March 22, 1993                  HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS          Vol. XLI  No. 10


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members today we would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery six of the finalists for the 1992 Youth of the Year. We have Colin Barker, Open Hall, Bonavista Bay; Jennifer King, Gander; Michelle MacWhirter, Stephenville; Christopher Patey, St. Anthony; Laurie Potter, Bay de Verde; and Gelene Slaney of St. Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: My notes also tell me that Gelene was the winner for 1992.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I would like to welcome to the galleries today fifty-nine students from MacDonald Drive Junior High School in the district of Pleasantville. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Doug Gosse and Mr. Scott Hewitt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members of the House of Assembly and residents of this Province of my department's plans to call tenders for highway improvement and construction projects. This year's Provincial Capital Roads Program, totalling $25.5 million, includes the upgrading and paving of gravel roads, resurfacing of existing paved roads, and repairs to existing bridges and causeways throughout the Province. As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise this hon. House that my department will continue with our ongoing highway dust and right-of-way growth control programs. As this is our Provincial Highways Program, projects are 100 per cent provincially funded.

Mr. Speaker, the projects to be carried out under this Provincial Capital Highways Program reflect the priorities established by my department to improve the overall transportation infrastructure of Newfoundland and Labrador. The government realizes that the projects I am announcing today will not meet all the requirements for highway improvements throughout the Province. However, given the restraint that the government must adopt, the amount of funds approved for this purpose is significant and will boost employment throughout the Provincial highway construction industry.

Mr. Speaker, tenders for the work will be called as soon as possible, and it is anticipated that all projects will be tendered by early July. For the information of my Honourable Colleagues and the general public I have listed each project separately. I might add, on Friday past, letters should have went out to all members of the House of Assembly advising them of the projects in their particular districts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the minister as well for a copy of his release before the House opened.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister rose today and said there was $25.5 million allocated for roads in this Province, this shows that your Government does not have roads as a priority because when the government previous to the Government that is sitting today, the last year that they were in power, there was $40 plus million spent on roads, on provincial roads. So, there is no big deal with your $25.5 million.

The other point I would like to make to the minister, is that this should be tendered by now, not announcing it today, the tender should be out there to start the roads when the snow leaves the ground and there are a lot of areas now that some of the work could be done. I had a call from Brittany the other day, complaining about the road situation down there. Why was it not tendered already? What is the delay on this, what kept it? I know it had to be in the Budget but my goodness there should be tenders called for this. This is essential to our road network in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is late and there were some areas which were completely forgotten because in my district of St. John's East Extern, we did not get one plugged nickel, not a halfpenny and we have as much problems with our roads as anyone else. We did not get a nickel and let me say this to the minister: if he wanted to do something to compliment this entire area, St. John's and its environment, he should be already off his feet. He should not have to be waiting to make an announcement, the Outer Ring Road should be now in progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker:

It is with profound dismay that I inform this House of a reprehensible action taken by the Federal Government that callously disregards the best interests of people of one of our oldest fishing communities, by effectively erasing their rightful share to half a fish quota for their local plant. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the announcement made on March 19 by my federal counterpart, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who disclosed certain actions being taken with respect to the federal agreement with Seafreeze Foods Incorporated for the operation of the company's fish plants at Burgeo and at Canso, Nova Scotia.

I point out to hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement in question is one that was never made public, and one that the Province had grave reservations about right from the outset because it was our fear that there was no guarantee that fish landed for the company would be processed at Burgeo. We objected, for one thing, to the fact that the 1990 sale price of the National Sea plant to Seafreeze reflected the sale of fish quotas rather than other assets and equity. We asked the federal government on numerous occasions to provide us with details of its agreement with Seafreeze, and we asked that an investigation be done to determine whether the company was complying with the terms of the agreement, in particular with respect to commitments to process fish at Burgeo. On February 22, 1992, Mr. Speaker, the federal minister did inform me in writing that under the 1990 federal agreement with Seafreeze, the company undertook to process at Burgeo 50 per cent of the groundfish quotas transferred from National Sea, 40 per cent of underutilized species allocated under the Groundfish Developmental Program, as well as 40 per cent of any fish bartered with the former USSR in exchange for silver hake and caplin.

It is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of the transfer of 19,000 tonnes of various species of groundfish from National Sea Products to Seafreeze in 1990 that Burgeo was entitled to 50 per cent of that amount. With quota reductions since then, this amount is now 10,900 tons. This means, that under the terms of the agreement referred to, Burgeo would be entitled to 5,450 tons.

Mr. Speaker, with the federal minister's announcement of Friday past, Burgeo is not likely to see one ounce of that fish. The announcement has effectively tossed Burgeo's fate to the wind. Incredibly, the federal minister has given SeaFreez full licence to transfer the full 10,900 tons to Canso, Nova Scotia, for processing. It is a licence to wipe out Burgeo's 50 per cent share of the SeaFreez groundfish allocation. It is a licence to deny Burgeo access to fish which has been traditionally processed there. It is an action that would seal the fate of Burgeo as a fishing community.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot fathom why the federal minister would even contemplate such action, much less agree to it and then pour salt in the bleeding economic wounds of Burgeo by communicating his decision to SeaFreez with the message that, "an important objective of the remedies is to ensure adequate allocations for the operation of Canso."

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, one can only conclude that the same concern for the operation and future of the Burgeo plant is missing.

The people and community of Burgeo deserve better treatment from their Federal Government. The decision with respect to the transfer of fish from Burgeo to Canso should be resolved immediately by the federal minister.

I point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that this callous action is yet another prime example of the ever growing need for joint fisheries management for Newfoundland and Labrador. Not once was the Province consulted on the special concessions awarded to Canso at the expense of Burgeo. Instead, the Federal Government squirms around its responsibility to Burgeo by making false accusations that the Province turned down a proposal for a salt water system for the Burgeo plant. Mr. Speaker, I want this red herring discarded once and for all: a formal proposal for such a system was never - I repeat, never - submitted to the Province.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the unconscionable treatment of Burgeo by the Federal Government must be addressed. The people of Burgeo deserve the support of everyone. The federal action should serve notice that if Burgeo can be treated with such contempt, other communities may not be far behind. The federal decision must be reversed. I call upon all members of this House to support this position, and use whatever influence they might have to convince the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to show the same concern for Burgeo that he has shown for Canso, Nova Scotia, by reversing his unjustifiable decision -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: - by reversing his unjustifiable decision that allows the transfer of thousands of tonnes of groundfish from Burgeo to another province. I am tabling for members' information, Mr. Speaker, a copy of my letter of March 18 to the federal minister with respect to this urgent situation. In this letter I told the federal minister that his decision that impacts so harshly on Burgeo is not acceptable to the Province and that the resource entitlements of Burgeo must be protected by the Government of Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader and Member for Grand Bank.

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

It is, indeed, regrettable that the situation in Burgeo is as we find it today. Most of us, if not all of us, wanted the situation with the Burgeo plant to work out to provide employment for the people of Burgeo. Of course, that is what it was all about when National Sea decided to leave. We were the party in power that put the new Burgeo plant there and we subsidized the NatSea operation in Burgeo to the tune of $1 million a year, so we know the history of Burgeo and the problems and so on there. They have fallen on hard times, Mr. Speaker, like many other communities around this Province. I look at my hometown of Grand Bank that no longer processes groundfish and, at that time, that community as well, was looking for the fish that was traditionally processed there to be left with the community. We all know the phrases of port quotas, community quotas, and community allocations, but at that time there was not too much support from certain hon. gentlemen in this Legislature about port quotas or community quotas for many other communities along the South Coast that are not now processing groundfish.

AN HON. MEMBER: Times have changed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, times have changed.

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of reservations about the Seafreez deal in the first place as well, but there is one thing that the Seafreez deal did and that was enable the people of Burgeo to work up until now, because there was no other option available at the time this deal was put in place. So, while I had reservations about it, the Provincial Government expressed reservations about it, and residents expressed reservations about it, neither the Minister of Fisheries nor the member at that time had anything else to offer the people of Burgeo. It is too bad, it is a sad day that this thing has fallen apart, Mr. Speaker, and one wonders what is going to happen to Burgeo. What is going to happen to all the other communities along the South Coast? I don't know.

I want to say to the minister that on Page 2 where he talks about the callous action which is another reason for the growing need for joint fisheries management between the Province and the Federal Government, I say to him, yes, indeed, he is correct, because while I think we all agree that the Federal Government should set the total allowable catch, it should be up to us, Newfoundland and Labrador, what we do with our portion of that total allowable catch. I think right here is a glaring example of how this thing could have been prevented if we had such control. I agree with the minister on that point. I only hope that before too long we do see a workable agreement reached between the Province and the Federal Government on that very important issue. Because, if not, we are going to see many more Burgeos, I say to members opposite.

The people of Burgeo do deserve everyone's support on both sides of the House. They deserve the support of anyone who can help them. I have gone through it in spades for the last twelve years myself, with my hometown and many more communities in my district. I have gone through it, in some cases, three times. It is very difficult. There is nothing worse than to be filled with uncertainty and not knowing where you are going to get your next meal. That is really what the people of Burgeo are facing and I only hope there can be a solution found to this.

I want to say to the minister as well, in his reference to the accusations by the federal minister about support for the water line, whether that is true or not in Burgeo, I can tell members in this Legislature that there was a similar request from the town of Grand Bank to set up a water supply to a new operation processing scallops and surf clams in this Province for the first time, pioneering a new fishing industry, this Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of Finance and the government did not give them one nickel to do it. They had to do it in spite of the Provincial Government. Whether or not it happened in Burgeo, I don't know, but I can tell members categorically here that this government did not give them one nickel of support in establishing a new fishery in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: Did they ask for it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think all hon. members agree that the transfer of quota to Canso from Burgeo is a travesty to the people of Burgeo and to all the people of this Province.

I don't say that I am very surprised, because I think, I, like many people, was very suspicious about that deal that was made with SeaFreez. I recall one of the principals of SeaFreez going down to Burgeo and dictating, or trying to dictate to the people of Burgeo, under what terms and conditions he and his company would come to Burgeo, what wages he would pay, and what terms and conditions he expected from the people of Burgeo. In the meantime, we now know he was making an agreement that he had no intention of keeping and we now see the end result of that. It is a classic example of corporate greed taking precedence over the needs of fisheries workers in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I join with the Minister of Fisheries and the Opposition House Leader in condemning the actions of the Government of Canada and of SeaFreez in taking that allocation.

I don't think, however, there is a simple answer from the Minister of Fisheries to say that what we need is joint management. We haven't heard a word from this government about what kind of management they want. We haven't heard whether they support enterprise allocation, which is the root cause of this problem in the first place. Are they in favour of port allocation? Are they in favour of community quotas today? Are they going to tell us which fish plants they intend to keep alive? Why, in this Budget, do we have money taken out of the Fisheries Loan Board? Why do we have money taken out of the Department of Fisheries? Why do we have money taken out of government support for fisheries-related agencies in this Province, at a time when we need to have some planning done by this Province and by the people involved in the fishery to decide what to do here?

I would like to see, instead of the Minister of Fisheries getting up in this House and complaining about the government in Ottawa, like the Member for Eagle River does all the time, that he start saying what they intend to do with any kind of management that they might be able to get their hands on, Mr. Speaker. Because the people of Newfoundland deserve an answer to that question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that Florence Delaney has been appointed Assistant Deputy Minister in the Department of Education. She will be responsible for Finance and Administration. Ms. Delaney has held a number of important positions during her twenty years as a public servant and has performed her duties proficiently.

She joined the public service in May 1973 as an administrative officer with the Department of Consumer Affairs. In May 1975 she moved to Treasury Board as an organization and management analyst and held that position until October 1981. She then transferred to the Department of Finance as a management analyst and remained in that position until November 1983. She then became director of finance and general operations in the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, a position she held until January 1990. Ms. Delaney then returned to Treasury Board, where she has stayed until today's announcement, as Director of Budgeting. She has been responsible for overseeing preparation of the annual budget, the monitoring of that document, preparation of fiscal plans, and the provision of advice to Treasury Board on a variety of financial matters.

