take the time from the Member for Port au Port, then I am prepared to take the point of order. It would be entirely up to the Member for Port au Port to allow that to happen.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member wishes to make a point of order and it does not take away from my time, he can go ahead.

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

MR. HOGAN: I apologise to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I did say 'point of order' and probably could not be heard over the din. The petition that was raised by the hon. Member for St. John's East: in his address and preamble he referred to the Placentia district and that indeed the petition bore signatures from Colinet and Salmonier. Having examined the petition, there are no signatures from Colinet or Salmonier that I can find, and in fact, I believe the hon. Member misled the House and the people who are listening to him.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously no point of order here. The Member is trying to take the House on his back. The fact of the matter is that as Your Honour told the hon. Gentleman, a person in this House presents a petition and the rules allow one other speaker from either side; now the hon. Gentleman could have gotten up, or told his leader to sit down and he could have gotten up and spoken on the petition if he wanted.

That has all to do with the point of order, all to do with the point of order, because the hon. Gentleman does not like something that another Member said in this House, does not make a point of order; it might be a point of disagreement, it might be a difference of opinion between Members, but it is not a point of order, so, sit down and stop wasting the time of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Opposition Leader is having a fit of apoplexy or something, there is something wrong with him this morning. The Member simply pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that there are two things you speak to when you respond to a petition.

You speak to the number of names and so on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) petition on a public order?

MR. BAKER: - are you going to listen or are you not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: There are two things you can respond to in a petition or you can talk about in a petition. One is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I ask hon. Members, please to refrain from the kinds of activities that they are into now, it is only lowering the decorum of the House and this House has to be a place of dignity, a place of respect for each other. The kinds of things that have been going on the last couple of days are not enhancing the dignity of this House. If hon. Members want that to happen, of course they will let it happen, the Chair can only ask that hon. Members co-operate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you. The Opposition Leader, just made a vicious personal attack on a Member of the House and it was not proper.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things in speaking to a petition that you can do; you can talk about the names and number of names on the petition and so on, that is one and the other is the prayer of the petition.

Now, I am absolutely certain that if the Member for St. John's East mentioned that there were names from a community and in fact there are no names from the community, he would have a look and see and simply say, well, I am sorry, I made a mistake and I said the wrong community.

If, in fact there are names from that community, then I am sure he was perfectly within his rights, but, the Member is perfectly within his rights, Mr. Speaker, to get up, on a point of order and point out to Your Honour, that he believes that some of the individuals or the names the Member claims to be on the petition, were in fact not there, and this is a sensible point of order and I do not understand the ranting and raving from Members of the official Opposition about this. I think it is a very simple thing to be straightened out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, a final submission.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, it is quite amazing that the Member for Placentia, who did not seem to be interested in listening to the speech that I made in the House, and did not want to listen to the petition, who wanted to yell and bawl across the House at another Member, now reads the petition and cannot find someone from Salmonier. I do not believe, but I will have to check Hansard to see if I said there was a signature from Salmonier. I believe I said there was a signature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: When he stands on his feet he says nothing but when he sits down he bawls away.

I believe I said, in response to a question from one of the Members on this side of the House, was there anyone from the Placentia area? I looked at the petition and I said, I see a name from Colinet in the area of Salmonier. I believe I said the area of Salmonier which uses the hospital. Now, if I did say that there was someone from the community of Salmonier, if I did say that, then it was not because I saw Salmonier written on the petition, but there may well be because I have not read all the signatures. The hon. Member seems to have. He did not listen to what I was saying but he may have read all the signatures, and if he is correct, and if there is no name from Salmonier, and if I said that, well, I take it back but I do not think I said that. Mr. Speaker, I think I said in the area of Salmonier which is served by the Placentia hospital which this Government has taken the guts out of.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member has satisfied the Chair.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to present this petition from a portion of the community of Piccadilly, signed by eighteen residents of the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will not take this time from the Member. There is some indication that maybe I did rule on the point of order. I said I think that the Member for St. John's East in speaking to it cleared it up, if indeed there was a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am having a little trouble trying to get this petition presented.

The eighteen residents of the town of Piccadilly have petitioned, I guess, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the prayer of the petition is: we the people of Piccadilly whose names appear on this petition are very concerned about the Department of Highways and what they can do for us in dealing with a problem that has been with us for some time. This is a flooding problem which has been causing havoc with our lives. Basements are flooding so bad that we cannot use our furnaces because they fill up with water, bathrooms cannot be used until the water goes down because it is backing up into the sewerage system, and high rubber boots have to be used to get to the main highway. Three years ago the Department of Highways were approached to assist in this matter but nothing has been done to date. We are fed up with the situation because homes cannot be completed until the problem is solved. The Department of Highways can help by ditching the drain that runs parallel to houses deeper and putting a culvert across the main highway to allow excess water to run off from the mountain on the back of our homes. We would appreciate it if you would give this matter your immediate attention and honour us with a reply.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a section of the community of Piccadilly. The community of Piccadilly runs some two and a half miles but this is a section of houses with which the Minister's Department is -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on a point of order.

MR. GILBERT: May I see a copy of the petition? I did not hear the prayer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member is inquiring as to whether or not it meets the requirement of a petition. As I said in the past hon. Members have to take that responsibility. They know the requirements for a petition and when the hon. Member is standing in the House, if it does not meet the requirement, should point that out from the beginning and ask leave of the House to present it.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the petition came to me, and the Minister will see. It says, we the people of Piccadilly whose names appear on this petition, etc., etc., etc., so, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is in order or not. All I know is what I read and therefore all Members will see the eighteen signatures and the nineteenth is my own, the Minister wants to pick holes in a petition from people who honestly have problems and are using this route to make their wants known. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying this is a section of Piccadilly which is well known to the local Members of the Minister's Department, the local office. These people have sent a similar petition to the Minister's office, the local office which is headquartered in Stephenville, and it is a problem which has been plaguing them for some time. Now, Mr. Speaker, if a group of people wish to petition me or petition this House of Assembly, I think that they have a right to do so. These are eighteen people who have been troubled for some time because I think, very succinctly, their problem has been outlined in the petition. And I would ask the Minister to merely inquire into this matter and to use his influence if he can, if he wishes - I hope he does - to ensure that the problem which seems to be caused as the residents have alleged by the lack of a culvert and the lack of a ditch.

Now it is not a big thing but it is a big thing in the lives of these eighteen people. I am surprised that the Minister would even be worried about the form of the petition. Because as far as I know this petition seems to be pretty straightforward to me. It does not have a heading or anything, it just has the petition and the names.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: It was sent to me. But that is not the point. The point is, what I would ask the Minister to do is to see that officials of his Department check into this, have his engineers look into it. He can have the petition as soon as I table it. And hopefully, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister's good will towards these people, good offices, that these people will get the type of service that they are asking for.

So merely I say again, have your engineers look at it. See if there is anything that you can do to make sure that the ditching is proper there and the culvert is placed in the place where it should be.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition presented by my colleague for Port au Port. And what (Inaudible) said, the prayer of that petition... I can understand why the Minister of Transportation wanted the prayer of that petition read in this - or wanted to see it. Because what is says is that he has forced the people in that area into the long rubber boots. That is what is happening. In order to get to their car now they have to put on a pair of long rubbers. That is what is going on in this Province today. That is what this Government is doing.

But Edsel Bonnell with his $95,000 does not have to get in to long rubber boots to get in to his car, nor does Judie Foote with her $77,000 need long rubbers to get into her car. But why are they forcing the people in the Port au Port district to have to put on long rubber boots to get in to their cars? That is the question that has to be asked and that is the question that has to be answered. How can this Government justify paying a political hack in the Premier's office $95,000 plus a year, and at the same time deny the people the right to a culvert? It would turn your stomach what is going on in this Province today.

Men and women up in Port au Port having to put on long rubbers to get out of their house. Their furnaces were flooded, their sewer was backing up. For the sake of a culvert. Send Edsel Bonnell with his $95,000 and let him buy one. We will get Judy Foote with her $77,000 plus to write up a press release that you are going over to do it. And then we may see some results in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I tell you, I am finding out what the cover-up that the President of the Treasury Board held, the cover-up of the President of Treasury Board, for forty-five days would not release this document. There is a half a million dollars worth of assistants who sit in this gallery every day. And the poor old Minister of Health cannot get to keep the beds open. There is a half a million dollars worth of executive assistants every day sitting in the galleries, gawking down upon the House, looking at their Ministers. And the Minister of Health cannot keep beds open in Old Perlican or Port aux Basques, and other places in this Province.

