The House met at 2:00 p.m

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising on a point of order. My point of order is that some people in the Province, news reporters among them, have the wrong impression that the document the Premier tabled yesterday is a legal opinion of the Department of Justice about the ENL MacKenzie contract and, in fact, it is a report written personally by the Minister of Justice, a politician. It is not an opinion of any impartial solicitor and I would like the record corrected to reflect that reality, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would submit: a) that is not a point of order -

PREMIER WELLS: b) It is incorrect.

MR. ROBERTS: - b) it is incorrect, and c) what the document is, is what it is held out to be, a report by me, as the Attorney General, to the Premier, it is there, it is signed and it says what it says and d) there is a legal opinion in it to which the Premier did make reference yesterday; that opinion was prepared by McCarthy, Q.C., who is one of the senior civil solicitors and he addressed a particular point which he was asked to do.

MS. VERGE: A narrow little point.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady speaks of narrow, little points - Mr. Speaker, I say the law is the law, and the fact that she apparently has no knowledge of the law, doesn't take away from the fact that the law is the law. Mr. McCarthy gave an opinion which stands there, and we have made it public, Mr. Speaker, so those who wish to read it can see it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There is a place where the hon. member may be able to mention it somewhere, but it is not in this particular part of the routine orders.

MR. MATTHEWS: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of privilege.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege stems from what happened in the House yesterday. When Orders of the Day was called, we went directly to Interim Supply, which is most unusual, and I want to, for a moment, talk about customs and traditions of this House. What is supposed to happen, is that, after the Minister of Finance finishes his Budget Speech - we know what happens here - if it is Thursday, we adjourn until the Monday and, of course, that is exactly what we did; and then the Opposition fisheries critic is given the opportunity to respond -

MS. VERGE: Finance critic.

MR. MATTHEWS: The finance critic is given the opportunity to respond to the minister's statement.

I want to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page 265, paragraph 979, where it says: "It is the custom for the Opposition finance critic to begin responding to the remarks of the Minister of Finance immediately after the Minister finishes speaking, and moving the adjournment of the debate at the appropriate time."

Now, we realize that if we had gone to the Budget Debate yesterday, the Government House Leader could have called Interim Supply today, but I want to refer Your Honour to that particular paragraph of Beauchesne and to refresh memories about the custom and tradition of this House, where that is what has happened. So, I want to submit to Your Honour that the privileges of the Member for Mount Pearl, the Opposition finance critic, were, indeed, breached yesterday when he was denied the customary opportunity, the traditional opportunity, to begin responding to the remarks of the Minister of Finance immediately after the minister had given his speech. The first opportunity was yesterday. I submit that to your hon. for consideration.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard such nonsense wrapped up in the guise of partisan attempts to make specious points of order. It is my submission there is none. Here is what has happened in the last three years - and I am having the last ten years checked: the Budget Speech was given on the 2nd of April, I don't know yet what day of the week this is, I will have it checked. The Budget Debate began on the 7th of April and ran until the 19th. In 1988, Mr. Speaker, the Budget was delivered on the 29th day of March. The Budget Debate began on the 11th of April, there may have been a break there for Easter, I am not saying there wasn't, I don't know yet. In 1989, last year, my learned friend, my hon. friend from St. John's Centre brought in his Budget on the 6th of June, the debate began on the 12th of June. Again, more than a Thursday - but I will have the days checked. What I do say, Mr. Speaker, is two things; number one there is no rule or tradition or custom of this House that says the Budget is called immediately. Secondly, the Government must have Interim Supply to enable us to carry on the business of the Province.