Mr. Speaker, Florence Delaney was born at Clarke's Beach in Conception Bay. She graduated from Memorial University in April of 1973 with a Bachelor of Commerce Degree. I am sure that all members will join me in congratulating Ms. Delaney on her new appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will join the minister in congratulating and wishing all the best to Ms. Delaney in her new position as an assistant deputy minister. With her background in budgeting and preparation of the annual budget, I am sure she has expertise, and it is unfortunate that some of the elected officials do not have the same degree of prudence and are not as wise as the person who makes the recommendations. Hopefully, after the next election, there will be a government that will acknowledge the wisdom of those public servants in the preparation of the budget, especially in Education now, an area that is so vital to the future of this Province. We hope that the mighty axe of governments won't slash another $20 million from December and another $20 million now from the current Budget again, and hopefully she will be able to perform her duties and make recommendations that will be heeded for a change. We wish her well and I am sure she will be an asset to the department.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Minister of Education for making available a copy of his Ministerial Statement. I wish to join with the minister and the Member for Ferryland district in congratulating Ms. Delaney on her appointment as Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Administration in the Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see competent women with much experience in the public service being promoted to the assistant deputy minister level and I congratulate the minister on the appointment.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: I have a statement today, but I must apologize to the hon. the Member for Harbour Main, my critic, he did not receive it before he came to the House. I immediately gave him my copy to have a look at so that he wouldn't be left totally in the dark, being very honourable in that respect, I thought. He did receive his copy and I hope that while the other three ministers were making their statements he did have time to read the statement carefully and put his reply together.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a number of actions that I have directed with respect to emissions from the Newfoundland Processing Limited oil refinery at Come By Chance.

When Newfoundland Processing Limited was issued an operating permit, the department required the company to carry out a monitoring program for sulphur dioxide, which is the most common pollutant associated with oil refineries.

This monitoring is conducted on a continuous basis at sites in each of the communities of Come By Chance, Sunnyside and Arnold's Cove. The data collected in the monitoring program is provided to the department to ensure that the company complies with the terms of their operating permit and the Air Pollution Control regulations.

In recent months, the monitoring data have indicated that emission levels of both hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide may be exceeding provincial limits, and are high enough to be of concern to my department.

It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the data are not definitive. However, the assessment suggests the need for some further action by the department to verify the data and ensure that the interests of the public are protected.

Mr. Speaker, based on the internal assessment of the monitoring data, the following actions have been taken:

I have issued an order to Newfoundland Processing Limited to institute some immediate corrective measures to control emissions and to improve their emissions monitoring program.

The department is in the process of engaging the services of a consultant to independently evaluate the department's assessment of the monitoring data, and the conclusions which have resulted. This action will provide improved data for decision-making by the department and position the department to more quickly respond to any new emissions data.

The department will carry out some special short-term monitoring projects to determine longer term monitoring requirements and needed change to the refinery process.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, representatives of my department will be meeting with the citizens of the surrounding communities to discuss their concerns and outline the department's response.

The department will also meet with representatives of Newfoundland Processing Limited to impress upon them the importance of these measures.

Mr. Speaker, these actions will deal with certain problems at the refinery, resulting in a fairly rapid reduction in the release of certain pollutants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the surface this seems to be a very good statement, a very positive statement, and I would commend the minister for finally taking some action on this particular issue - and I say finally taking action on it. Better late than never, Mr. Speaker, because as the minister is very much aware, we have been hearing quite a great deal about this particular issue in the media over the last year or two year period. We have been fielding complaints from people around the Come By Chance and Arnold's Cove and Sunnyside area about the fumes coming from the Come By Chance refinery, that the sulphur dioxide levels out at Come By Chance and surrounding area were well above normal.

As a matter of fact, I remember the Member for Kilbride raising this issue in the House back about a year ago and we were given some assurances by the minister at that time that all was well at Come By Chance, and that the company itself was doing its own monitoring program.

I would say to the minister that it is not good enough that the company be given the sole responsibility for monitoring the emissions out there. It is like leaving a fox in charge of a chicken coop, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has had quite a number of complaints as well from the Mayor of Sunnyside, and they were given assurances as well that the sulphur dioxide levels over the last year or two at Come By Chance were quite normal.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister that it is good that she has finally taken action on this particular issue. Government should have been involved in it long ago. Government, by virtue of the fact that it has an occupational health and safety division within the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, should have been on top of this quite a number of months ago, or a couple of years ago.

The minister has taken some action. She has issued an order to the Newfoundland Processing Company to institute immediate corrective measures, and I would say to her as well that what she should be doing also is getting on to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and have probably a full-time person from that department placed on the site at Come By Chance to ensure that the fumes and the sulphur dioxide is kept within acceptable levels; but I do commend the minister that she has finally taken action on this matter, and maybe we will have better news from Come By Chance in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that this matter is finally receiving attention from the minister's office and that an order has been issued. It is unfortunate that it seems to take such a long time for the department to be able to get in place the kind of procedures that are needed to address this problem. It leads me to believe that the regulations and laws that are in place are, in fact, inadequate.

The minister came into this House in the last session before Christmas with some very punitive measures on other environmental areas, and it is all very well to talk tough and carry a big stick, but perhaps another method is needed in places like this where we have a heavy industrial circumstance, where the likelihood of pollution in exceeding limits is there, that perhaps having on site, or an ongoing monitoring program that is independent of the company but paid for by the company so that the taxpayers are not expected to go out and have somebody on site all the time, at the taxpayers expense, when we have a situation where there have been complaints before about that site and they are exceeding limits that are certainly potentially possible at any time, that it seems to me that an ongoing monitoring program paid for by the company but independent of the company ought to be a condition of the operating permits out there, and perhaps the minister should have given consideration to taking that kind of action in the future.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the Minister of Finance today resulting from or arising from his now infamous Budget speech of last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, and one that will be recalled now as the old one, two, punch. We got one punch in December, when he did all the taxation and now he is doing all the cuts, so putting it together, two documents to form one Budget. Let me ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker: does he really expect this hon. House to pass a Budget which has on the surface a $120 million deficit, in trying to ask for a blank cheque to reduce it by $70 million, without telling the House how he proposes to do that? I will go into detail a little bit later of how I think this Budget is indeed far more than $120 million. Does he honestly expect to get a $120 million deficit passed through this hon. House?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a $51 million deficit on current account, and a $172.3 million deficit on capital account and yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a Budget that I expect will pass this House at some point in time. It is a Budget, Mr. Speaker, that I believe will ensure the future prosperity of this Province.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, whether it actually passes through this House or not really does not matter. This is a Budget that will never see the light of day and will never in fact go into action, as a Budget, for this particular Province, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister like to tell us, Mr. Speaker: he says he is going to save $70 million by negotiating with the public service unions, does he honestly believe that he can do that? When does he think he is going to accomplish that because every month which passes he slips by $6 million? So, does the minister think he is going to do that before the end of March or is it some time later on in the year and what is the impact of that going to be, Mr. Speaker, if he is not able to do what he says he is going to do?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all the amount has been taken out of the Budget, it is a reality, and cannot be changed at this point in time. Secondly, arrangements will be made in terms of exactly where the $70 million comes from. Absolutely, certainly, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in advising the hon. member that this is an accurate figure and I also have no hesitation in advising him that things will be sorted out, given time.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that $70 million has been taken out, I would suggest to the minister that that is an absolute fraud, $70 million is in the expenditure estimates. The only $70 million that has been taken out is on the bottom line. The minister expects this House and the people of this Province to believe that he, with one quick stroke of the pen, can knock $70 million off of the real deficit of $120 million. The people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are not going to be prepared to take that. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this, if he does indeed take $70 million out of the Budget - I do not for one moment think that he is going to do it by stealing from the pension plan - how many jobs or what is the equivalent of that? How many jobs does he expect to be lost, because if he takes that out totally by way of jobs, we are talking well over 2,000 jobs?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. House that Merrill Lynch does not think it is a fraud, Wood Gundy does not think it is a fraud, the financial houses that we deal with do not think it is a fraud, I will listen to them rather than the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we have decided, as we explained publicly and we have been very open with the people of the Province about this, that we would allow a little more time for the consultation process to continue and that the $70 million was being removed from the Budget estimates. I am confident that before the Budget process is finished, that I will be able to tell hon. members exactly which headings these will come from and perhaps at that time we can do an amendment to the headings involved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister just admitted that the document we had before us is not worth the paper that it is written on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, he might think that he satisfied the bond rating agencies in New York, Mr. Speaker, but he has not satisfied the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is who he should be listening to and he will have a chance to listen to them very shortly, Mr. Speaker. The minister tries to tell us that he is going to save $70 million by cutting from the pension plan contribution. His own Budget document, only has carried in it, Mr. Speaker, $54 million.

If it were possible, which it is not, but if it were possible to save everything that is to be contributed to the pension plan he would only be able to save $54 million. Optimistically, if he had co-operation from all the unions he would be lucky to save $30 million. Where does the minister propose to find the other $40 million, Mr. Speaker, assuming he gets co-operation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Province has suffered from years of overspending and building up of the debt, make no wonder we have had to do things now, make no wonder we are running into difficult times. The hon. member's numbers are wrong. The hon. member's numbers are incorrect and therefore his question has no basis in fact and requires no answer.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is wrong, too, when he talks about the growth in public sector debt. I refer him to Page 4 of his Budget document with a graph which shows a growth in public sector debt and you will find that the slope is much greater since this government took office that it ever was before. We will see who is building up the public sector debt, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will he not admit that his projections are wrong? His record over the past four years has been abysmal. I stood here in this House last year in starting my Address in Reply to the Budget Speech and said: I told you so, I told you so, I told you so. I say to the minister this year: I told you so, I told you so, I told you so, I told you so. Once again you will be off by about $50, $60, or $100 million. Will the minister not admit, Mr. Speaker, that his projections are wrong and that the real deficit that is shown here is $120 million, his projections are off by at least another $30 to $50 million so we are actually looking at a deficit somewhere in the range of $150 to $200 million. How does he propose to deal with that, or does he expect his lotteries to bail him out again this year?

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

MR. BAKER: We have been told by the financial institutions that do analyses of our Budget that we have in fact done an excellent job in terms of our estimates for our own source revenues. We have done an excellent job and have been very close to reality, Mr. Speaker, much closer than other provinces have been able to be. I would also like to comment on the hon. gentleman's mention of a graph in the Budget. Unfortunately he is right, there has been a big increase, Mr. Speaker, fuelled in large part by having to pay interest on what has been charged on the Province's credit card in the past. That is what we have to stop. Also we have been hit for three years with reductions in payments from Ottawa. Now one thing I can guarantee the hon. member, if he will talk to his buddies up along and tell them not to cut another $100 million from our revenue this year then we will not be $100 million out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister's record speaks for itself. Just last year he predicted a deficit of $29 million. Had he not brought in $100 million taxation on December 4, $100 million per annum taxation on December 4 by his own admission, he would have ended up in 1991-92 with $154 million deficit, a far cry from $129 million to $154 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Does the minister expect he will keep the deficit to $51 million this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I fully expect to keep the deficit to $51 million if nothing unexpected happens. If we do not get further cuts in federal transfers that are totally in the hands of somebody else then we will live within the $51 million deficit. The hon. member's numbers are wrong. Even his numbers on the tax increases are wrong. It was about a $63 or $64 million increase in taxes and not $100 million, so the hon. member should really go back and do a little bit of work on his numbers again before he gets up in Question Period tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader and Member for Grand Bank.

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

For two years in a row now the Premier has given pay increases to his personal staff in clear violation of his governments wage restraint program which has been in effect for all public employees. We all remember the infamous Bill 16 and 17. Now, I want to say to the Premier that it looks like on average his seventeen or eighteen member personal staff have received increases of approximately 5 per cent. How does the Premier explain this pure violation of the law that his government has imposed in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will try and explain why the hon. member's representation of it is totally wrong. As he knows all people paid by the public service, I believe, generally have step progressions, including for example all the political staff in the member's offices.

I believe the political staff of the members opposite all got step progressions. Maybe not all, most of them do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: They're already at maximum. They were already at maximum. So they're already way up there. They were put way up there before. Alright. Mr. Speaker, the step progressions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - we didn't invent it. The members opposite put step progressions in place. Everybody in the public service has the benefit of it. When they get to the top of their classification they get no more. From my point of view I'd be happy to see step progressions eliminated too. It would help us control the expenditures somewhat more. I'd like to see step progressions too. There's only so much you can do. Those step progressions in many cases are part of collective agreements. Members opposite put it into the collective agreements. We can't just whip it out of the collective agreements on whim, Mr. Speaker. They're there. They put it in place for the public service generally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That's where it comes from. I'd be happy personally to see it removed. I'd have no quarrel with having it removed. It's nothing that comes for my staff particularly.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier knows that his response is not true. The political staff that is employed in the Premier's office are on contract by the Premier. They've signed contracts. I doubt very much if they're on a pay scale with regular salary increments or step progressions, as the Premier says. He'd like for us to believe that. Most of the professional public servants in the executive council who work side-by-side with his staff haven't received a salary increment in the last two years. The secretary to Cabinet, the director of administration, the director of policy and planning hasn't.