And the chief of staff in the Premier's office, in the time of restraint, getting boosted up to $95,226, Mr. Speaker, and then that Government says fairness and balance. Indeed it is fairness and balance, Mr. Speaker, you roll with the richest and you roll with the poor, but there is no in between, when they would deny a culvert to a person and increase the salary of political staff by that much money. Now it is all becoming clear, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the House is not closed before that was brought in, and it would have been except for the Opposition House Leader who told your Minister and you do not understand that there is no way the Committees would be struck until he brought this in. Every other Budget in this province, this was tabled the day that the Budget was tabled. And today, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing forty-five days after the Budget why, because you did not want to have Edsel Bonnell's salary made public. No, Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Province will hear the salary of the political staff in the Premier's Office. They are freezing the wages of people making $15,000, they are increasing the rent, but you did not mind increasing the wages of the rich and the political staff. How much money are the press secretaries receiving? How much money are the PR people receiving? And how many culverts can be bought, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: And how many PR people are there?

MR. TOBIN: And how many PR people? That is the question. The Premier was going to abolish the PR people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, he was going to abolish the PR people like he was going to give us a vote on Meech Lake. That is what he was going to do. And they are going around this Province, Mr. Speaker, with posters saying 'Clyde lied'. No wonder, Mr. Speaker. He never told the people of the Province that his Chief of Staff would be making almost $100,000 and hospital beds would be closed.

MR. SIMMS: And Winse hides.

MR. TOBIN: He never told them that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: And Winse hides. And the Government House Leader hides.

MR. TOBIN: Well I do not know anything about the Government House Leader hiding, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GILBERT: There is no leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rose on a point of order, because when I heard the gentleman read the petition it sounded like a letter he was reading. It would seem to me a point that could very easily have been handled by a call to my office. He admitted himself that it was a rather minor matter. And it was one that could have been handled that way. So I just raised on that point of order. I can assure him that the people of his District are entitled to raise their concerns if they have a flooding problem. But the thing that surprised me now, I know they mentioned in there that they have had it for three years, so they must of had it one year while the previous Government were in power. So I wonder why they did not fix it? You know, maybe it was seventeen years, but I mean it is one of the things that was outside of the sphere this time. So I have never heard of it. It has not been a burning or a salient issue in the Department of Works, Services, and Transportation. But I am sure to the people who have the flooding problem, it is a concern, and I assure those good people that I will ask my officials to have a look at it, and if there is a problem we will certainly be sure to fix it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, it is moved and seconded that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the imposition of a tax on gasoline, and that I do not leave the Chair. All those in favour of the motion please say 'Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, 'Nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on Bill 15 and it was in response to a speech given by the Minister of Finance in debate on Bill 15. People in the House are well aware of what Bill 15 is all about, Bill 15 is an Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act. This is a Bill proposed by the Minister of Finance who has all the resources in the world at his fingertips, yet continues to put forward bills, notions, or ideas, for Budgets that are completely out to lunch. They are way off base, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday I was a little irate when I spoke because of the things that have occurred, not just yesterday, but that probably just came to a head yesterday. We hear discussion occurring quite often in the House and we hear the acrimonious remarks back and forth from one side to the other. I have heard the Premier speak several times about the lack of decorum in the House. I have heard other speakers speaking in the House, people who have run in several elections and have been seated in this House for ten to fifteen years, and they talk about how the decorum has deteriorated to a large degree. Mr. Chairman, my involvement in Government, if you will, prior to the election in 1989 when I got elected was in the level of municipal government. There, when a person has a problem, or a community has a problem, it is presented to the council and the council in itself attempts to solve the problem. One of the things I have often heard said about what occurs at this level of Government is that there is very little discussion that really occurs with regard to solving the problem. The discussion becomes confrontationist, it becomes adversarial, and it becomes political. Now, we are politicians but I think there are times when we have to forget being politicians and look at doing things because it is the right thing to do. I know that may amaze some people but I think the time has come when we should be doing things like that, because if we continue behaving the way we have, and we have seen some of it here this morning, and the way it occurred here yesterday, this hypocrisy that continues to come up in the House, when somebody can propose this Bill and in the Bill what it does is suggest that they are going to fix a tax rate on gasoline, they are going to move from an ad valorem tax to a fixed rate of tax on a litre of gasoline. That is one part of the Bill. Now, several of my colleagues have spoken on that part of the Bill, but the other part of the Bill that I have spoken about most frequently, and I have spoken several times on this but I still cannot seem to sink into the people on the other side, and that is the part where this Government recognizes, they do recognize that there is a problem with the difference in provincial gas tax rates in border communities. It was recognized by previous administrations and it is recognized by this administration. Now, Mr. Chairman, what it does recognize is one border situation, and that is in southern Labrador. They say that the problem is partially solved down there so in this Bill, Part 3, I believe it is, amends the Act to change the rate of taxation in that border area but it does not, Mr. Speaker, the folly of it all, this Bill being presented by the Minister of Finance does not recognize another border area of the Province. It merely recognized one area, the southern Labrador border area of the Province. It does not recognize western Labrador. Some people have said: why did the previous administration not do it? Well, it was done in 1978, the original bill. In 1978 of course, while we were still on the border of the Province of Quebec, the people in Labrador City and Wabush could not drive to the Province of Quebec. So that was not there then. But now it is occurring and we are seeing in the Province between -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Oh no, that was while the Province of Quebec was in the process of building Mount Right and during construction stages of Fermont. But now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: To Fermont? In that period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no need to change anything (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, it could have been changed then too. I am not saying that everything that this group over here did was absolutely perfect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Totally perfect.

MR. A. SNOW: No it was not. They also made mistakes. But the hypocrisy that I am talking about is that they can stand up and say: we recognize that border in southern Labrador but we do not recognize the one in western Labrador. We do not recognize that there is 7.5 cents difference in a liter of gasoline in Fermont, and Labrador City and Wabush. Now the hon. Member representing Eagle River suggested that down in Eagle River the problem has been solved in the sense that the private sector has solved it. In other words, the suppliers of the gasoline - there is only one supplier down in that district - and they have suggested that the supplier - I guess he does not want to see two consumers of his gasoline - so what he has done is said that look, he has somehow made the rates different in the sale of gasoline so that they can compensate for the taxes. The supplier has solved the problem. But in western Labrador we have several suppliers of gasoline. And of course they do not have a monopoly.

And I think it is only fair that the Government should recognize that my amendment to this bill would allow this imperfection, this taxation that is unfair, this would level the playing field between the sellers of gasoline in Wabush and Labrador City with the people in Fermont. Now, I think that they can live with it. It is not a big thing in the sense of it is going to change the complete mode of the - or going to remove millions of dollars from the coffers of this Province. But what it is going to do is make the economy in western Labrador a little better. And it will probably even provide more revenue to the Province in the long run.

Because of what it will do, it will convince Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who live in Labrador City and Wabush to stay home, buy their gasoline from the businesses there in that community, and of course rather than going to Fermont. Because when they go to Fermont they can be also purchasing other goods.

And I know the hon. Member for Eagle River attempts to make light of this. And he thinks it is a big joke that the people in western Labrador have to pay 7.5 cents more for a liter of gasoline in the Newfoundland portion than they do in Quebec. He thinks that is funny. He thinks he can just laugh it off. Well, the residents of western Labrador do not think it is funny. The operators of these gasoline service stations, they do not think it is funny, because they are losing revenue, and now the hon. Member for Eagle River is suggesting that the operators of the businesses in western Labrador are ripping off the people of western Labrador. That is not true. It is the Provincial Government that is ripping them off.

Mr. Chairman, all I am asking is that this Government recognize that there are two border situations in the Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, a very few brief comments to make on this if I may. That is, that listening to my colleague for Menihek one can only sense the sincerity and commitment that he has to the people of Labrador. And if there is a difference about being sincere and committed to the people of Labrador and their issues, if there is ever a partisan -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about my colleague for Menihek. I think he stood up and demonstrated a very sincere and genuine concern for the people of Labrador. And I think that every Member on both sides of this House should listen to what he has been saying. Because there is only one Labrador. There are not different parts of Labrador per se, where Government can do one thing and not do another thing. I have heard the Member for Eagle River for example speak in this debate and speak in this House about Labrador. But the only difference between the Member for Eagle River and the Member for Menihek: the Member for Menihek is speaking because he is genuinely concerned about the problems of the people, and the Member for Eagle River shows nothing but some sort of a callous attitude towards the people of Labrador.