So what's this all about? That this Premier's staff which is on contract, has been - for two years, when everyone else in this Province has been on a wage freeze, has received increases. Isn't it a fact, I say to the Premier, that the real difference is that he thinks he and his staff are more affluent and above the law, and he thinks everyone else should eat cake while he and his staff dip up the caviar, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. It's an example of fairness and balance. They're people the same as the people who work in the offices of the hon. members' opposite. They've all been getting step progressions.

MR. TOBIN: They are not!

PREMIER WELLS: Hon. members opposite, if their staff in their office don't get step progressions and are not entitled to it, or are not at the top of their scale, then I can assure you nobody in my office will get it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) step down.

PREMIER WELLS: We can take it back, if you want to, and that's quite alright with me. If this is what members want to do, cancel step progressions. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is and bring in a resolution to do it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's fine for the Premier to say: let's cut out increments, or cut out pay increases, or slash, freeze and further rollback someone making $21,000 and $22,000. It's a little bit different from somebody who has it printed on the television screen Friday night that they're just about at $100,000 now. A slight difference, I say to the Premier - $99,846, a little bit different.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this: is the Premier aware that the Auditor General in her report found that the Economic Recovery Commission, appointed by the Premier, paid salary increases to its staff during, again, the restraint period? Again, in clear violation of the law. I want to ask the Premier: why are they above the law? Did the Premier tell them as well that they could dip into the caviar with him and his personal staff?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'll table it, it's here. These are the salary details for the Premier's office going back to 1987. The former premier was paying his staff more in 1987 than the staff in my office have gotten in any year since we've been there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: More. In 1987. Six years ago, Mr. Speaker. The figures are clear. The actual cost of the premier's office was $200,000 or $300,000 more in 1987 than the cost of my office is today. We're going to look at the numbers, we're going to look at all of the numbers. We're not going to look at any half-truths, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, the answer is that the member is quite incorrect. There was one person employed by the Advisory Council on the Economy, which was changed during the course of the year. As hon. members know, we collapsed the two - the Advisory Council for the Economic Recovery Commission plus the Economic Council that had been created by the former members. We put them into one single council and we saved tens of thousands of dollars by so doing.

Now I gather from the comment of the Auditor General that one person who was caught in that transfer over actually had some kind of an increase and I am having that assessed now, Mr. Speaker, to see where it stands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we know the person who has got caught. I think the press caught the Premier on Friday and now he is trying to behave the same was as he did in front of the public of the Province, trying to justify people getting increases who are making in excess of anywhere between $80,000 and $100,000.

Apart from the fact that the Premier really broke his own laws - when he broke Bill 16 and Bill 17, he contravened them - how does he explain it to pensioners, many of them who are now living below the poverty line, and who have not received an increase in four years, I ask the Premier? How does he explain that to those on social services? How does he explain it to the working poor, I say to the Member for Carbonear, thousands of them who are in the public service of this Province, the working poor?

How does the Premier explain this morally, Mr. Speaker, having broken his own laws? What kind of moral code does the Premier live under, I ask him? What kind of moral code is he running this Province under?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are a lot of improvements we could make. I believe there are a lot of improvements we could make yet. We may well be able to cut out step progressions for the entire public service. I have no personal quarrel with it. Let's get the unions to agree and we will cut it out now for the whole -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, alright. You can pay it to everybody, opposition staff, public service generally, everybody else, but you cannot pay it to people who work in the Premier's office. There is something immoral about that. What kind of standard or hypocrisy is that?

We could take a look at cutting out severance for MHA's who decide to quit. That is the right thing to do. Let's do it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Let's cut it out now, for those who decide to quit and draw a pension. Do you think that should be there? Talk about morality, let's talk about that. Let's do what is right. Let's eliminate it right now!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier will remember on Wednesday I asked him if he would investigate to see which of his Cabinet members or ministers bought a briefcase for around $800 in Toronto a little while ago. I ask the Premier: Has he finished his investigation and does he have that information for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in my absence in the House the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology advised the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Not that I know of.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Premier did not do an investigation into seeing if one of his ministers bought an $800 briefcase. On Wednesday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did admit that he had a $600 one, which I did not know about actually, Mr. Speaker, but he did admit having one.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: Will he table, in this House of Assembly, the receipt and the tax and the expense claim of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology where he claimed that specific briefcase that he says was $550?

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

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is quite right. On March 17th I rose and spoke in the House briefly about that. I think I made a brief case in my defence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the - you wanted the actual receipt or the actual cost?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The receipt and the expense claim.

MR. FUREY: No problem. I will table this right now, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say once again to the Premier: Will he investigate to see which of his ministers bought an $800 briefcase, and will he present that expense claim that was charged to a government department? Will he present that expense claim to this House of Assembly?

Mr. Speaker, is it the Premier's policy that all of his Cabinet ministers can be buying briefcases from $600 to $800, does he keep the same policy for himself, and does he have a $600 or $800-briefcase too?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of going on a witch-hunt. If the hon. member has some information, give it to me I will explore it, but I will not go on any witch-hunt, unless I start to take a look at the expenditures and the travel expenditures of the hon. member when he was a minister - and I have those available, and I will also table those, Mr. Speaker, at the same time.

Now, if the hon. member has any information that any minister has acted improperly, well then, please let me know, I will attend to it without any hesitation but I will not cause witch-hunts, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about his government's decision to slash support to, " most third party organizations." I am quoting from the Budget documents.

The total amount being cut according to the supplementary expenditure details is $3.6 million. I heard government employees say the government, the Cabinet actually, made a deliberate decision to omit the list of organizations being cut from the Budget documents that were printed. Will the Premier now table the list and let people know the names of the so-called third party organizations being cut, with the amounts each is losing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will take the questions as notice and the Minister of Finance or the President of Treasury Board will table the answers.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier have the list tabled today, and given the dependence of many community organizations on provincial core funding or seed money for generating other funding, other funding from governments, private sector funding and so on, and for attracting volunteers, can the Premier say how many jobs will be lost and how much public good will be lost as a result of his government's decision to withdraw $3.6 million in funding from third party organizations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if the list is ready and available today I have no doubt the minister will table it today. If it is not ready today then I have no doubt the minister will table it as soon as it is ready and I have no doubt that when the list is tabled, the member will be able to see what organizations would be involved.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier explain his rationale for his government's slashing support, withdrawing support from community organizations and volunteer groups?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

During the recession in the early 80s, the government greatly increased its borrowing - and it was sort of understandable at the time - the problem is they did not have the sense of responsibility to diminish it and bring it back to normal levels before. That factor, coupled with the cuts in federal transfers, coupled with the downturn in the economy has greatly diminished government's revenue; the moratorium on northern cod affecting 25,000 people has further diminished government's revenue, all of that is the rationale. That, taken together with the sense of responsibility that this government has to manage the financial affairs of the Province in a proper way, all of that is part of the rationale for the decision.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier once again, with the Minister of Finance now in his place, will he table the list?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is exactly the same as it was the first time, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change since the Minister of Finance took his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to remind hon. members again, for the future, Beauchesne, 410 sub-section (9): "Questions should not repeat questions already asked although this does not mean that other questions on the same point are out of order." I remind hon. members of that.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services has slashed the budget of his department by some $15 million of provincial funding, and one of the areas where there is a very small amount of money, the minister has decided to slash that as well, and as a result of this the minister, who is well-known for his bungling of the amalgamation issue, has now charged a savage and unprecedented attack upon the children of this Province and in some cases their parents as it relates to the Day Break situation. Let me ask the minister, how can he justify cutting out the Day Break Program in this Province, when he sits as part of a Government who allowed the Premier to spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars to do up his suite of offices?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that the Day Break Program is a worthy one. It has been serving this Province well now for some twenty years but the decision is taken, Mr. Speaker, to downsize that program and the mandate as it was shaped will be changed. We will continue to look after the sixty-five children who are in the centre right now. I have had the Board of Day Break in to see me, they were in this morning. We will be reshaping that program. Mr. Speaker, in better times, hopefully we will reintroduce this program and expand it throughout the Province but this time it has to be changed and we will continue to provide services for the children involved in Day Break.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this project was started some years ago as a pilot project and has been extremely successful and it is not enough to say that we would like to have it in other areas of the Province and because we cannot afford to do it, we will have it nowhere. That is not fair to the people who have been in the Day Break system, I say to the minister. Let me ask the minister if any other daycare centres in this Province or anyone else who are attending daycare centres in this Province, will be affected as a result of this Budget?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, there have been some changes in the grants allocated to daycare centres. We provide a yearly grant, it ranges up to $1000 per centre, that has been changed. It is now 50 per cent, depending on the size of the centre and there is an allocation per child as well that has been changed to 50 per cent of the current rates.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has admitted that he has attacked everyone in this Province basically, who attend daycare centres, I would like to ask him, what about the grants for children of people who are the working poor in this Province, who have children attending the daycare centres, is there still an incentive in place for these people? Has he now relegated the people who are only on social assistance and forgetting about the working poor who takes advantage of this program as well?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right when he states that children of people in receipt of social assistance will continue to receive full benefits and full subsidy under our daycare program, not unlike all other programs in the department, Mr. Speaker, that are provided to children of recipients of social assistance or in fact, social assistance recipients and other people who are in our various programs throughout the department. In fact, there are no carve-outs, no changes in the Budget for any of those recipients or their children.

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

MR. TOBIN: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister again. Is the minister now saying that the working poor in this Province, in order to avail of the subsidy program for daycare, will have to go on social assistance in order to benefit from that program?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that our programs, under our social assistance programs and other programs throughout the department, have to be qualified for. The working poor, as the member describes them, are a different category of persons who are not presently qualifying and I assume this is the group he speaks of, are not presently qualifying, except in the cases where their income is topped-up as a result of qualifying and in those cases of course, they do receive a top-up if they qualify. Otherwise they do not qualify and are not in receipt of any of the benefits of our programs and that is normal and will continue to be, as it has in the past.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, it concerns the same program that has been cut by the Government in this Budget. Is the Premier aware that the Day Break parent child centre is not really a daycare centre in the ordinary sense. In fact, it has been operating for twenty years and provides specialty services to children who are at special risks, Mr. Speaker. The services that they provide have been proven to be effective tools with family and community based intervention to save children with special needs and special problems.

Will the Premier not have a second look at this and rescind this cruel measure which is going to seriously damage children who are already at serious risk?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is more to this than the hon. member has raised. Sure, we would like to be able to continue it, but if we are going to continue it for St. John's, then we have to put it in place for the rest of the Province, too. We can't justify cutting out other things generally throughout the Province and maintaining a special or privileged situation.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. the Member for St. John's East wanted the hon. the Member for Humber East to ask a question, I have no doubt he would have asked her. Now, if she would just be a bit civilized and recognize -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - that there are two sides to this House and there is an appropriate process and if she wants to ask a question she can ask it afterwards.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when the government looked at its overall position and took the decisions that it had to take in order to ensure that it could manage its financial affairs properly, there were a whole host of considerations. Nobody can question the desirability of having such a daycare program. What we can clearly question is the propriety of confining it to one part of the Province and cutting out other equally sound programs generally throughout the Province to maintain this for one sector of the Province. The government can't do that. The government has to treat all of its people on a fair and balanced basis.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a couple of reports: first of all, the audited financial statement of the Province of Newfoundland Pooled Pension Fund, for the year ending December 31 1991; secondly, the annual report for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for the year 1992; as well, a list of guaranteed loans paid out by the Province, and a list of temporary loans raised under sections 44 and 45 of the act, between the period March 5 1992 and March 3 1993.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, last week, members opposite asked a variety of questions relating to a contract awarded to Mr. MacKenzie by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. I advised the House that I had asked the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, to do a complete assessment of it for me. I am happy now to table two copies of the report that he has provided me.

I should say that in the process there was a legal opinion that bothers me a bit. The legal opinion revealed that there is a weakness in the 1982 rules with the suggestion or the lawyer's advice that they do not apply to executive assistants. I don't see - certainly that should not be the case, if it is, in fact, legally the case. We will take steps immediately to ensure that any changes necessary to cause the rules to apply to executive assistants will be done. I can say, in general, Mr. Speaker, that the report made by the Attorney General clearly demonstrates that there is no evidence of any improper conduct by any of those involved and no evidence of any intention whatsoever to provide for a specific benefit for Mr. MacKenzie.

Petitions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 2,185 residents of my district, taking in the communities from Little St. Lawrence to St. Lawrence, Lawn, Lord's Cove, Point au Gaul, Lamaline and Point May.

The petition to the members of the House of Assembly: 'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and we want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away, and we ask you, our representatives, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, I, with my colleague, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, received this petition yesterday in Marystown, where we met with representatives from all around the Burin Peninsula, taking in three districts, those of Grand Bank, Burin - Placentia West, and Fortune - Hermitage. It was a very informative evening, I must say. It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon and a lot of people said: We really thank you for taking your time to come here, because we know there were many other things you could have been doing today.

It was most informative, I say to members. It is very nice to chat to people from all walks of life who have very strong opinions on this particular issue. Yet, one thing they wanted to stress is that they really support sharing and doing away with and avoiding duplication as much as possible. That message came through loud and clear, I say to members. It was very refreshing, really. But, as the petition says, they don't want any tampering whatsoever with the rights they now have under the Constitution of Canada.

It was interesting, as well, to hear them chat and discuss the statement of the Friday before last that was given here in the House by the Premier and to see the reaction given by the church leaders. There are some who didn't take a great deal of comfort from it, I say to hon. members. They weren't really sure that what was said here the Friday before last was really concrete, that they really could take too much comfort from it.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of those 2,185 residents of my district, and want to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, I have signed it. I support the petition, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand with the Member for Grand Bank in the presentation of this petition. We originally planned to do it on a Friday but because the Member for Fortune - Hermitage wanted to have it done on a Sunday because it was more convenient for him, my colleague and I agreed, and we both showed up to accept the petitions from the people of the three districts. It was a very informative discussion, I must say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was Oliver there?

MR. TOBIN: No, he didn't show up.

It was a very informative discussion I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, a discussion that brought people together from three provincial districts of the Burin Peninsula. They were a group of people who shared a common objective in terms of the denominational education system and I think it is fair to say there was a fair amount of mistrust, if that is the word, as it relates to this government's position. I believe the people who presented this petition to us yesterday presented it understanding full well that there are some good recommendations within the Williams Royal Commission. I believe it is fair to say that these people also feel there is room for sharing within the school programs of the various schools but, at the same time, these people want government to respect the constitutional right that is included in the Constitution and that the adherence of that constitutional right be respected. What they have asked us to do is ask this government to honour the constitutional right as it relates to the denominational education system in this Province. They have asked us, Mr. Speaker, to pass on that wish to the Legislature of this Province and, in particular, the government, the Premier and the Minister of Education.

I think it was the Minister of Education who stated in this House that he would like his grandchildren to remember their grandfather as the person who changed the denominational education system in this Province. That is not what these people asked us yesterday. They asked us to request the Premier and his government to respect their constitutional right and to ensure that the denominational education system continues in this Province. I stand, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague from Grand Bank in supporting the request of these people for having the constitutional right of the denominational system continued.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: I stand in this House today to present a petition from some 463 constituents of mine in the community of St. Alban's in the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir from the St. Ignatius Parish. It is virtually the same type of petition that I just heard my friends from across the House presenting from the people of their district. The prayer says, 'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality of education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and we want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches and education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away, and we ask your representative not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.' Now, I think this petition was taken up before the Premier, the church leaders, and the Minister of Education met to destroy some of the myths that were out there concerning the Williams Royal Commission. I think the Opposition, out in the Province, have tried to stir up concerns that they didn't believe that government and church leaders would get together and come up with an agreement. They were very, very disappointed, so they have been out there stirring up suspicions that this thing is really not a fact, but as I sign this petition with my constituents, my fears are taken away.

The Premier said in his statement in the House on March 12, he was pleased to be able to tell the House that a meeting between the church leaders and Cabinet had made significant progress towards achieving a consensus which will lead to major improvements of the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador. This has been the objective of both churches and government from the beginning. Government and church leaders have agreed to work co-operatively in developing new approaches which will: 1) enhance the quality of education; 2) achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of services; and 3) make substantial changes in administration that will lead to a major reorganization of school districts.

He also went on to say that the government has assured leaders that it is not seeking to change the constitution that would remove constitutionally-protected rights of classes of people specifically provided for.

That, to me, is satisfactory, and I think it is satisfactory to the people who signed this petition in the community of St. Alban's.

I am quite happy to stand here today and support their petition and present it in the House further to ensure that their rights will be protected.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly rise to support that petition, but I want to say to the member, I don't know where he is living all his life, or how long his head has been in the sand, but this Opposition and this member of this Opposition have not gone out and tried to stir up anything. I didn't have to. The great number of people out there can stand on their own two feet.

It is insulting, to say the least, to the people who signed those petitions, to say that we went out there and tried to stir up something. Where does he think he is living?

MR. TOBIN: The churches did it, 'Kevin'.

MR. PARSONS: The churches did it and I, as a member of the church, condone it.

Let me say this to the Premier: The other day when I brought the first petition here, I used some pretty strong language. Really, I was not literally speaking but, I suppose, figuratively speaking. It was symbolic for me to say what I said, that we would fight them in the streets, but in saying that, after attending some several churches over the weekend to accept petitions on behalf of the people, if anything were ever tampered with that is within the jurisdiction of our churches, then I think perhaps you might see it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that this is not something that just came up today or yesterday. This has been with us since our first forefathers settled on this Island. It didn't start yesterday; it didn't start today, and it is not going to end tomorrow.

I was delighted with the Premier's statement, and I told him that. The only thing that worried me a bit about the Premier's statement was there might be a minority, and the minority are not going to rule the majority. Now, I agree with that, but I don't know where he is coming from when he talks about this minority.

I think that all churches are agreeable now to sharing. I have been saying that myself for years, even when I was a member of the R.C. Board for St. John's, and I was a member for fourteen years. I always advocated it, and it was becoming a part of the institution. It was being integrated. It took time. It just didn't happen overnight. People used to say they were going to lose their identity and they were going to lose this, that, and the other thing, but it is finally happening. It is happening in areas where we have insufficient numbers to make a school viable - so pupils can receive the education to which they have a right, then you will see sharing.

I know in my district alone, Mr. Speaker, there will be a school there - presumably and hopefully - in the very near future that will have several religious people being involved in that school, and I do not see a problem in that; but tampering with the Constitution is what people are fearful of. Once you tamper with something - not alone Catholics, every religion; all the people of this Island have put a lot into the education system.

Now, there are red herrings being employed out there. I, for one, think that Dr. Williams went beyond went beyond the terms of reference he was given, because I don't think it was in the terms of reference, to bring in his number one suggestion, which was to eliminate the denominational education system.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this over and over and over, and I will be presenting thousands of names on petitions within the near future, and all we are saying is that we are making it known. And I know government realizes that we, as Newfoundlanders, support the denominational education system. Certainly, we need changes, more sharing; there is no problem there. All we are saying is that we want to keep what we have. Listening to CBC the other night, I was surprised to hear that a poll going across Canada shows that 50 per cent of Canadians are dissatisfied with the secular school system, the system of public schools.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I am joined by pretty well every one in this House, in saying that we will have a denominational education system, many, many years from now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,470 individuals in the City of St. John's, who are petitioning concerning the Day Break Parent Child Centre, and these petitioners say to the Minister of Social Services and through him, to the government of this Province, that they urge the restoration of funding to Day Break Parent Child Centre as soon as possible. It is critical that this service be one of the options available for families who need child development and parenting support and other specialized services.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions were gathered over the weekend and were initiated by parents of children who use this service. It was obtained from about 4:00 p.m. on Saturday until Monday morning, this morning, a very short period of time. The parents who were involved in this exercise with the Day Break Parent Child Centre, are very, very concerned that the future of their children will be put further at risk by the elimination of this program.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Social Services on the radio this morning trying to defend the action by saying it was merely a budgetary measure. Mr. Speaker, if it were merely a budgetary measure, and if the minister were not at all concerned about the children being cared for at this centre, then he would still keep the centre open. Because the centre provides a service which is available to special children who are suffering from very serious problems, whether they be in families where there has been a history of abuse, where they have had some problems themselves with aggressive behaviour in other centres where they could not be handled, this centre provides what they call a holistic approach involving the parents in the program and other initiatives involving the families, that attack the problems, Mr. Speaker, at their source.

The source of the problems are tackled there and the results of this program have demonstrated already that, there is, in fact, an economic aspect to it, and I say, if the minister is not even concerned about the children, themselves, let him draw his concern about the consequences of not helping these children, that if we look at what kind of problems these children may have in the future and the kind of work that Day Break does, they will save money in social programs in the long run.

I will give you one example, Mr. Speaker. One of the programs operated through the centre is a pregnancy support program for pregnant disadvantaged parents, which provides prenatal education and food supplements to these women in the families that they service and the model that they use is basically trying to prevent children being born with disabilities and disadvantages. The estimate, Mr. Speaker, is that only one baby brought through a healthy pregnancy without having to be hospitalized for being medically fragile, or having to have specialized health and education services throughout his or her life, will save government enough money to fund the entire Daybreak program for one year. So, if we are not concerned about the children at all but are only concerned about budget, we will keep this program alive.

Mr. Speaker, this is a cruel move by the government, cruel for these children. I ask the Premier, who said in question period today that we shouldn't have this centre if we can't have them all over the Island: Is that the theory on which public services are going to operate in this Province? Are we going to close down the Janeway child care centre emergency department because it is not available to everybody in the Province, only the people who can use that emergency service in St. John's? Is the Minister of Health going to close that down because it is not available up in Labrador but only available in St. John's?

That kind of thinking means that we can't have any progress at all until everybody in the Province can be brought to the same level of service. This group has developed a model which is effective and works to assist in families which have serious problems. They deal with problems of illiteracy, parenting, family violence, abuse, neglect, low birth rate amongst pregnant women, and personal and family health issues which are the root causes of the problems these children have. This is not a daycare centre, Mr. Speaker. This is an effective family service centre which is resolving and helping to resolve some of the problems (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: I urge the government, Mr. Speaker, to take back this cruel decision and restore this service.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the member was listening to this morning, but I certainly didn't say that I wasn't concerned about children.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said it was a budgetary measure.

MR. GULLAGE: I didn't say that either. I may have said that, and he took it out of context. Certainly, it was a budgetary measure, that is quite accurate.

Mr. Speaker, this program, as the member has said, is a program that treats the entire family. That is quite accurate. Obviously, Daybreak is different from daycare centres throughout the Province. It is not strictly a daycare and does, in fact, focus upon families that are identified almost entirely from our case loads, families who have difficulties of various kinds. Treatment is provided for the parents - counselling and treatment and services provided within that centre for not just the children but also for the parents involved.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the children, in particular, because that is obviously our prime concern. My conversation this morning with the board was mainly around that point, the fact that we now have some sixty-five children who have to be looked after. Many of them, as the member has said, have come out of other daycare centres and for various reasons have been located in the Daybreak centre so that further counselling and treatment could take place, the kind of counselling and treatment that was not available in the regular daycare centres throughout the area.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the prime concern. We have provided enough money in the Budget to do that. Now, the objective is to see that that transition takes place and that we are set up in such a way that these children will be accommodated in daycare centres throughout the region, and we have the funds set aside to do just that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of a large number of constituents in my district of Bay of Islands.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: I thought three people could speak to the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East. Mr. Speaker, if the Premier has to go to other business or do something else, I can certainly speak to this afterwards. I will let him go ahead if he wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. The Chair was of the understanding that that petition was finished. The Chair apologizes. The Chair thought the Premier was presenting a petition.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West is speaking to the petition?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to obviously support the petition that was presented today and say to this House that I sincerely believe the government has taken a very regressive step in the attack upon this daycare centre in this Province. It was one that was put in place for the sole purpose as a pilot project, to see how it would work. I say to the minister that it has worked extremely well and that program has had some very significant and very positive results in this Province. The minister says we cannot afford to put these all over the Province. I say to the minister that it is not enough to level off downwards but what the government should do is level off upwards and eventually we could probably get there. This step today is extremely regressive and it is unfortunate because both the minister and I share the same view, that there is not enough and never has been enough money in the daycare program in this Province.