He has not the sincerity that has been demonstrated - and I have never - I have been in this House now for ten years. And I have seen this Member today, and over the past few days, demonstrate sincerity for the cause of Labrador that the Member for Eagle River should be proud of and should stand and support. He speaks up for Labrador. He does not betray the people of Labrador. And I hope that when we vote on this later today, in a few minutes, or Monday or Tuesday, that the Members opposite - particularly the Member for Eagle River - will stand in his place and let the people of Labrador know that he is a true Labradorian. That he is prepared to support resolutions and amendments to resolutions that are in the best interest of Labrador. And not become a partisan gofer for the Premier and the Cabinet Ministers.

Now that is what he has to demonstrate. And I am saying that I hope that you will show the people of Labrador - and I think you will - that you are as sincere about the concerns of Labradorians as the Member for Menihek. That you will support the amendment. Because it is all Labrador the Member for Menihek is concerned about. He is concerned about your district and other districts in Labrador. So he should not expect anything less from you as a Labradorian Member, to show the people of Labrador how important this amendment actually is.

If they take courage - if his leader and those people are not prepared to do it - but nobody in this Legislature should ever betray the people who sent them here. Whether it is me in Burin - Placentia West. And I can tell you that it is difficult, and I experienced it back in 1982 or 1983, whenever it was, when the Government was going to close the Burin plant. I made my decision, I stood in my place, and supported the people who sent me in the House. And I would ask the Member for Eagle River to do no less on behalf of the people of Labrador. And I ask all Members to do the same.

Because there is no one who can justify a tax increase, can burden the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with tax increases, when at the same time they take almost $100,000 for the chief of staff in the Premier's office. Now how can the Member for Labrador not support the amendment? When he knows there is $100,000 of hard working money, paid by taxes of the people of his district, going to pay $100,000 for the chief of staff in the Premier's office?

MR. DOYLE: That is shocking.

MR. TOBIN: I think that that is the worst case that I have ever seen.

MR. DOYLE: Worst case of wastage. Because he is not worth $40,000.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Bonnell, I do not know the man personally, he may be worth a lot more. He may be worth a lot more, he could be worth $900,000 from what I know, I do not know. But I do know one thing that there is no chief of staff in Premier Wells' office, or anybody in the other premiers' offices, who is worth $100,000 a year in this Province. This Province cannot afford it. And whether it be a Liberal government or a Tory government or an NDP government this Province cannot afford to pay $100,000 a year plus expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if the Member for LaPoile would take down his hand instead of mumbling under his breath, and tell us how he can justify hospital beds closing in Port aux Basques, and at the same time pay $100,000 to the chief of staff in the Premier's office.

And I want to make it clear that I know nothing about Mr. Bonnell. He could be the most competent person in this Province. He could certainly be, I do not know. But this Province cannot afford - that is my argument - at this time cannot afford a chief of staff at $100,000. That is a lot of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, well, $95,226. Now I am being modest when I say $100,000, and the Minister of Finance knows what I am saying.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Plus expenses.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a lot of that too.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does he get a car allowance?

MR. TOBIN: I do not know if he gets a car allowance or not, Mr. Chairman, I do not know.. All I am saying is that there is no position, no political appointment in this Province, worth $100,000 a year. There is neither one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) four staff (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Not true, not so.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, that is not the truth. All I am saying is - and I want the Member - because the Member is so used to being down in the dirt he does not know the difference. I am not talking about personalities in this thing. As I said before - he was not here - Mr. Bonnell may be the most capable and competent person in this Province. He may be. And probably he is worth a lot more money, probably he is worth $250,000.

But what I am saying is that in this time of economic restraint, when hospital beds are closing, when nurses are being laid off, when school teachers are not getting the salary increases, when civil servants are not getting a salary increase, is that no position regardless of the political stripe of the government that the Province can afford to pay $100,000. That is what I am saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Can you imagine when the people of the Province find out when they go to a hospital that they cannot get a hospital bed, but are put in a bed in a corridor to wait for two or three days? Or they go the washroom, and when they come back from the washroom, there is somebody else in their bed? That has happened and it has happened in my district. But how are they going to feel when they know the chief of staff in the Premier's office got an $8,000 increase? That is what the chief of staff got over last year!

How is somebody in this Province today making $15,000 and $16,000 who had their salaries frozen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it must be when they took the Chevy Blazer on you then. Who has the salary frozen. How are they going to justify this? There is a lot of things (Inaudible) save money. And we save money by forcing the issue in the House. My colleague for Grand Bank, I believe it was, asked about the Blazer that the Premier did not know anything about. But all I am saying is that Premier Wells could have the most competent people around him but I do not think that the chief - if we were in a good situation financially, I have no argument. If the Province could afford it. If the sick and the suffering and the poor were being looked after, I have no argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: My time is up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Sounds more like an hour to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, again I want to speak on Bill 15, a Bill that is not just terribly unfair to the residents of western Labrador, some people who I have discussed this Bill with on the other side of the House have said the people in western Labrador can afford to pay more money because they are making lots of money. They are making big money in western Labrador. They can afford to pay more money. They do not need a break. That is what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, because what that means is that they are not really understanding what my amendment is proposing. What my amendment proposes in this Bill, Mr. Chairman, is to allow the Minister to adjust the tax in western Labrador the same as he adjusted the tax in southern Labrador. That is all it does, to make it more equitable for the businesses to compete with each other, to give them a level playing field. That is all I am saying. I am saying merely follow the neighbouring community, be it provincial Quebec. That is what they have done. They have in Quebec three rates.

Now the Minister of Finance attempted to suggest that there was one tax, 10 cents he was talking about plus the rolled in GST because they have a harmonized tax in the Province of Quebec. Now he attempted to suggest that in some papers. I talked to him and he showed me some documents that were done up by his department, and it was 10 cents plus the 8 per cent GST provincial in the Province of Quebec would make this - there is no way it is fair in the border situations. I suggested to him that it was not correct and to check these figures again. He said, well go back and check yours, and I did. Mine were correct.

Now I suppose I had an advantage in one sense because I live next to the border so I have an understanding of them. I can understand what is occurring because I live in it. But what really bothers me is that even the following day after I told him to check he comes back with the same misinformation. There is no thought given to this, Mr. Chairman, and it is like a lot of the things that is occurring on that side of the House. While they are saying that we have a plan for health care or a plan for education, we have a plan for economic development, all we are seeing is reactionary moves. That is all we are seeing. You do not have enough money for the education system, so we will have to lay off some teachers. We do not have enough money to give an adequate or a good quality health care system, what do we do? We shut down a hospital. You do not have a plan. They are all just knee jerk reactionary moves. That is all they are, and that really, really bothers me, and this is more evidence to that point of fact because you recognized that there was going to be a difference in one border community, but you would not recognized it in another, and he did not even know about it until I brought it up to him. With all the resources that he has at his finger tips, and he did not know that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the other side of the House to support this amendment because it is fair, because it recognizes what the Province of Quebec is doing in attempting to get business from this Province and from the Province of Ontario because they have, as I suggested, three tax rates in the Province of Quebec because they recognize the extreme climatic conditions in the north remote areas, they have one there because they had a consideration for people - people, Mr. Chairman. They also had a consideration for the business community competing against business communities in the Province of Ontario and Newfoundland, and they fluctuated the tax in those areas, whereas the central Quebec has the prime rate of ten. The other two rates, Mr. Chairman, are 5.5 cents, and 7.7 cents. The 5.5 is northern Quebec and the Gaspé, and Abitibi, and Rouyn-Noranda.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I suggested, it bothers me that some people are missing the point that all I am attempting to do - Yes, one of the people of western Labrador may be perceived as getting a benefit in the sense that it is going to be a lower tax rate of 4 cents. I would suggest 4 to 5 cents lower in the purchase of gasoline per litre. But, Mr. Speaker, the real thing that bothers me is the lack of recognition of the larger problem. Now the Minister of Finance suggested that this is all going to be fixed when he comes in with his tax reform bill within six or eight months, I think he suggested, or next year. If I read it correctly, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen is he is talking about harmonizing the taxes. I would think that he maybe even suggested, and I hope it is not true, that we could have a provincial sales tax going on gasoline. We could be seeing another 10 to 12 per cent increase, not just in my area, of course, but throughout the Province. That would make it even more unfair.

But, Mr. Chairman, when I hear people on the other side of the House suggesting to me that they did not realize that this was happening, that it was a different rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I do not know what we can do about it now, and I do not know if we can support your amendment because if I support your amendment it is a money bill, it is embarrassing to the Government, and all that type of thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, it is cheap.