For government to slash the $500,000 that was there, to effectively slash every daycare program in this Province is certainly not very becoming of the objectives of the Department of Social Services. This Day Break program which has been extremely effective in this Province - people will suffer, and prevention has a lot to do with the various programs. What the minister has done is basically taken that program away from all those who are affected, so I ask the Minister if he would reconsider his decision to attack the daycare program in this Province and reinstate the money for a very worthwhile cause.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions, one forwarded to me by the Parish of Our Lady of the Star of the Sea and it is signed by a large number of people in the district of Bay of Islands, because this parish is in Benoit's Cove, and another one by the Sacred Heart Parish Council in Curling, which is also in my district, up in the western end of the city of Corner Brook. The petition is, of course, as I am sure all hon. members will be aware in exactly the same wording as has been read out from all other members. I assume it is a standard form petition that the church has arranged and asked all their members in different parishes to have circulated.

I understand the concerns expressed by the people who have signed these petitions and I would say that government's position is exactly as I read it in the House on March 12 when the church leaders were present. The government's position is very clear, that it is not seeking to obtain an amendment to the Constitution in relation to the education rights of the different denominations as is provided for in Term 17 of the Terms of Union. Instead we are seeking to try and provide improvements in the education system with the agreement of all those involved, particularly the churches, who have a vested interest in this because they have constitutional rights secured under the terms of the Constitution. It does not matter that you call them classes of people, what we are talking about are the churches and it is for that reason that we are dealing with, in this committee, the heads of the churches.

I am hopeful that we will be able to develop a consensus. I have now seen the general outline of the proposal which the churches had to put to the government committee and the committee is working with the churches in discussing how that outline might be further expanded and fleshed out and see whether or not it would enable us to meet the objectives in terms of improving the system of education in the Province. The position is very clear, that if after the conclusion of these discussions there is a consensus amongst the leaders and government that some adjustment or changes to the Constitution are necessary or desirable then they can be pursued at that time. I do not see any point getting involved in an extensive discussion over whether you should or you should not amend the Constitution, or seek to amend the Constitution right at this particular time. At the same time I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would also present a similar petition on behalf of the Member for Gander who had a similar petition from St. Joseph's Parish in Gander. It says exactly the same thing so I would present to the House all three of these petitions, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: I have a petition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I see the hon. Member for Green Bay standing. Is the hon. member speaking to the petition or presenting one?

MR. HEWLETT: I wish to present one, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HEWLETT: I think we have someone who wishes to speak to the Premiers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair does not know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I yield.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

I, too, have a petition relating to denominational education and unlike some of the other that have been delivered here today, it comes from a different faith group - the Pentecostal faith group - which are a well established church with a large membership in and around the Green Bay area and the northeast coast in general.

The petition to the House of Assembly says: We, the undersigned of this petition, acknowledge our support for the continuation of the Pentecostal School Board and Pentecostal schools to provide education to Pentecostal students and others who wish to attend Pentecostal schools.

We further acknowledge the support of Pastor Roy King, General Superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, and his executive, in speaking on our behalf.

The prayer of the petition ends with this in capital letters; WE ARE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE DISMANTLING OF THE DENOMINATIONAL SYSTEM.

Mr. Speaker, first when I got myself elected, Green Bay had not been used to having an MHA on the opposition side, and for some time I do not think they quite knew what to do with me. Then one day this government came up with the idea of a Royal Commission on Education and all of a sudden there were a lot of meetings to go to and people found a use for their member. They wanted a voice to put across their point of view in this Assembly, and there was building in our society at that time - and might I say quite often from the ranks of the government across here - a certain mind-set that we had to get into a secular school system; we had to abolish the denominational system.

The Pentecostals of Green Bay, and I would suggest the Pentecostals of Newfoundland in general, do not wish to see their particular school system dismantled. They do agree with sharing of services where appropriate. They do not believe in putting up schools where they have insufficient students to put together a decent educational program but they, I suppose, among the denominations, are among the most denominational, if I may use that phrase.

In terms of a Pentecostal school, and you will notice it when you walk in the corridors, you will find God is in the corridors, God is in the classroom, God is in the gymnasium, God is in the parking lot.

Denominational education to the Pentecostals is a matter of ambience. It is a matter of atmosphere. It is a matter of their moral code being applied in a school context, and they are afraid that this 'consensus' rather than unanimity - consensus may be what comes of it in the end, but consensus may not be exactly what the Pentecostal parents want because consensus for them, if the denominational system is torn apart, will be a loss for them.

I support their petition, Mr. Speaker. I have signed it, and I ask that it be tabled and given to the Minister of Education.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in my place to present a petition on behalf of some 221 constituents in the Town of Deer Lake who belong to the Immaculate Conception Parish of Deer Lake.

I received this petition on Friday past and promised that I would bring it to the attention of the House as soon as possible, and this would be the earliest opportunity.

It is along much the same lines I guess, of other members who have presented petitions here today. I would like to just add to it, for the record, that we, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province.

We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them, and in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representative, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of denominations getting together and doing something to be more efficient, and taking it upon themselves before ever there was a mention, or anything came out of the Williams Royal Commission at all, those particular people in conjunction with the Integrated System in Deer Lake took it upon themselves to have joint services.

One of the schools now, the Xavier High School and Xavier system in Deer Lake, is looking after three grades. The Integrated System looks after everything else, Mr. Speaker, especially in the high school system. The integrated system closed out a school completely, gave them a few dollars, the integrated St. Barbe's South integrated system in Deer Lake, I always refer to it as the Deer Lake, it is not, it is the Deer Lake-St. Barbe's South Integrated School Board now. It will allow them to free up some funds to do some work. They put a piece onto the Elwood High School in Deer Lake, they did some work down in Cow Head, the Cow Head School or the Daniel's Harbour School and they did some, I believe, in the Woody Point's School, all because of the integration system in the Deer Lake area. They freed up some funds to do other work with regards to maintenance and additions to the school system. It is working really well. Like I said, Mr. Speaker, the people started it themselves, they initiated it themselves. So this made it better, nobody told them what to do or had to take them by the hand and walk them through the system. They initiated it, they put it in place and it is working fairly well, it is working really well. You talk to teachers in both systems and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Pasadena is another example.

MR. WOODFORD: Pasadena is another prime example of what can happen when there are schools like that. But the underlying problem they have, and the underlying feeling that they have, they are afraid, I will quote from one paragraph; in Deer Lake our concern is with the interpretation and implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. We want the joint services system which we now have, preserved and strengthened. In maintaining our joint services system we want to respect the rights of all denominations and we believe that strengthening our faith and values can only enhance the quality of our people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that that was a great opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be able to rise and present the petition on behalf of the Immaculate Conception Parish in Deer Lake and make those few comments pertaining to where they are coming from, with regard to the denominational system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

The hon. the Member on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: I would just like to ask the Opposition House Leader, was this a new petition from the Member for Humber Valley? I thought it was, so there are two more to speak then on this petition before -

AN HON. MEMBER: Unless they do not want to.

MR. FUREY: but I am sure somebody on that side wants to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is the difficulty, the Chair does not know if the members who are standing are presenting the petition or whether they are speaking to a petition. I can only recognize one but we have a lot of people standing. If there is somebody who wants to speak to the petition presented by the hon. Member for Humber Valley that was raised on a point of order -

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have been sitting here all evening presenting these petitions. We have been trying to force the Minister of Education to stand up and support one of the petitions and this is why we have not really said anything. I thank the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for bringing it to the attention of the House and now hopefully the minister will get up and support the petition so ably presented -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is anybody speaking to the petition of the Member for Humber Valley?

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise and it is a pleasure for me to support my colleague, after his presentation so ably presented, and the point that was made in his presentation is one that the Minister of Education should keep in mind; that we are not or the people out there do not mind sharing. Certainly in that hon. member's district, there is proof in the pudding, there is proof in the eating, it is there and there is no one who has any queries about this. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to go back and say again that I heard the Premier say exactly what - it put some doubts in a lot of our minds and a lot of the minds of the people out there, is at this present time there is no need to change anything in the Constitution, at this present time. When is the time? Is there going to be a time or do we see in the foreseeable future a time? Does the Minister of Education see a time? Would he explain to us what is meant by this 'sometime' or 'not right now'?

The point that the people are making overwhelmingly is that there is no time, there's no problem out there. Everything can be justified within this present system. So there isn't a problem. So why even talk about the Constitution? With that said, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to get up and support the petition which was presented by the hon. Member for Humber Valley, as well as several other petitions which were presented today, which essentially were saying the same thing. The hon. Member for Humber Valley, I listened to him very closely when he made his speech. He's a member for whom I have the utmost respect. The only thing I regret is he's not a Liberal. He is a Liberal in his heart. He's not a member of our Party but as far as I'm concerned we would welcome him any day when he comes to his senses and leaves that bunch of dinosaurs he's sitting with.

The hon. member talked about the fact that some of his constituents don't seem to trust government - this air of mistrust. I have to tell the hon. member that in the early days of discussions with church leaders, between government and the church leaders, I detected there was an air of mistrust. The churches somehow had come to the conclusion that government was bent on destroying the denominational education system of this Province. I don't know how they could ever have reached such a conclusion.

The Royal Commission report does not recommend the abolition of denominational education. I've heard many people get up and speak contrary to that and say that the report did recommend the abolition. The one person in this Province who very clearly recognized what the Royal Commission was recommending was Gerry Vink of the consumers association, or the consumer rights association. Whatever. I forget the exact title now. Mr. Gerry Vink was interviewed on radio one morning and he made it quite clear. He said: this Royal Commission does not recommend the abolition of denominational education. Now Mr. Vink was criticizing it, because in his view we should of course abolish the system.

Government has no intention of doing that. As a matter of fact, if you were to look at the educational systems across North America you'll find that people are moving away from the public school system and that they are going to different church groups and different private groups to have an educational system. It is the responsibility of government to make sure that our educational dollars are spent wisely and properly; it is the responsibility of government to ensure that all schools meet a certain standard, that they deliver an educational system which is approved by the Department of Education, approved by government. Those are the responsibilities of government.

There are some very clear examples, some good examples, of cooperation. The hon. member can indeed be proud of Deer Lake. I visited the schools in Deer Lake and there is probably one of the best examples of a joint service system in this Province, in Deer Lake where the Integrated and the Roman Catholics have come together. Not the first one. The first case took place in Plum Point. Up near the great district of Strait of Belle Isle. The school board which represents the Strait of Belle Isle also takes in Plum Point. Guess who was chairperson of the board when that joint service was put in place, Mr. Speaker?

I was. I was chairman of the school board which put in place the first joint service in Newfoundland and Labrador. Close on its tail was Fogo Island, which also has an excellent service. This is happening around the Province. This sharing. Now it is not always necessary. I would think that if you have a population base which can put 300 to 400 students in a school there's really no need to bring schools together. But as schools get smaller with declining enrollment, by the year 2000 we'll have less than 100,000 students in our schools. In 1983 there were close to 150,000. At the present time, 121,000. By the year 2000, if the projections are correct, there'll be less than 100,000.

So churches recognize that if we are going to continue to deliver a good quality education then there will be times when there will be some sharing, and that is exactly what The Royal Commission talked about, Mr. Speaker.

So I would tell the hon. Member for Humber Valley to take the statement which the hon. the Premier read, and send it to each and every person who signed that petition, because there is no need to mistrust government. We are not in the business of destroying a denominational education system and replacing it with a public system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. DECKER: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: A minute or so to finish up.

MR. DECKER: Just a second, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

We are not in the business, Mr. Speaker, of coming in with a godless secular system. All we want for our children and our students is the best system in North America, and we can have that system within the denominational system, as long as we can get sharing and co-operation - the kind which you find in Deer Lake and Plum Point and Fogo Island and many more places throughout the Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present and support a petition signed by 424 people of St. Peter's and Paul's Parish, Bay Bulls.

The prayer of the petition: We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them.

In the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representative, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the rights that were given in Terms of Union in 1949 were given to adherents of the specific faith, and the current Minister of Education has done more to raise public sentiment and concerns with denominational education than anybody else in this Province.

Back on November 1st the minister said, and as quoted in The Evening Telegram: I would like for my grandchildren to know that when their grandfather was minister there was a denominational system and eventually there was no segregation based on religion.

Now this is the same minister who was going to pioneer joint service schools and had no intention of doing away with denominational education, and it is the same minister who said: There are recommendations which require changes to the Constitution, and that change could be made through consensus or through force. Hopefully it can be reached through consensus.

He is a member of the same government whose Premier stated, in a Ministerial Statement on March 12th, that it is not seeking changes to the Constitution that would remove constitutionally protected rights of classes of people specifically provided for.

Now the same Premier stated, and he has made no definitive statement to date, and he said here in this House today that there is no need, and I quote: To seek to amend the Constitution at this particular time.

He stated that in this House today, and he also stated on previous occasions: It is not our objective and it is not our intention, and there are no plans, to eliminate the denominational system of education.

That has been said by the Premier in the past. He is playing with words. No wonder the people are building up a great mistrust in this government.

This government signs collective agreements with public sector unions in the Province. They made their intentions known at the time, that they dealt in good faith, and they came back with Bill 16 and 17, and they built up a mistrust among the people.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there are no guarantees given by this government that they will not tamper with - the public sentiment was aroused to such a great degree, and pending an election in the very near future, it is their intention to smooth the waters, and the Premier brought that out very clearly when he said that it is not their intent to amend the Constitution at this time.

Also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26, states: Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

So all the petitioners are asking for is an opportunity to have a say in the type and quality, basically, of education that they want for their children. It's not an unreasonable expectation for people to ask. If these people choose to have a system based on no specific religion they would request it so. But they haven't and they have that right, and a government must respect the right, not just on the eve of an election but between elections and at all times. It's the public that sets the standards which government should follow.

We've had a case over the past several months, and mostly by the minister. We've had a play, a direct statement by the minister in fact, and we've had plays on words by the Premier, on the denominational education system. I think it's time to come clean and make a definitive statement on denominational education and not have the people out there wondering what's going to happen. It's no wonder the people have built up a mistrust with this government because they fail to take a stand on anything. They say one thing and do something completely different.

I support this petition by the people of Saints Peter and Paul's parish and I ask the government to treat it accordingly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present as well. This petition is to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has no idea whether someone's presenting a petition or speaking to it.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I stand in support of the petition presented by the Member for Ferryland from the Bay Bulls parish. The member has already presented other petitions and I presume will present still more from the different parishes along the shore. The school board involved of course is the Ferryland Roman Catholic school board. Being only one school board in the area, and certainly being in an area where you haven't got to worry about duplication in relation to or on religious grounds of course. I'm a product, as is the member, of that school system.

When we look at the history of the development of education on the southern shore, a topic that has been widely researched and written about, we see that the original schools there were started by the churches - the Church, in this case - and some of them under very trying circumstances in the early days, The original buildings that were erected were done on church property with money from the people, who really are the church. Over the years the southern shore developed what came to be known as one of the best systems of education in this whole Province.

Thanks certainly to that has to go to the Presentation sisters and in the lower part of the shore, in the parish of Bay Bulls, to the Mercy sisters who taught there for a number of years. The pioneers, actually, in education in that part of the Province were Presentation sisters who instilled into the young people of the area, and perhaps even more so the people generally, strong Christian values. These values have always been held by the people of the area. But over the last few years there has been a great concern about what is happening to our system of education. It has come under attack by people in the Province who are very vocal and have access to the media, especially to CBC, a station which seems to take delight in promoting anti-denominational views.

The government, feeling that this was the new way to go, spurred on by an erroneous paper put out by the NTA some years ago when the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was then the president of the NTA, a poorly researched paper, as admitted by the president in a red-faced interview some years ago, where he stated that the cost of the denominational system is astronomical. Absolutely no knowledge of the system or no research into the matter before such a statement was made. He caused a tremendous amount of concern. This has been taken up by government. The minister in his statements, and government generally, have expressed quite often anti-denominational system views, simply because it was too costly.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, not only is the system of education not costly, in relation to real dollars and cents, but in light of the developmental history of the system of education in our Province and the benefits we have received from it we can ill-afford to be without it, and the minister, himself, admitted today that most of the rest of the country and, indeed, the Western world, are turning toward semi-denominational systems of education which gives protection and funding to religious sponsored schools.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very good system of education in this Province that has done wonders in light of the history and geography of this Province, and if we want to talk about why we are where we are, in relation to education levels, as compared to the rest of the country, I suggest two things: number one, we look at the history and geography of Newfoundland compared to everywhere else, but we also look at the real facts and figures and take the marks on the Canadian Test of Basic Skills for many of our smaller schools throughout this Province and compare them with any in the rest of Canada and you will see that we stack up today as well as any of them.

We have had a rough history, our geography has beaten us from day one, but we have come to where we are right now because of the very solid education system and we should do what we can to strengthen it, not what we can to undermine it and potentially destroy it. So I certainly support the petition and I ask the government to make sure that our constitutional rights are protected, that we continue to have the same type of strong education system we have, and that we can grow and build together and co-operate to make sure, as the minister says, we have the best education system in the country.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace.

MR. CRANE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the Immaculate Conception Parish of Harbour Grace. We have 920 Roman Catholics who have signed. Yesterday afternoon, I was invited to a meeting of a parish council and some committees in the church and school board, where, even though they treated me really nice, and it was a good meeting, they were very frank about how they feel about the school system and retaining their school system.

It is nice to hear somebody like the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes make a bit of sense about the petition. You know, there is a lot of mistrust and a lot of fear, some of it caused by the Member for Ferryland, the way he speaks on everything - everything is fearmongering. But it is nice to hear the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes make some sense.

I guess this petition reads the same as every other petition, Mr. Speaker - it says: 'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality of education for our children in the Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we also support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches and education and, especially, shared services to schools.' This government has been preaching that ever since the Member for St. John's North became minister.

It says, 'Of the 980 baptized Catholics over the age of eighteen, in our parish, who are eligible to sign, 920 signed, which represents 93.2 per cent. These people of the parish have clearly shown beyond the shadow of a doubt our support for our Bishop Fabian MacDonald and our lay leaders, to continue on their behalf.' I spoke frankly with them, as well, Mr. Speaker, and I told them I honestly felt that this government is not out to scrap the denominational system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not yet, not yet.

MR. CRANE: Not yet. Well, you won't be around to see the rest of it. I did say that schools would go as the enrollment drops and some might just be Roman Catholic schools. And they accept that if the Roman Catholic schools don't have the enrollment, they will go as well as the protestant schools and the Pentecostal schools. They are quite happy with that. But where the population of Catholics in an area can support a school, they certainly don't want to see that school change to anything else. I support the petition, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

This petition is dealing with municipal affairs, but before I get into the petition I want to express my thanks to the minister who left a meeting (inaudible) the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to come in and be in the House for the presentation of the petition. And I thank him, Mr. Speaker, for not going back to his meeting and for staying around until I get the opportunity to present it.

This petition was circulated and forwarded to me by a group of concerned citizens from the community of Port au Bras. It says: 'We ask you, Mr. Tobin, as our elected representative, to present this petition to the House of Assembly on our behalf. We have known from your present performance that this blame cannot be put on your shoulders but we do ask for a complete answer from our present Provincial Government.' The petition, forwarded to the hon. William Hogan, Minister of Municipal Affairs, with 90 per cent of resident voters, requests a public meeting with someone from his department.

Mr. Speaker, this is about the council in Port au Bras. I want to go on record as saying the council in Port au Bras is one of the most dedicated and committed councils that I have ever seen serving in this Province.

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

I ask the member to take his place.

I just say to the hon. member, I didn't hear the prayer of the petition. I don't know whether the member said the petition was irregular and asked for permission of the House, or what. I would like for the member to explain, because I didn't hear the prayer of the petition.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order on that then, Mr. Speaker. The prayer of the petition is probably irregular, but I have consulted with the Minister of Finance, as well as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and other hon. members and we have agreed to present the petition. Probably I should have said that to Your Honour at the beginning.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may carry on.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with this petition. I am delighted, by the way, that the Minister of Finance is here to listen to the petition, as well. Last year, a government-guaranteed loan of approximately $400,000 was given to the community of Port au Bras.

What happened was they went into the country to the water supply and brought out the water supply to the community. Out of that money, seven homes in the community of Port au Bras were hooked up. Accordingly, officials from the minister's department met with the council to come up with the formula as to how much money would be needed in terms of balancing their budget and doing what was needed to be done.

As a result of that, the council, upon instructions from the department, imposed a poll tax - because they don't yet have property tax - from $120 to $350. I ask the Minister of Finance if he would listen to this as well, please. It went from $120 to $350. In addition to that, the council brought in a hook-up charge of $300.

For some of these residents in Port au Bras it was going to take five years, I think, for them to get full water supply. But they had to pay the taxes of $350, which I believe, I say to the Ministers of Finance and Municipal and Provincial Affairs, is the highest poll tax in this Province - $350. And, in addition to that, there was the $300 hook-up.

The residents thought that was exorbitant because it was going to be five years before they got a water supply. Port au Bras is a small fishing community, where people work at the fish plant and at fishing, which we all know is not very successful these days. But on Thursday, when the Minister of Finance announced his Budget, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs did not include one red penny for the people of Port au Bras. Now, you have to bear in mind -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we stop the noise, Mr. Speaker, I can't hear what the member is saying.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: We have to bear in mind that they did exactly what government asked them to do, this council that was committed to serving the people and doing everything they could for the people of Port au Bras. The people of Port au Bras were upset by this exorbitant amount of taxes because it was going to be five years before some of them got water, based on getting so much money a year over a five-year program.

On Thursday, when the Minister of Finance brought in his Budget and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs revealed what was there, there was no money for Port au Bras. They have done what the government asked them to do. They have increased the taxes to the highest level in this Province, a poll tax. Now what happens? - no money. The council in this Province that stood up and supported the Premier's claim that people should pay for the services, did impose the highest poll tax in this Province and were disappointed when they received no money after following what the Premier asked them to do.

I don't know what is going to happen now, I say to the ministers opposite. Seven communities were hooked up on the $400,000 last year that brought it in. One of the worst areas would have got services this year - if they had another $350,000 to $400,000 as they had last year, we would have seen twenty-five to forty hook-ups this year; but not one cent. Yet, at the same time, in other communities on the Burin Peninsula, and in other parts of this Province, people are paying poll tax of $120 and continuing to receive money and continuing to see it put in place, so it is a very serious situation. A hard-working, dedicated committed group of individuals who are volunteers serving on council, who go out to represent the people of their community the best way they can, who cause the people to become very upset because of the high amount of taxes that some of them - and there are people in Port au Bras who cannot afford to pay that amount of money, Mr. Speaker. But the council and the residents received the biggest slap in the face that one could ever receive on Thursday when this government decided not to give them any money.

Mr. Speaker, what does the minister now propose for the community of Port au Bras? How does he expect people to pay $350 poll tax when they do not receive any services and have not been informed they are going to receive any money this year? I also ask the minister if he would be honest and straightforward with this House and the people of Port au Bras and tell this House that every single project that was approved in this Budget received a higher rating rank than Port au Bras? - because I submit to the minister and to this government, they did not.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: If I could have a minute-or-so leave?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is a very serious problem. The residents of Port au Bras have a very serious concern. The Budget has now been approved by this government, $350 poll tax, the highest in the Province, and not one cent this year to be given. Do they know when they are going to get it? Does the minister really think that the people of Port au Bras are going to pay that $350 when government pounded them the way they did in the Budget? Does he think for one minute that I would advise them to pay that kind of money? Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something right now, the people of Port au Bras and the council in Port au Bras, in particular, who have worked so hard - and they have brought in this tax that the people are not able to pay. The minister should remember his oath around the Cabinet table and stop taking away from -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that the Chair has some obligations. We have had a petition that was irregular and we have allowed the hon. member time over. There are hon. members getting anxious so I ask the hon. member to please clue up.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I apologize if I became very upset. This is an emotional issue for me and it does cause me a lot of heartache to see constituents and the people of Port au Bras being treated in such a way by this government. I ask the minister, by everything that is decent, whatever he needs, if he wants us on our knees to beg for money, then consider me in that position on behalf of the people of Port au Bras, to do something that is necessary, to put in place the funding for the people of this community. And, number one, if he is not going to give them funding, well then, do something for the council of Port au Bras so that this tax burden that he, his officials and this government have forced on the people will not have to be borne by them.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition put forth by my colleague from Burin - Placentia West, on behalf of the residents of Port au Bras. I note that the member, in his eloquent way, indicated they have increased their poll tax from $120 to $350, and I concur with the member that that is probably the highest poll rate in this Province. The former Minister of Finance, now the Minister of Health, used to say that they have to pay their fair share. I suggest that $350 is their fair share for the level of services that is provided to that town. So obviously this Cabinet minister, former Minister of Finance, has to support the position that that is indeed a fair assessment.