They are suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that it could be embarrassing to them to support an amendment from this side of the House, not that it is wrong, just that it is embarrassing. Now to me that is another thing that bothers me about what happens in this House, Mr. Chairman, we do not attempt to solve the problem, we just have to be political.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Exploits suggested that I kowtowed to Meech Lake. I did not kowtow to Meech Lake or anything else.

MR. GRIMES: What did you do?

MR. A. SNOW: I had an understanding, Mr. Chairman, of Meech Lake. Albeit I am not a constitutional lawyer. I had an appreciation probably for the benefits that accrued in this great country, and albeit I lived next to the border community, I have realized the benefits of having lived close with the Franco community, closer to them, competed with them, and socialized with them over the number of years, the twenty-six or twenty-seven years in Labrador. And I recognize to the bitter alienated feelings of the separatists that I spoke with in Quebec, and the bitterness that they had shown me over the last five or six years of being part of this country and how they felt they are being discriminated against. Now that is why I voted for Meech Lake. I felt it was unfair that they should not be permitted to be part of this Canadian family, constitutionally. That is the only reason why I supported it. I did not support it because somebody told me I had to like the hon. Member for Exploits that was his reasoning.

But, Mr. Chairman, to get back to this bill. Now when I talked earlier about - I am disappointed in what occurs here quite often. Mr. Chairman, I talked to a gentleman who had sat in the gallery, and he was an older man, and he had witnessed one of the night sittings of the House, and it was one of the evenings I suppose when some people probably on both sides of the House had an extended lunch or dinner or whatever you want to call it, supper I suppose in Newfoundland terms, and we came back and some of the people were a little more excitable,-

AN HON. MEMBER: For no reason whatsoever.

MR. A. SNOW: - and the debate got rather hot and heavy. And, of course, some things were said that probably should not have been said in this forum, it probably does not sound too bad in a tavern or at 4:00 o'clock in the morning -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

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

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I have to rise in this House to correct some of the misstatements that the hon. Member for Menihek is making and to assure the people of Labrador West that this Government by no means discriminates against the people of Labrador West or anybody on this side feels that just because they happen to have a higher per capita income that they should be paying more for everything. That is not the feeling on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that the Member would go to such lengths to try to make a point.

And I just want to relate to the House record again, Mr. Chairman, as of April 18, the price of gas in Labrador City - Wabush, the price of gas in Forteau, the price of gas on the Island of Newfoundland, and this is what the people of Labrador City - Wabush can get their regular unleaded gasoline for, 65.0 cents a litre. That is what they get their gas for in Labrador City, Wabush. In Forteau the best we can get is 68.5 cents a litre, and the best we can get in some places on the Island is 68.5 cents a litre. Mr. Speaker, exactly what is the Member trying to say and where exactly is the Member coming from? What he is saying is that the prices that are being charged in Labrador West are completely unreasonable. That is the impression he is trying to give everybody, that they are completely unreasonable. That they are up there paying premium prices, more than anybody else in this Province for gasoline, and it is because they make more money. He is saying that is the way it should be. He is trying to show this Government the feeling they have towards the people of Labrador West. It is just totally false and it must be corrected. Mr. Chairman, the notice that I would like to give the Member is that in the revelations he is trying to make to this House there is something like a six or seven cent difference in the price of gasoline in Fermont and the price of gasoline in Lab City - Wabush. That is what he is saying. That may very well be true, Mr. Chairman, but it is not due to the tax system that is being imposed upon the people by the Government of Newfoundland as opposed to the Government of Quebec. Let us be honest and let us be fair. What is being charged is a differential of 3.52 cents in taxation higher in Newfoundland than it is in Quebec. We accept that is the fact, 3.52 cents a litre is what the Government of Newfoundland is getting extra than the province of Quebec, and if you take a fifty kilometre round trip to Fermont on fifty litres of gas I guess you would be saving $1.50 by going up there and back. Mr. Chairman, you would be spending more on the gas to go up and back than you would be actually saving. That is entirely correct, that is factual, that is the record. If somebody in Quebec wants to reduce their profit margin and say we are going to give it to you for much less well that is an option they have when they adjust their profit margins. But let us not be misleading, the difference between the taxation is 3.52 cents per litre, Mr. Chairman. That is the accurate figure and they should not be allowed to be misrepresented in this House, and therefore the people of Lab City get the feeling they are being unjustifiably treated. They are not, Mr. Chairman. The prices they can get for the regular unleaded gasoline which we get down on the Labrador Straits they are getting three and a half cents cheaper so it is not a bad deal, it is not a cruel and unusual punishment, and it is certainly not a prevailing philosophy over here, Mr. Chairman, that those who make a bit more should pay all the higher charges. That is entirely incorrect, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to rise and state for the record the facts as they are and to dispel any of the kind of innuendo he is casting on this side of the House. They are obviously his own feelings and his own agenda. Let us not be so sanctimonious, what he says about he cannot stand seeing politics played in this House. The only politics that are being played on this particular issue is by the Member for Menihek, and it is time that he squared up to that fact. It is time you were honest with the people of Labrador West and the people of Labrador, and not come in with a different agenda, and not come in here to try again to drag a red herring through this political system, and try to resurrect some kind of a straw man for the sake of your own political agenda. Let us be square with the people and be honest with the people, Mr. Chairman.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I am being fair and honest with the people of Menihek and the people in this House. The difference between the price of gasoline in Labrador City - Wabush and Fermont is seven and a half cents. Now the hon. Minister of Finance, the same fellow who is over there shaking his head today, the same fellow who, when he brought down his Budget, I believe it was last year or the year before suggested that loss of revenues - he opposed the northern tax benefits in Labrador, last year, now is shaking his head, today, about that is not true, who, yesterday uttered: why should the people of western Labrador, not pay the same rate as his people in St. John's Centre, I think.

Now, he said that yesterday, now he is shaking his head. Are you saying that they should? Now, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying, again the hon. Member for Eagle River cannot completely fathom what my amendment is suggesting.

I am suggesting that the Minister of Finance, be given the authorization to amend the taxpayers in western Labrador and southern Labrador, so that they could make a level playing field between both. That is all I am saying, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. Member for Eagle River suggests that the differences are not as great, but, Mr. Chairman, the facts are, that the seven and a half cents in Labrador City for unleaded, is 66.5 cents per litre and in Fermont it is 61.8 per litre; Superin Quebec is 65.2 and in Labrador City, 72.5. Those are the figures, Mr. Chairman.

Now, I am not suggesting that it is totally because of the taxes; I have never suggested it is totally because of the taxes, but what I am saying is that we can influence, make that playing field more level by lowering our taxes, that is what I am suggesting; I am suggesting, I am not bringing in the arguments about provincial prices as the Minister of Finance suggested. He is suggesting that the people in western Labrador has to pay the same for a litre of gasoline as the person in St. John's Centre; I do not even want to talk about St. John's Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now the truth is coming; you want a uniformed price for everything -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: You see, he says that, now, why should they not, well why should they not in Red Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they have a competition problem and you have not.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I do not know where the Minister learns his Geography, he does not understand the geography of western Labrador. Do you know how far it is from - Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Chairman, I usually buy mine in - In the last couple of months, I buy most of my gas -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, does article 3, clause 3, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, does he realize what Clause 3 does?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance does not even know what is in his bill. He suggests that a person in western Labrador is not going to drive 40 kilometres, I believe he mentioned, but yet, the Clause where he exempted southern Labrador, excludes an area that is 100 kilometres away; now, how do you justify that? The only difference is that one is Liberal and the other is Tory, that is the only difference -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is your mentality.

MR. A. SNOW: That is fact, Mr. Chairman, that is a fact. Why is it then, you will exempt southern Labrador and not western Labrador, can the Minister tell me that? He suggests that western Labrador should pay the same as St. John's Centre, yet southern Labrador is exempt, and because he says they are going to settle it by one and a half cents and that is the difference down there.

Well it is seven and a half cents in western Labrador and a shorter distance, it is seven and a half cents. Mr. Chairman, I do not know where the Minster is getting his information -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you live in Labrador (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: - and Super gasoline at seven and a half cents difference. Now, Mr. Chairman, he suggests that it is okay to level it down in southern Labrador but in western Labrador we have to pay the same as St. John's Centre, now, can you imagine, that is fairness and balance. Why is it fairness and balance, how far is Red Bay from L'Anse-au-Clair, do you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No. My amendment puts Red Bay in and my amendment also puts Wabush in and Labrador City in, but you want to leave Labrador City out and Wabush out and that is unfair.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is fair.