The Member for Burin - Placentia West spoke of an interesting situation that he would like to see. He would like to see the ranking system. So would I like to see the ranking system, to determine how municipalities are funded. It is an interesting scenario to have played out, and perhaps it should be played out on the floor of this House of Assembly to see how the ranking system is put in place to determine what merit was used to determine who qualified for water and sewer under this year's capital grant system.

These people were told by officials at the minister's department that in order to qualify they had to get their own affairs in order. That is generally what the minister tells you. You have to have pressing environmental concerns. You have to have health issues, and you have to have your own financial affairs in order. Based on what these people have done, then their financial affairs were in order, I am sure that the other pressing needs were there.

I support the petition because it is right that people who have given so much for their community, I think it is a local service district. Do they have a town council?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: It is a community council. A small community where so many people have given so much, for this administration not to find fit to give them the money.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is going to provide details tomorrow of who got the money in the $50 million capital works, he indicated earlier today. It is going to be interesting to see who qualified, and more interesting to see how the ranking system applied so that the minister was able to make the determinations that he did, to see why he chose to give money and in what communities. We will see then if it has been tainted somewhat by a little bit of political pork barrelling as it is called.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition. We did not get any in Fogo - not a dime - not a cent. We did get a little bit on Fogo Island, but none in Fogo. The Minister of Finance is correct.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in the House and correct some of the false impressions and falsehoods that the hon. members across have put to the House today.

First of all, the remarks of the last speaker that there was any kind of jiggery pokery attached to the allotment of capital funds that were announced in the Budget Speech yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Finance, are completely untrue and unfounded.

As a matter of fact, this was declared or founded or established by a principle and a method and practice that these people had put in place when they were in government and it was followed, unfortunately, to the letter. It is not a good system and hopefully this year we can change it so that we will have better results in future years - more fair and more balanced results.

In speaking to the petition, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for the Burin Peninsula told us that his community, or indicates that his community, of Port au Bras was forced to raise taxes.

MR. TOBIN: They were told by your officials (inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the man still continues to daydream and present falsehoods to this hon. House.

There was nobody forced the community of Port au Bras to introduce a poll tax and a waste disposal tax at any particular level or at any particular amount. That was the choice of the council in figuring out what their costs would be -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: I am assuming, too, that probably they had some input from the hon. member because he does not normally know what he is talking about in this regard and probably gave them false advice, as the advice that he is giving the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I take this very seriously, and if the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs does not want to take it seriously he does not have to, but I can tell the minister that I was present at the meeting when his officials told them that in order to balance the budget, this is what they must do.

I am serious and I say to the minister that if he wants to attack his officials, then go over in his office and do it, and not do it in this House and hang out a volunteer council that is working for the people. He should be ashamed of himself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair again points out that this is an irregular petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to please restrain himself. This has been an irregular petition but had the leave of the House and I ask hon. members to govern themselves whenever that is done, there should be the greatest courtesy extended and I ask hon. members please to remember that the petition was done in that particular way.

No point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: As I guessed, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member admits that he was at the meeting. So, I can see now where -

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

I would ask hon. members to please keep their remarks to the petition, mindful of the fact that a petition is supposed to create or generate no debate and again since the petition was done irregularly, I have not seen the petition, I can only ask hon. members to govern themselves accordingly.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, there was nobody forced, and that was the word which was used. I am not hanging anything out on the council, if the council in consultation - and obviously the hon. member was at the meeting, he just admitted that he was at the meeting and gave the wrong advice. Now if they listened to his advice, I can see where they went wrong. I can see them at a meeting and I can see people discussing the cost of installing this particular water and sewerage and I can see them arriving at a dollar figure and I can see them concluding that the taxes would have to arrive at a certain amount but I do not think the hon. member or anybody forced anybody to institute a certain amount of taxes and that -

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not being honest in this House. Now, if what his official said is not true, he is the minister, he can overrule it. So, will he say now that the council does not have to impose a poll tax of $350? Will the minister now tell the people of Port au Bras - because he can do it - will he tell them now that they do not have to do it and that his official was wrong?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I would advise the hon. member that the time for the petition is up.

The hon. the Member for St. George's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHORT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today, basically the same as others that have been presented earlier, one from St. George's with 916 names -

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St. George's and I believe he is having some difficulty in presenting his petition.

The hon. the Member for St. George's.

MR. SHORT: - 916 names from St. George's and covers the communities from St. George's to Shallop Cove. The other petition, 781 names, is from Stephenville Crossing Assumption Parish and covers Stephenville Crossing, Black Duck Siding, Barachois Brook and Mattis Point. I want to say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that over the last four years I have had I guess, the pleasure and the pain of being part of shared schools or shared school services in part of my district and even though these petitions are not from that area, over the last four years we lived through the idea of the shared services schools which are mentioned in the petition. I would like to say that only a couple of weeks ago, we had the official opening of two schools in the district, E. A. Butler High School in Mckay's and Cassidy (?) Elementary in St. Fintan's, where over $4 million was spent to build additions to both of these schools.

In St. George's and Stephenville Crossing the only schools there now are the Roman Catholic schools. The other schools that were there over a period of years have been closed out due to the numbers in most cases and everybody is in those schools. I would like to say as well that over the period of time we went through the shared services in McKays and St. Fintan's the Member for St. John's North was very heavily involved in this. At times we had some disagreements on things that went on there but I must say now, that looking back on it after three or four years, it is working well and hopefully we will see more of this as time goes on. We cannot in this Province afford the system that has been in place over the years. It is just not possible. The resources are not there, but I do support these petitions and as someone said earlier, I believe, some of these petitions were drawn up before some statements were made and some clarifications were being made by the Premier and the Minister of Education. In meetings I have had with representatives in St. George's and Stephenville Crossing I think they are now of the opinion that some of the statements made have clarified the points that were certainly earlier giving some cause for concern. I would like to present these two petitions on behalf of these two groups.

Thank you, very much.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to stand for a couple of minutes and support the Member for St. George's on the two petitions he presented, the 900 names and 700 names, I believe. We see today quite a few people who are petitioning this House of Assembly because they are nervous of what is happening in our educational system. The Member for St. George's mentioned one example of a good change made by the former Minister of Education in our educational system. It is too bad he is still not the Minister of Education. He could not put up with the policies of this group across the way so he had to step aside and that is too bad because I think he should have stayed there.

Mr. Speaker, as far as some of the petitions starting before the statement was made by the Premier in this House of Assembly, that is true for some of them, but I would expect there will be more petitions. I know in my way there is talk of another petition. I have to present a petition here probably tomorrow on this same issue. I sent out a copy of the statement by the Premier to a person on the parish council. The statement says, in response to the church leader's concerns that implementing certain recommendations of the Royal Commission Report will jeopardize the traditional rights, government has assured the leaders it is not seeking constitutional change.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is causing concern. They should say we will not seek constitutional change. It is not, means right here, now today, and everyone in the country knows it. I know that very well because there are no negotiations going on with the federal government. They cannot change it unless they start negotiating with the federal government and they cannot change it without negotiating with the churches. This statement that the Premier read out leaves the thing wide open. Tomorrow they could start these negotiations. The day after the next election I would expect is the time frame when they expect to start the negotiations. The person who sits in the chair of the Minister of Education now said it the way government wants to do it when he said it. He said he wanted his grandchildren to remember him as the one who did away with denominational education. Now, that is a fact and that is exactly what this government plans to do eventually. They cannot do it right now because there is an election coming up but they do plan to do it eventually.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have really almost forgotten where we are but let us go to Order No 2 (a) which is the resolution and Bill No. 12, the Interim Supply measure.

MR. WINDSOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the House Leader has just called Interim Supply. Is he not going to call the Budget debate today?

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

MR. ROBERTS: No, Mr. Speaker, not for any particular mischievous reason. We need Interim Supply. Today is the 22rd. day of March and the end of the fiscal year is approaching. I would be quite happy to meet behind the Chair with my hon. friend or with his House Leader, or with both if they want to discuss this, but I would say to him, as he knows full well, that he has flexibility on the Interim Supply debate. What he does not have is the time limit; but at 4:32 p.m., twenty-eight minutes before the House ends, to be honest I think I am doing him a service - and I am not trying to be presumptuous. I am doing him a service when I do not call the Budget debate; but I would like, if possible, to meet with my friend from Grand Bank, who is not in the Chamber, to discuss how we go on this. We have to get Interim Supply is the bottom line.

MR. WINDSOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: With respect, I say to my hon. friend, he is a little bit late in meeting behind the curtain. This is the first time in history that the Budget debate has not been called immediately after the Budget was presented by the Minister of Finance.

If government had no intention of calling the Budget debate, why were we not here on Friday doing Interim Supply, if government finds it so urgent to get their Interim Supply bill passed?

Never before in the history of this House has the Opposition not been given an opportunity to respond to the Budget debate. This is the most cowardly act I have ever seen any House Leader portray in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Government House Leader has called the Orders of the Day and the Chair has no choice but to put it to the members.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the hon. House Leader, when does he propose to call the Budget debate? I realize the hon. House Leader has the right to call the Orders of the Day, but he has a responsibility to let us know when he proposes to do things.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place.

MR. WINDSOR: This is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his place. If the Government House Leader chooses to answer the question he may, but we cannot allow that to ...

MR. ROBERTS: This was the administration of which the hon. gentleman was such a prominent part in 1989 who were a year-and-a-half without presenting a Budget to the House or asking for supply. That was a disgrace.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair cannot allow debate on either side. We have called for the Orders of the Day and the Chair was about to put the motion.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply to discuss Bill No. 12 and the resolution related thereto, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 12 - the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I realize now that we are on Interim Supply and we have the same latitude on Interim Supply as we do on the Budget debate.

What the House Leader has just done, Mr. Speaker, is taken away the right of the Opposition finance critic to unlimited time to respond to the Budget debate. Now I know the Minister of Finance might be ashamed of his Budget - the most devious, fraudulent Budget ever presented in the House - but I would have thought that government would have at least had the intestinal fortitude to come before this House and defend their Budget, Mr. Chairman - the most cowardly act ever seen in this House of Assembly.

What are they afraid of? I can understand they are ashamed, but you would think they would have the courage to present their Budget in this House and defend it.

Never in the history of this House - never before in the history - has the Budget debate not been called the day after the minister's speech. It has always been tradition. You adjourn the House for three days, as we did this time. The Budget came down on Thursday - normally comes down on a Thursday - the House is adjourned until the following Monday. It gives members an opportunity to study the Budget documents, to get into it in detail and prepare themselves to respond. In particular, it gives the finance critic an opportunity to respond.

In the Standing Orders, Section No. 49.(3): The Minister of Finance and the member speaking immediately in reply have unlimited time in giving the Budget Speech and replying thereto.

The reason for that, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Finance obviously, needs all the time that he or she may want to fully explain the Budget strategy of government, to lay before the people, government's economic plan for the coming fiscal year. And the finance critic, Mr. Chairman, has equal time, all that he or she may need to respond, to criticize the economic plan. Now what this government is saying, Mr. Chairman, is that they are not concerned about defending their economic plan, they are more concerned about getting a few dollars approved before the end of March.

We have two weeks yet, Mr. Chairman, two weeks before this House is going to close for Easter in which this government could get their Interim Supply. Why are they in such a hurry, Mr. Chairman, I wonder? Is it because, as I said in Question Period, this Budget will never see the light of day, because it will not. It is a fraudulent, meaningless document at best. None of the numbers in it are of any significance, the minister admitted this afternoon that before long he will come in with some amendments to it. He will bring in some amendments he said, to show where the $70 million is going to be found. Nobody can believe any of the numbers in the Budget, none of them.

The Estimates are worthless, not worth the paper they are written on, Mr. Chairman, but I would have thought that at least the government would have had the courage to defend them. I suspect my worst suspicions are true, this government never intends to defend this Budget in this honourable House, because this document will never be the Budget of this Province. This document will never be the Budget and the Budget will never go through this House, because this government fully intends to call an election and they are in a mad hurry now to get their Interim Supply approved so that will give them funding until the end of June or July, and then they will not bring through the Budget. They do not need the Budget anyway, Mr. Chairman, they do not need the Budget approved, do you know why not? Because there is nothing in the Budget, there are no tax measures, there is no legislation required, the first time in history.

The Minister of Finance did not have a motion to present on Budget Day, he did not have a motion to present. This is not a Budget, this is an economic statement, we had the Budget on December the 4th, that is where the $100 million tax increase was put in place. This is nothing but an election fraud, Mr. Chairman, with no intention of ever putting it in place. What we will see, Mr. Chairman, is, the government will ram through Interim Supply some time between now and next Wednesday, they will use their majority, closure if they have to, once again this famous closure government.