MR. A. SNOW: It is not fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same as everybody else in the Province.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, why is Red Bay different? Why is Red Bay different?

DR. KITCHEN: Propose we cut it out.

MR. A. SNOW: No, I propose something different. I said the reason why it is in there is right, and it is fair, and the reason should be now you should treat Labrador City and Wabush the same as you would treat them, treat them equal because they are equal in geography. And that is what you are trying to do. You are trying to make that level playing field, and that is all I want to see done here, Mr. Chairman. But no the arrogant bungling Minister of Finance -

MR. EFFORD: Ah, boy that is awful language.

MR. A. SNOW: - says no, we have to be treated like St. John's Centre. I do not know why we have to be treated like St. John's Centre when it comes to the collecting of revenues, but in the delivery of services we do not get treated like St. John's Centre, I can guarantee you that. St. John's Centre did not get their hospital slashed the way we did. St. John's Centre did not lose the right to a Motor Vehicle Registration Office like we did. St. John's Centre did not lose a Labrador Air Passenger Subsidy Program like we did.

DR. KITCHEN: What is the difference in the unemployment rate?

MR. A. SNOW: The difference in the unemployment rate between where?

DR. KITCHEN: St. John's Centre and Labrador West.

MR. A. SNOW: I do not know, but I would think that -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a difference.

MR. A. SNOW: So now the reasoning is becoming true. It has absolutely nothing to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I feel fortunate and so does 99.9 per cent of who are living in Labrador City feel fortunate and proud that they have lived and worked in Labrador City and they have earned a lot of wealth and turned in a lot of wealth to this Province. But what really galls them, Mr. Chairman, is when they have this arrogant Minister, this arrogant bungling Minister who suggests that because they have full employment they have to be paying more taxes than elsewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well why do you not treat them the same as the other Labradorians who are in a border community?

DR. KITCHEN: I treat them like the rest of the Province.

MR. A. SNOW: But why are they left out and not being treated like the people in Red Bay? You argue that it is too far to drive in Western Labrador which is forty clicks, and yet in southern Labrador, you include an area that is one hundred clicks. It does not make sense. Again your mathematics is completely unfounded. It does not hold water. Your argument is false.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the people on the other side are not going over and picking him up by the scruff of the neck and shaking him, getting some sense into him like they used to do with the kids in the back of the room.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, probably like that. That is probably what they should be doing to him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy understands the problem. He should explain it to them. One doctor to another doctor. He would understand it maybe then. That is what we need to do. They have to consult with each other. The Minister of Mines and Energy understands that this is an important issue in western Labrador, and he understands what I am trying to do. But I think deep down he probably agrees with it. But he cannot get it through to the Minister of Finance. I hope they would get together in a little huddle out behind, and they could then maybe work it out.

Mr. Chairman, it really, really disappoints me when we see the arrogance of the Minister of Finance coming through in not supporting this amendment. Because all this amendment, and I say again, all this amendment does is permit the Minister of Finance to treat the people of western Labrador in a similar fashion as he treats them in southern Labrador, the both border areas of this Province. It is fair. This Government often says all you people ever do is criticize. You never offer solutions. Well I have offered you a solution -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: (Inaudible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. After my two colleagues from Menihek and Eagle River spoke for a while on this particular Bill, I thought that I would have a few words to say also. I was listening to the Minister of Finance saying he believes in balance. Maybe the Minister of Finance can also explain why, as my colleague from Eagle River said, the gas in Forteau is 68 cents a litre, the gas in Nain is 87 cents a litre, so is that fairness and balance, I say to the hon. Minister?

I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, just now to hear my colleague from Eagle River getting up and saying do not be too political, you know, stand up for your district and all these kinds of things. I was hoping that the Member would have read a particular letter that was sent to him a while ago. It really shows that he does not speak out for his district very well. During the last number of days, Mr. Chairman, we have been debating this particular gasoline Bill, and I would say to the Minister of Finance, if he wants to have fairness and balance, why doesn't he with the Minister of Mines and Energy come in with a uniform, a fuel price throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what you would call then fairness and balance.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, I understood that he visited the Straits area not too long ago. I understood the Minister of Finance was down in that area, but surely goodness the Minister of Finance went from the airstrip in Blanc Sablon to L'Anse-au-Clair. That is about as far as the Minister travelled, and went all the way to Red Bay. The Minister realizes that is over 50 miles, and here in Labrador City - Wabush we are only talking about roughly 15 to 20 miles.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe that what the Minister is doing here is playing politics. The Minister is playing politics and he realizes that he is doing that too. All of a sudden, Mr. Chairman, and maybe it is a wise move if he would carry it out throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, what he is doing now is asking the rich to pay more because, like the Minister said, the unemployment rate in Labrador West is very low and everybody is employed, therefore you pay more.

Now, on the southern coast of Labrador where unemployment is high, they are given a different rate, but in northern coast of Labrador where the unemployment is even higher, they are paying more again, and at the same time they are financially less fortunate than anywhere else in Labrador. So I would say to the Minister, if he is going to do a uniform rate, surely goodness the consumers in Nain should not have to pay 87 cents a litre as of today. Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that my hon. colleague from Eagle River is afraid to stand up and ask for a uniform price all throughout Labrador, not just in Red Bay. What about the people in Mary's Harbour? What about the people who signed 99 signatures on a letter, and the people who told the Member that you are not doing us any good?

Mr. Chairman, my colleague said this earlier this morning. You know, sometimes we have to put our own personal politics out the window altogether and do what we believe is right for our constituents. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I believe Yvonne Rumbolt said it very well in her letter to my colleague, and I want to read that for the record because she does say it very, very well on what we should do about politicians. This letter was addressed, naturally, to the Member for Eagle River, however I think it would be interesting to read a paragraph of that particular letter because the Member let his constituents down in Mary's Harbour. He let them down, and the lady asked the Member a straightforward question: Is this going to be the practice of our elected Member in the future? When he is asked to represent the needs and the concerns of the people in his district, when such things as cuts, closures of offices, people losing their jobs and the area losing valuable resources, will he then turn around and say he cannot protest these issues in the House of Assembly because of the fear the Government may cut some other services to the people of Labrador.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what logic could the hon. gentleman have in this Legislature by saying I am afraid to get up and kick the Government that I am a part of because if I kick about the cut the Government may cut other parts of Labrador. Mr. Chairman, that is what the hon. gentleman is believing. He is believing that because I am a Liberal I cannot kick this Government. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is one Member opposite other than the Member for Placentia, on one occasion, have gotten up and said anything against this Government about the wrongdoings that they doing with the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chairman, not one Member has really gotten up and really said that this Government is doing the right thing.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what else did this letter say? Or is that Mr. Dumaresque that he fear - and there was rumpling in the paper the other day, I think in the weekend paper - there may be a Cabinet shuffle coming up. There is a Cabinet shuffle in the wind. And the Member for Eagle River has said to some of his constituents I am afraid to say too much about this Government now because I am in the running. And, Mr. Chairman, the Member is in the running for a Cabinet post, and that is why he never spoke up about the Mun Extension on coastal Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. WARREN: That is why, Mr. Chairman.

But I would say to my hon. colleague -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Well why did you not say it louder?

There is one thing that I will not do though, I will not turn my back on my constituents like you did to the people of Mary's Harbour. You turned your back on ninety-nine people in Mary's Harbour that signed the petition and you would not present it in the Legislature. You were afraid to present it in the Legislature. And I would think it is shameful that Member would not get up and present a petition in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman. I think it is ridiculous. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, the final paragraph of that letter said, 'We look forward to meeting with you on one of your very few visits to our community'. Mr. Chairman, that is what the people in Mary's Harbour said to the Member, we look forward to seeing you on one of your very few visits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, if you look at the record of the hon. Member, and I say this I suppose every week there are write-ups in the papers about the Member for Eagle River, and mostly about the fishery. And I would say, Mr. Chairman, I am doubtful if the hon. Member knows if a codfish had a puddick or not. I am very doubtful, Mr. Chairman, if he knows there is a puddick in a codfish. You know, he is talking about the fish day in and day out, but he does not know that a codfish had a puddick, no, Mr. Chairman. That is how much he knows about the thing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Maybe he does not, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleague for Port aux Basques, maybe he does not. But, however, I will say one thing when I am given a petition to present in this Legislature I will present it whether it is from Nain or Marys's Harbour or L'Anse-au-Clair or Goose Bay, anywhere, but the petition will be presented. I will not turn my back on those people who decided to put me in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman. And I say to my hon. colleague when he got up just now and tried to chastise my friend from Labrador West, my friend forgot, he forgot one very important thing when he came into this Legislature is that you are here not only representing the people who put you here, -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. WARREN: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I will be back at it again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, I am forced again to rise here now and again correct the Members opposite. Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday and as I repeated again a few minutes ago about the price differential between gasoline in Labrador City and in Quebec. Now hon. Members over there said that our figures from the Departments of Finance and Energy were false, they were totally misleading, that is what the hon. Member for Menihek was saying.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I did a little bit of investigation myself. I went and a few minutes ago I made the calls myself and talked to the people in Fermont and in Labrador City and these are the facts. In Fermont for regular unleaded gas it is 64.3 cents a litre; in Labrador City at Shell it is 65 cents a litre for a difference of .7 cents a litre. Those are the facts. That is not fabrication. That is right from the gas station attendants in these two places. Now the seven cents that the hon. Member is talking about is a total misleading fact to this House and he should get up and apologize for taking such extreme action in this particular case. Now those are the facts. Let there be no hesitation. This is what the gas station attendant is selling it for today in Labrador City and Wabush.