They will put through Interim Supply between now and next Wednesday, and they will sally off to Florida and they will get their suntans over Easter - they will take off to get their suntans over Easter and you need not think, you need not think that the House of Assembly will ever come back. The House of Assembly will never come back, Mr. Chairman, the election will be called before the House comes back and so this Budget will never be tabled again in this House of Assembly, will never be debated, it will never be passed and as soon as the election is over, now you will see the real Budget, now you will see the real Budget.

This is a Budget that asks for a blank cheque, Mr. Chairman, $70 million, we are going to cut it, we do not know how, we are going to negotiate it. Who does he think he is trying to kid? Who does he think he is trying to kid, Mr. Chairman? As soon as the election is over, the real Budget will come in, and if you ever had seen the wrath of this particular government in the past, you are about to see it as soon as the election is over -

AN HON. MEMBER: You will not, they will not be there to do it.

MR. WINDSOR: - you are about to see it. That is right, they will not be there to do it, thank God and the sooner the election is called, the better.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will bring in the new Budget.

MR. WINDSOR: Let the people decide; I will bring in a Budget, or somebody, one of my colleagues on this side, whoever our Leader chooses to be the Minister of Finance, there will be a Budget brought in, Mr. Chairman, and it will be a fair and honest Budget, with none of the games that are in this particular document. For once the truth will be told. If ever this government gets the courage to call the Budget debate, I will point out some of the fraudulent statements in this Budget.

I will point out some of the areas where numbers are put in place just to make it look good, when there is no possibility in the world that the numbers can be accurate, absolutely none and that is what this Budget is. It is not an election Budget because there is nothing good in it. Once again we have seen the game, Mr. Speaker, every year since this Government came into power, prior to the Budget day, they have put the fear of God into the people of this Province. They have told us what a terrible situation we are in, what a terrible financial problem Government is faced with. The economy is in a shambles. The Government has to raise more money, it has to cut expenditures.

People shudder when the Minister of Finance gets to his feet, and then they find out, well it was not as bad as we thought it was going to be, of course not because it never needed to be. It never needed to be that bad but then they find out that hidden down in the depths of it there are some problems that the minister does not bring forward because the numbers are not real numbers. The numbers are fictitious, it is called cooking the books. When you bring in a Budget that has a $120 million deficit, he did not even warm the books over this time, Mr. Speaker, he just took it off the bottom line. Well we have a $120 million deficit but do not worry boys, I will cut $70 million off within the next few weeks.

So, approve a Budget that has a $120 million deficit, approve all the expenditures, approve all the revenues but take my word for it, I will find $70 million. An amazing minister we have, Mr. Speaker, amazing in that he thinks the people of this Province are so gullible that they would fall for it. It is amazing that he is so gullible or he thinks the people are so gullible that they would believe his revenue projections, amazing that they would trust him now when he says we have a $120 million problem but I am going to cut that down to $70 million, trust me. We will trust him just like we trusted the last four Budgets when deficits went from $10 and $20 million projections to $120 and $130 million projections. That is how accurate this Government's Budget projections have been. They have the worst record of any government ever to sit in office in this hon. House. The worst record and they have not even got the intestinal fortitude to call the Budget debate in the House. I am surprised at the Minister of Finance -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: - he is being led by the Government House Leader, no doubt -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, let me say just a few words in response to my hon. friend, because that is all his comments require. I will leave it to my friend the Minister of Finance to deal in detail with the quality and the accuracy of the revenue and expenditure estimates in these. I have no doubt in my own mind that they are as good as mortal men and women can do it. I would say to Your Honour and to the House, that the Budget is made up by mortal men and women at the Cabinet level and at the level of the officials who work with us. I have been through the process and I have no hesitation in saying that in my view these estimates are accurate, they are truthful and they are complete. They are the best estimates we can make. They are filled with assumptions, they are filled with projections and how else can they be? Some of them are made by our officials for whom we are responsible. We are responsible for all of the estimates which we present of course but some of the big items in it, we get estimates from the Government of Canada's officials but we take the estimates. We take the projections given to us and we come before the House and we say: members of the House of Assembly this is what we estimate it will cost to run the Government of this Province during the fiscal year, beginning on April 1, with this level of services, this quality of services and this type of service.

So, I will leave it to the minister to deal with that but I would say at this stage without any hesitation, that the record of my friend from Gander and my friend from St. John's Centre, in projecting estimates, is a triple A compared to the minus D of my friend for Mount Pearl during the ignominious term that he put in as Minister of Finance here. If he wants to talk about safe Budgets, I will not talk about his because I was not in the House, as I recollect, when he was Minister of Finance, but some of the Budgets brought in by the administrations of which he was a part, at a time when I sat in the opposition and he sat here on the Treasury benches, were less than candid.

I do not know whether my hon. friend knew that or not. I am certainly not accusing him of being party to a fraud and a deception, but I will say that if he did not know he ought to have known because everybody else in the Province knew; but let me just deal with his two specific complaints.

I will leave it to my friend from Gander to go into how we got to the estimates of revenue; how we got to the estimates of expenditure; how we are going to take the $70 million which is reflected properly in the estimates; will be reflected properly in the main supply bill when we get there; will be reflected openly and honestly and truthfully throughout - and I know these are words that my friend from Mount Pearl finds strange, because they never applied to the administrations of which he was such a leading part. Truth was not something known to the Peckford administration of which he was such an adornment.

AN HON. MEMBER: An ornament.

MR. ROBERTS: No, he was not an ornament - ornery maybe, surly. Ornery, surly - talking about holidays, where was the hon. member for the first week of the House? No doubt out in Mount Pearl, I hope, doing his legitimate business.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me come back to two points. First of all, we have not taken away unilaterally, multilaterally or even any laterally, any time allowed to the hon. gentleman. The Budget debate will be called, but I have a responsibility as the Government House Leader to ensure that the government's business is done, and our priority has to be to see that Interim Supply is met.

As of April 1, we have no lawful authority to spend public money. Now if hon. gentlemen opposite want to dig in and filibuster they can. The seventy-five hours is running even as I speak - even as my friend from Mount Pearl speaks - but we will live within the rules - the rules, I may add, which were made by hon. gentlemen opposite, because when the Liberals formed the administration before there was no limit on the debate on the estimates - no limit at all. It was rammed through.

Before the hon. gentleman's time in the House, in the early 1970's during Mr. Moores' time as Premier, when William Marshall was the House Leader, and he rammed it through and for the first time ever there had been a limit on the debate on the estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend from Grand Bank says it is not true. He was not even in knee britches then, let alone in the House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let me come back to the bit about where we have never not had the Budget debate called the day after the Budget. Let me talk about 1987-'88. Who was Minister of Finance in 1987-'88? Would it have been the gentleman for Mount Pearl by any chance? It might have been. The Budget was read on April 2, 1987 and by the time we meet tomorrow my friend for Stephenville will have looked up for me, I hope, when the Interim Supply Bill was brought in. Well before the Budget, no doubt, because by April 2, 1987 when whoever was the Minister of Finance presented his Budget Speech in this House they were into the period where they had no legal authority (inaudible) Interim Supply. Now, what about the 1988-89 Budget? That came in on March 29, 1988. We will see when the Interim Supply Bill came in then as well.

Now, let us talk about the 1989-90 Budget, June 6, 1989. Do you mean to say, Your Honour, that between April - I cannot read it - it is either March or April 28, 1988. We will check that, I say to my friend for Stephenville, but on June 6, 1989 either fourteen or fifteen months went by between Budgets. We had three Premiers in that space. Mr. Peckford did not bring in a Budget. Mr. Rideout did not bring in a Budget. The present Premier led the administration that did bring it in. Where was the Budget debate then? Now, the hon. gentleman gets up in his surly, sullen way -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sanctimonious.

MR. ROBERTS: Not even sanctimonious - just surly and sullen, and talks about cowardly. They did not even meet the House. What were they doing with the public money? They were lashing it out in Sprung. Was that not the time of the special warrants? They were shovelling it out on Sprung. One minister had the guts to resign, the then Member for Ferryland, Mr. Power. No other gentleman did, including the gentleman for Mount Pearl. He was part of that, a deliberate, distorted attempt to use the credit of the Province without coming to the people's House. They went from the end of June, 1989 until forever. They never met the House again.

MS. COWAN: Shame.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I say shame. I say to my friend for Mount Pearl now that he has all the latitude he wants, subject to the rules made by the Tory Party, the Tory government led my Mr. Moores. Subject to those rules he has all the time he wants to debate the Interim Supply. In due course we will have the Budget and I say that it is our plan as an administration to bring this Budget to the House but if the Premier should dissolve, as the hon. gentlemen opposite say they want, and as we certainly want to, then we shall present it in another place and we will let the people of this Province speak on this Budget. I have no apologies to make for that, Mr. Chairman, none at all. What kind of political doctrine would hold out that it is wrong to dissolve the House and go to the people and say: let us take this question to a greater place, let us put it to the test of those in whose name we sit here and by whose right we govern.

Mr. Chairman, I find the hon. gentleman's remarks ill-becoming, coming from a gentleman who has participated in the kind of chicanery that has gone on here when he was in the Ministry, chicanery and trickery, dishonesty, intellectual, moral and political dishonesty ... didn't call the Budget - they didn't even present a Budget, let alone debate it! So, Mr. Chairman, I reject the hon. gentleman's charges.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down, boy.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, I will sit down, because others can get into this. It is 4:54 p.m. We can have a speech from my friend from Grand Bank, who, in six minutes, could tell us everything he knows about the Budget - twice, maybe three times!

Mr. Chairman, let's get some vigorous debate going on this now. Thank you.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, what a wonderful contribution that was to Interim Supply debate!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: What a wonderful intellectual contribution! I can assure, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the House Leader, that I have no intention of responding to the personal attacks. It is simply his acid personality coming out of him. I, for one, am not the least bit intimidated by anything he might say, think or do. I have no intention of lowering myself to his level. I don't think I could get down that low if I tried. So I have no intention of responding to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

Mr. Speaker, I hope he does go to the people. The sooner we go to the people, the better, but let's go to the people with the truth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Let's have the facts laid out on the table first. Let the Minister of Finance tell the people of this Province the real truth about this Budget. Let's have the real truth about where he's going to find his $70 million. If he thinks he's going to go to the people, Mr. Chairman, and ask for a blank cheque, as he has come to this House and asked for a blank cheque to cut $70 million, he is in for a shock, a big shock. He is in for a big shock in his own riding in Gander if he thinks he is going to get away with this game. All is not well in Gander for the Minister of Finance. All is not well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: The House Leader can object all he wants. The fact of the matter is that this is nothing but a vicious attempt to stifle the Opposition, to use up the seventy-five hours that are available. Interim Supply comes out of the time available for the Estimates. The Budget Debate does not have a limit on it. We can debate the Budget as long as want to. Every hon. member has a right to speak for twenty minutes. We have a right to bring in amendments, if we choose - two amendments. Every member can speak for twenty minutes on two amendments, and the finance critic can speak unlimited time, as long as we want to, Mr. Chairman.

But we will never get that chance. I will never be given an opportunity to respond to this Budget. And that is the whole game plan here, never given a chance to respond, to expose the trickery in this Budget, not very cleverly disguised this time.

The government, I have to give them credit, have done a very good job over the past four years of hiding the real truth of the Budget. It was very difficult to get it out, but we did, in time. It took time to get the message out to the people of the Province, but, bit by bit, the message eventually got out through the news media as we exposed one little game after the other. But this time, whether the Minister of Finance was just too lazy to hide it away or whether he thought, Well, they will think now, this is great, how honest I am - we have a $70 million problem, we will just take it off the bottom line.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I am well aware of the time, I say to the hon. House Leader, I don't need him to tell me the time either, I can assure him of that.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: And I can assure the hon. House Leader that we will. Unless this government has the intestinal fortitude to call an election, we will carry on a full debate of this Budget, and we will use the rules. I don't need his permission, Mr. Chairman, to speak in this House and, in due course, we will, and this government will be called to task and will answer for the fraudulent attempt that this is, to try to put something over on the people of this Province.

I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity - Bay de Verte.

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

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m., at which time we shall carry on with the Interim Supply Debate. It has begun so very well now. We are good-humoured on all sides and addressing it the way we ought to. I think we should carry on with it.

I move the House do now adjourn.

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