Now then, if the hon. Member is going to say that the people from Menihek are going to drive to Labrador City, from Labrador City to Fermont, some fifty-four kilometres round trip, for .7 cents a liter cheaper, then I guess we will have to see. But I do not think so. I think they would be losing on that proposition.

And I have to pick up on what the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains is saying. About what he would or would not do if he was a Member of this House of Assembly. Well, I can tell you one thing. There may be times when I may not be so proud of some of the things that are happening in this Province. There may be times when I am not going to be able to reflect the total truism of what is happening out there because all the facts are not ascertained. But I can tell this House one thing. That if ever I was to get the opportunity to be a part of the Cabinet of this day I would never act like the Member for Torngat Mountains did on one particular occasion.

On one particular occasion after ten days after the election was over on April 30 1989 that hon. Member went out to Corner Brook, rented a helicopter at $700 an hour, and flew up around the skies of Corner Brook trying to seek divine intervention, saying: please God! This is not what happened, is it? Oh please, I am still the Minister, am I not? Am I not still the Minister? Well, he landed again and obviously the reality had to hit home. But that was a very costly trip to the high skies. The $6,000 that that cost the government of the day and the people of this Province would have put another piece of fire fighting equipment into Rigolet. It would have the bread on the table in some communities, single parents in his district that he so obviously ignored.

And in the fifteen months that he was Minister in that particular government he went and spent $104,000 of the taxpayers' money in entertainment expenses, $7,000 a month. The first six months he was there he did not have a Deputy Minister, not even a Department to run, only a paper department. Seventeen hundred and thirty-five dollars a week, that is what he spent of the taxpayers' money in entertainment! Now, the gall of that Member to stand up here and tell me that I am not representing the people. That is one thing that will never be on the record books of this Province, that I would be so flagrant and so abusive in the use of the public funds of this Province as that hon. Member was when he was there for that brief, brief period in the government of that day, I can tell you that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: There will never be that kind of shame hanging over the Member for Eagle River, I can tell you that. I will never have to go back to the people of Eagle River and say that I am spending $1,735 a week on entertainment for my own cronies or for whatever whim that I get the impression that I should serve. That is the kind of leadership that he shows to the people of Torngat Mountains, that are 80 per cent unemployed and some 200 of them last year could not even get 10 weeks of work. That is the kind of things that he says to them. These are my priorities, he is saying to these people of Labrador, I am going to spend $1,735 a week on entertainment so I can be comfortable and whatever way I like, because I just happen to be a Minister of the Crown.

As I said in the beginning the audacity of the Member for Mehihek to come in here and to fabricate the prices when I know that the prices being charged right here today in Fermont and in Labrador City is 1.7 cents a litre in the difference. Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about the behaviour of myself and the behaviour of the Member for Torngat Mountains. Let there never be any doubt in the minds of the people of Coastal Labrador where my priorities lie and exactly where they lay when he was doing his honourable duties. Mr. Chairman, I hope there will not be the kind of continued politics played on this particular issue and I hope there will not be the continued kind of misleading representations made in this House that have been made in the past few hours. I hope that the people of Labrador will be able to see through the kind of politics that is being played here with the people of that part of the Province.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

Mr. Chairman, what I thought was going to be the usual quite dull Friday morning seems to have struck a spark. Things seem to have livened up a bit since we came in at 9:00 o'clock. It is very interesting to hear the exchange that has gone back and forth from both sides.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, the Member for Eagle River for most of the week has been speaking from his seat. He has not been standing, he has been throwing threats across the House, both verbal and physical threats, over the last few days, and it makes me wonder what is causing this, Mr. Chairman. What has really spurred on the exchange this morning, of course, is the tabling of the departmental salary details which has caught the Government with their pants down again. That is what has happened, and the press looked into the salary details, did a little bit of investigating, I might say for the first time in awhile, and they finally discovered something. They discovered that this Government again is not even competent enough to bring in the departmental salary details. They know the record of the Minister of Finance's Budget last year, they expect what this year's Budget is going to be, and as the House Leader said earlier this morning, there is good reason why they have been forty-six days without bringing in the salary details, because they did not want it to be uncovered, Mr. Chairman, that indeed they do have a bureaucrat who will be referred to as the $100,000 man. Well, four $100,000 men, that even makes it more interesting. That is four times as bad, four $100,000 men, more than the Ministers over there make, more than the Premier is making, I suppose, more than the Premier is being paid by the taxpayers of the Province, Mr. Chairman. Now, I do not know if there are any other payments we have seen over the last five or six years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like the Tories in Nova Scotia.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, the Tories in Nova Scotia did wrong, and we hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier discussed some of the reforms that Premier Cameron is bringing in to deal with that in Nova Scotia. We hope that in the discussion with Premier Cameron that Premier Wells discussed the reforms he is bringing in in Nova Scotia so that everyone in Nova Scotia and everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador will know who paid John Buchanan's salary and will know who paid Clyde Well's salary. That is what we hope will happen because there are a lot of people out in the Province who want to know that. We all know who is paying the number one $100,000 man, the top honcho in the Premier's office, $100,000 a year. I remember just a few years ago when some of the Members - look at the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture grinning there and make no wonder he is grinning, when the criticism they used to throw on the now Member for Green Bay when he was in the Premier's office, and the former press secretary Mr. Petten who was getting something like $55,000 a year. Make no wonder he smiles, $100,000 a year for the Chief of Staff, $77,000 a year for the public relations officer, or whatever she is called. Can you imagine $177,000 for two people in the Premier's office?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, we can add in I guess what the Member for Exploits is getting, and I tell you it is a pretty significant salary bill coming out of the Premier's office, particularly when you looked at that one of the offices was closed up.

Grand Falls was closed up and over the last two years we see the salaries of the Premier's office increasing, increasing; now that is quite ironic, but I want to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I set myself up for whatever, Mr. Chairman, I say to the Member for Exploits, if I lived to be a hundred years, I would never set myself up as good as this Government has, on last year's Budget and this year's Departmental salary details; a good setup. You give us all the ammunition we need and thank God, Mr. Chairman, the press now, are digging into these salary details, they are investigating and I would suggest to hon. Members that there is going to be a fair bit more uncovered -

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, yes.

MR. MATTHEWS: - give them the weekend to dig a bit deeper and there will be a few more revelations of the salary details of this Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get away from the Member for Eagle River.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you should not either.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Member for Eagle River, who lambasted Members on this side, yes, I can understand why the Member for St. John's South would move away, because if the Member for Eagle River is going to continue with his behaviour of this week, I suggest, it is not too safe to sit too close to him, because he has been bringing up fists over there, this week and threatening people on this side, bringing up his fists, full of fury, I do not know what it is all about, I do not know what caused it, but I can guess.

I guess it has to do with the letter that his constituents sent to the St. John's - that was published in the Wednesday Express or whatever it is called, Wednesday Express, The Real Estate Guide, the letter, 'well done Dan, thanks for nothing'; I guess that got to him; it had him a little bit upset and then I would expect the other thing that had him a little bit upset was his public call for select Committee of the House to look into the Saltfish Corporation, and I would say that he had a negative response to that from his House Leader, a negative response, who said, no Danny, you cannot travel around the world anymore; you cost the Government enough already and you are on the committee, because he ranted and roared about Members on this side spending money and Ministers, but I want to say to him, that he should be careful before he gets up accusing people, ranting and raving and I would suggest that of all the Members on the other side, including the Ministers, that the Member for Eagle River has probably cost the Government as much as any one else if not more, if not more -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: - and it will be brought forward as a result of the Member's tantrums this week; it will be brought out because of his tantrums, just how much his globe-trotting has cost, because he has done a fair bit of it, we all know all throughout Canada in his jaunts through Atlantic Canada on two different occasions for two different things, but it has cost a significant amount of money, how much, I do not know, Mr. Chairman, but he started something that I just might be tempted to finish and then we will know just how concerned the Member for Eagle River is about controlling travel costs and other things, we will know how sincere he is, so I say to him, in all fairness, that before you get up ranting and roaring, and accusing people on this side of past expenditures, look at your own current expenditures, because it may come back to haunt you, once the people of the Province know what you spent and that you still desire to spend more.

Now having said that to the Member, there is a need no doubt for some consideration to be given to the continuation of the Saltfish Corporation or some form thereof, I say that very sincerely and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries nods his head in agreement; we have to have some other mechanism in place or something similar to take over from the Saltfish Corporation, and I agree with the Member the other day that there should be some look at that, some serious consultation and research done, but having said that, you know you lose the effect of the good when you delve into the other side of a story and his antics and I am a little bit disappointed with him, a little bit disappointed that he gets up here going on the way he has gone the last three or four days; because his behaviour is that which I have not seen from any other Member since the time I have been here; I say that very sincerely; shaking of fists across the Legislature at people, calling people despicable, I mean, that is you know, it is really not called for, Mr. Chairman, and I fully did not even intend to get up today and speak about this, but I have seen enough of it over the last three or four days and I am totally amazed, and I hope that, that is the end of it from the hon. Member because I know he can behave a bit better than that. I am really surprised, but having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the authorities on the other side will deal with that and we will not see any more of it.

But, Mr. Chairman, it is a little bit disappointing I must say, at this time of restraint; we are here talking about tax bills and gasoline tax and other things; we have seen the public service of the Province, we see the terrible blow with the layoffs, the rollback of wages, tearing up of contracts and we find out this morning, not just the Deputy Ministers, the Departmental Deputy Ministers, but the Premier's political hand-picked staff, have had significant increases at the very time when the rest of the public servants contracts have been torn up, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are in the process now of debating Bill No. 15, which has to do with the tax on gasoline. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to have a great deal to say on the tax on gasoline, except to point out that the debate has been going on for quite some time; it has very rarely recently touched on the tax for gasoline, it is spread out on a lot of other areas Mr. Speaker and a lot of the debate is not in reality debate on the gasoline bill, the tax on gasoline, but is the debate on nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the debate on Bill 15 shall not be further adjourned, further considerations, resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, or anything else might be related to Bill 15.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't want to disclose any more Edsels.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't disclose anymore Edsels. What a way to cut off disclosing any more Edsels.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, Mr. Chairman! What a bunch of incompetent, bungling fools, to bring in a closure motion on a tax bill today that only began debate in this House on Tuesday. A tax measure, Mr. Chairman! A routine tax measure the Minister says. The Opposition is debating and will continue to debate perhaps for another few hours or a day, well forever. But to bring in closure - closure! Mr. Chairman, it has never been seen in this House before. After two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, today is the third day, or is that closure motion brought in to gag the Member for Eagle River -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: - who has been nothing only a case of embarrassment for the Government for the last couple of days? Or has the closure motion been brought in, Mr. Chairman, so that the Opposition cannot talk about Edsel Bonnell or Judy Foote and their tremendous salary increases? Is that what it is brought in for?

Mr. Chairman, this Government House Leader has the face of a robbers horse! After two days of debate, I say to our Finance critic, he just brought in a closure motion. Two days! It is totally unbelievable. Is it going to sink in, Mr. Chairman, what is happening in this legislature? Is it going to sink in?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are a bunch of cowards.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance who got up in this House yesterday and insulted a vast number of people in Newfoundland and Labrador by his intemperate remarks should keep his mouth closed. Now I do not intend to be kind this morning. I do not intend to be kind at all, not like I was a couple of days ago when the Member for Eagle River made threats. I was in a good mood that day. But for the Government House Leader to bring in closure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unbelievable.

MR. RIDEOUT: Unbelievable, Mr. Chairman. I mean what is wrong with this Government? Are they afraid to have this bill debated for another week? What other pressing business does the Government House Leader have to bring in, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: None! Nothing.

MR. RIDEOUT: We are after going to the Government House Leader now on a dozen occasions asking him what his legislative agenda is, and all we can find is there is five minor pieces of legislation. And yet he comes in here in a rush today after two days of debate with closure. I mean, what is wrong with the Government. Get up, boy, and defend it. Just do not get up and read out the foolish old motion that is in the rule book anyway but get up and defend it. Tell us why.

I mean, is there a secret agenda here or something? Is somebody going on holidays? I mean, I went and everybody in the whole world knew it. But is there a secret agenda here? Every time you want to debate something in comes closure.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) cooperate.

MR. RIDEOUT: What do you mean, cooperation? I mean, we passed the Loan Guarantee Act -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are an obstructionist!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, we passed the Loan Guarantee Act, what, in a day? We passed the Local Guarantee Act - these were money bills. If we wanted to be obstructionist we could be debating either one of those debates to this day. But we let them pass. And we would have let this bill pass when we were finished debating it. But in comes the Government House Leader with closure. This Government has gone mad on closure.

MR. WINDSOR: Call the Budget debate! You can't pull closure on me on that one! I will keep you here until spring! Next spring!

MR. RIDEOUT: I predict, I say to my colleague for Mount Pearl, that he will rise on a point of order some time or another during your -

MR. WINDSOR: Can't do it!

MR. RIDEOUT: - speech on the Budget - yes, he has done it before.

MR. WINDSOR: By the rules of the House I have unlimited time (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, but I predict he will rise on a point of order and say that you are rambling or being specious or something else, and during his point of order will give notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not allowed, not allowed!

MR. RIDEOUT: Not allowed, are you?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: Can't do it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can't do it on the Budget debate.

MR. RIDEOUT: But that does not make any difference in this House, what is allowed or not allowed. The Government House Leader takes the place on his back! You would not know but he owns it! This place belongs to the people! And you have no right to take this place on your back. And you have no right to close people off and not allow debate to continue. What is wrong with debate continuing on this bill for another couple of days, I ask the Government House Leader? Is there something wrong? Have you got something more pressing that you want to call? What is it? I mean, it is certainly not on the Order Paper.

Being obstructionist. Two days debate is being obstructionist. I mean, you know, this crowd has gone so arrogant in two years -

AN HON. MEMBER: Honourable crowd.

MR. RIDEOUT: Hon. crowd. Only because it is parliamentary and I have to say it. But this hon. crowd has gone so arrogant in two years that it would take most governments ten or fifteen years to become so arrogant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: I had nothing for breakfast, I do not eat breakfast in the morning. But I did not have any chocolate either, I will say to the Minister, I do not need any chocolate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Did you? Well, you should go out and have another one, and a drop of orange juice while you are at it. Now we have just seen today, again this morning - what is it? This is the sixth time this session. I believe it is for the sixth time in this spring session of the Legislature -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) history of the House!

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, it was more times in the last session than in the history of this Parliament. Right? But in this House, in this session, they have already done it six times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, this Government is nothing only a bunch of walking contradictions. They could not close the House for the normal Easter break because they had so much business to do. And now the Order Paper, there is nothing left on it, and the Government House Leader comes in with closure this morning on a tax bill, on a money bill. He has no reason to back it up. There has only been two and a half days of debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time!

MR. RIDEOUT: What is wrong with St. John's South, Mr. Chairman? Why do you not go down and talk to National Sea and see what is happening with the plant over on the South Side?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: What's that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Or are you going to write a letter to the editor and beg Mr. Crosbie to bail you out again?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, you.

AN HON. MEMBER: In more ways than one too!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman,-

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, there is another hon. Member in the House gone mad again this morning. It must be the regular Friday morning stuff, I suppose. I would say this to the hon. Member for St. John's South, the southside fish plant did not close down when we were the Government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: - because we did not have a Premier then who said to National Sea like we had a year and a half ago, close St. John's.

AN HON. MEMBER: Close St. John's?

MR. RIDEOUT: Close St. John's, that is what they were told, and the Member knows it.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, not to be sidetracked, the main issue here now is that after two and a half days of debate on a major tax bill, the Government decides to invoke closure for the sixth or seventh time this session. This Government cannot stand the heat, Mr. Chairman, they cannot stand the exposure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, now the Minister of Social Services is a good one to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Minister of Social Services, Mr. Chairman, who goes around looking for jobs for his political buddies who -

MR. EFFORD: What is wrong with that?

MR. RIDEOUT: There you are, see. Now I wonder, where are the investigative reporters this morning, because every time that Member opens his mouth he proves how guilty he is. Every time that he opens his mouth he proves that he is guilty beyond doubt.

MR. EFFORD: If I kept them on Social Services (inaudible). They cannot work and they cannot go on Social Services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: And they cannot do what else?

MR. EFFORD: Don't be foolish, boy. (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: He had his geritol.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, a 700 per cent increase for political buddies, there is nothing wrong with that. A day preparation time, a day travel time, a day to have the hearings, all for the sake of political buddies, there is nothing wrong with it.

MR. EFFORD: That will be answered.

MR. RIDEOUT: That will be answered, eh. And then, Mr. Chairman, the great leader of righteousness himself says I will investigate, and he goes out and he talks to everybody except the witness -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member's time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: - except the witness.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but rise for a few brief moments because I do not want to take up time from Members opposite who might, just perchance have some valuable things to say about this particular Gasoline Tax Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not much of a chance. Not likely.

MR. BAKER: So I do not want to interfere with their time, and what they want to say. I would simply like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that what I have done for reasons which I pointed out a few moments ago is give notice of closure. I have not invoked closure, and at some point in the future I will invoke closure provided that, and I will make this promise to hon. Members opposite as well, that if they want to speak for the next two weeks on this Tax Bill, I will not invoke the closure motion. I will just keep it on the Order Paper and as long as they have something productive to say about this Gasoline Tax Bill, and about this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. BAKER: - about this budgetary measure. As long as they have something to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I do not know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I ask the hon. Members to my right if they would give the hon. Government House Leader an opportunity to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know what has gotten into the hon. Members opposite, Mr. Chairman, this morning, and I am sure they do not mean to be like that, but it is just that they cannot help it. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make that clear that if hon. Members want to debate The Gasoline Tax Bill, as long as they want to debate it and suggest - there was an amendment suggested by the Member for Menihek, and he has put forward his reasons and discussed the reasons for the amendment and he makes a lot of sense in some of the things he says in, as far as I am concerned, I do not know, I am not intimately knowledgeable of all the details of The Tax Bill, but he has something to say and I am glad that he had it to say, and I am willing to listen to him any time at all. So, Mr. Chairman, as long as there is any debate on the bill then I will not call the closure motion. I just want to make that commitment to Members opposite.

MR. DECKER: Debate on the bill.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to be able to speak on this bill, and I am hoping that I can convince the people on the other side how unfair a lot of things are in this bill. Now there is not a lot in it. There are only two things in the bill essentially. But, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Eagle River earlier suggested that I deliberately, I am not sure whether he said deliberately, that I misled the House, Mr. Chairman, and he came in with figures. Now, I did not catch the figures he said but if he would like to repeat them again. I do not know what he said but I will check it in Hansard on Monday. Mr. Speaker, I did make a phone call because this really concerns me. As I mentioned before I am not in the habit of misleading or being completely political about everything. I made a phone call and called a gas station in Labrador City, and I also called one in Fermont. In Labrador City the regular unleaded is 66.5 and in Fermont the regular unleaded is 61.8.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, I just got off the telephone talking to them. The super unleaded is 72.5 in Labrador City and it is 65.2 in Fermont.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Menihek and I ask hon. Members to restrain themselves and give the Member an opportunity to speak.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Now, these are the same prices I have been talking about, the exact same prices. I talked to the person selling the gasoline, the manager, the sales person, whoever he is, by telephone in Fermont and the one in Labrador City, and they confirmed the prices I have been repeating. Now, I do not know where he got his figures. The other figures I have been saying, that I have been quoting, are on this piece of paper.

MR. WINDSOR: You fabricated them. You made them up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: 418 287 5252.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: That is the phone number. That is the one in Fermont.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the hon. Members that I have recognized the Member for Menihek and I ask for the co-operation of all hon. Members to give the Member for Menihek an opportunity to finish his debate.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: The other figures that I have been talking about was the image that the Minister of Finance was attempting to give to the people in the House on the taxes on gasoline in other Provinces. In it, he suggested that it is going to be 10 cents and 4.7 in Quebec. Now that is true in some parts of Quebec, but the parts that I have been discussing in the bill, that is not the tax. That is not the tax that is applicable to what I have been discussing in this bill. So it is attempting to deceive and be deceitful.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the people of western Labrador do have to pay a difference. I have not talked about the difference in price between St. John's Centre and Labrador City - Wabush, I am not directly concerned about that. I am concerned about the difference they are paying between the price of gasoline in Wabush and Labrador City, and the price of gasoline in Fermont. What my amendment does, Mr. Chairman, and I will say it again, what my amendment does is allow the Minister to adjust it to treat the people of Red Bay and the people in Labrador City in an equitable manner in comparison to the competitors in Quebec. That is all I am saying.

Now, I do not know why this Government wants to treat the people in western Labrador in a border situation different than the people in southern Labrador. Mr. Chairman, I do not know why. Maybe it is politics. Maybe it is because we are a Tory seat and they are a Liberal seat. Maybe it is, I do not know why. But, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this Government does not invoke closure on a bill like this until it is thoroughly investigated because this Minister of Finance has proven time and time again that he has not got a clue on what is happening in this Province, Mr. Chairman. He does not understand what is going on in this Province. Until it is thoroughly investigated I hope they would not even consider invoking closure.

Now you have a weekend, I would suggest to the hon. Members on the other side, including the Member for Eagle River, would confirm the figures he gave earlier are wrong.

MR. WARREN: Lies! Lies!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains if he would withdraw the statement he made with regards to the hon. the Member from -

MR. WARREN: Withdrawn.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair puts the motion, I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery on behalf of all hon. Members a former Member of the House of Assembly and now a Member of Parliament, Mr. Roger Simmons.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, and that the House do now adjourn.

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

MR. SIMMS: Can we stop the clock? I gather the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island was singing out to some Members of his estimates review committee and saying there was a meeting Monday morning at 9:00 a.m.?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten o'clock.

MR. SIMMS: Ten o'clock. Is it not normal practice for the Government House Leader to indicate the schedules and what Department is being dealt with and so on? And the other thing - and I ask the Government House Leader this -

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not do it alone!

MR. SIMMS: Just a second, now. I want to ask the Government House Leader, has the practice not been in the past that Monday mornings and Friday afternoons generally are exempt from the estimates because Members travel back and forth to their districts usually Monday mornings and Friday afternoons? Can he - perhaps he might want to talk (Inaudible)?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With regards to when the committees sit, I believe my experience was that I believe it was Wednesday mornings we had no sittings because there were caucus meetings or something. But with regards to Monday mornings, if -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Yes, that is right. What I was going to say was, that I mean if the committee Members can make it there is no reason why we can not have a sitting on Monday morning. The other - pardon?

MR. SIMMS: But you would normally not (Inaudible)?

MR. BAKER: Yes, okay. What I was going to say was that the press will be advised of any sitting that happens to take place on Monday. By Monday afternoon I hope to have a schedule from all three committees so that I can then at least discuss the remainder of next week, or announce Monday afternoon the remainder of next week. So anything that happens on Monday the press will be notified, the Members of the committee will know about it. If they cannot make it then obviously there will be no meeting. So if we just get through Monday first and Monday afternoon then we will get into the whole schedule.

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

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) no problem, I totally - the only.... Yes, I agree with the Government House Leader totally. The only thing is, I am wondering if it might not be advisable then perhaps to forget the Monday morning meeting and let's deal with it Monday afternoon as to (Inaudible) -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: As a point of order, a point of information.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: The clock is stopped. I do not know if I am on a point of order or a point of information. But in conversation with the Member for Humber Valley, he suggested if we could get our first meeting out of the way on Monday he would be back in town at 10:00 a.m., and if I were going to have a meeting on Monday, if I could arrange it at 10:00 a.m. to meet his needs, I would do it.

So it was based on that conversation that I looked at doing something on Monday. I would not have done it except for that.

MR. SIMMS: Is that for a public meeting or just for your committee get-together.

MR. WALSH: No. If we were going to have our first meeting next week, and if we were going to schedule one for Monday, he wanted it 10:00 a.m., and that is the reason I arranged something for 10:00 a.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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