Now, there will be no attempt to restrict the Budget Debate, no attempt to limit it and no attempt to avoid it. In fact, we welcome it. It will start as soon as we can get Interim Supply passed and that is not a threat or an attempt, it is just simply a recognition of the fact that we must have Interim Supply to enable us to continue to pay the bills. In fact, in the last three years, the Interim Supply bills were passed before - I am sorry, these are 1987-88, these are the last three Tory years, these are not the Liberal years, but one of them is a Liberal year, 1989. The last, 1987-88 were years when -

AN HON. MEMBER: Good times.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may think they are good times and that is why he is where he is, because he does think they were good times, that is why he is over there and likely to stay there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, in 1987-1988, my friend from Mount Pearl was the Minister of Finance. In 1989 my friend from St. John's Centre brought in an honourable, honest, truthful Budget, a mere six or eight months late because of the fact we had only been in office a month or two and hadn't had a chance to do it.

The hon. gentleman's point of order is specious and not worthy of -

MR. MATTHEWS: It is not a point of order, it is a point of privilege.

MR. ROBERTS: It is not a point of privilege either. There have not been breached any privileges of any member of the House or of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: The problem the Government House Leader has, and what has created problems in the House, as he did this Fall, is that he prejudges and predicts and predetermines what is going to happen.

The Budget Speech came down on the 18th of March. You don't need Interim Supply until the last of March. Today is the 23rd of March and you are prejudging that we, as an Opposition, will not grant Interim Supply in the time that you want it. That is not the point. That is what you are doing, and to do what you did yesterday, I further submit, breached the privileges of the Opposition finance critic, the Member for Mount Pearl.

I don't know yet, I submit to the Government House Leader, when an Opposition party held up the granting of Interim Supply beyond the time that the government wanted it.

We all know why government needs Interim Supply. You have to pay the bills; you have to pay the salaries. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know where the Government House Leader is getting off, Mr. Speaker, I really don't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will allow one more submission just to even the matter. The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to add a very small point to the submission made by the Government House Leader. It is a small point, Mr. Speaker, but it is also a very big point.

The authority quoted by the Opposition House Leader is on Page 265 of Beauchesne, paragraph 979, which I should read to point out how off base the hon. member is. It says: "Standing Order 84 circumscribes the proceedings during the budget debate. The debate lasts for no more than six days of resumed debate, which need not be called on consecutive sitting days. It is the custom for the Opposition finance critic to begin responding to the remarks of the Minister of Finance immediately after the Minister finishes speaking, and moving the adjournment of the debate at the appropriate time. On the second day of the Budget Debate, if an amendment and a sub-amendment", and so on. "Any amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance is dealt with in a similar way on the fourth" - specifically on the fourth - "day of the Budget Debate", and so on.

Mr. Speaker, this obviously is a process that is not part of the rules of procedure of this House. Budget debate is not limited to six days,as this particular directive indicates. There is no specific timing about what specifically has to be introduced on the fourth day of debate of the Budget. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this paragraph has absolutely no bearing on this situation whatsoever and is just another example of the Opposition simply trying to incorrectly make a few points, hoping to get a little bit of coverage on it, Mr. Speaker, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: It was a point of privilege and the Chair is not going to allow a full-fledged debate. I've allowed equal submissions from both sides. The Chair is going to take the matter under advisement and report back to the House a little later. I thank hon. members for their submissions.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Premier about the public service pension plans. Over the past four years the Premier has expressed serious concerns about the precarious financial condition of the public service pension plans, particularly about the government's ability to meet obligations as they come due when public servants retire. We all know that the smallest two of the four plans, the MHAs and the uniformed forces plans, are now broke.

How can the Premier justify suspending government contributions to the public service pension plans over the next year? If the provincial government reduces its contribution to the pension plans this year by, say, $50 million, in twenty years time won't there be hundreds of millions less in the plans to pay out to the public servants then retired, since money invested now earns interest and compounds in value?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we took over this government four short years ago we found that, because of practices instituted by members opposite, our pension funds were in very serious difficulty. It's been recognized in the financial community that the changes we have so far brought about - number one, with the public service pension plan, number two, through negotiation, the NTA plan - that our pension plans have indeed been put on a solid footing. This is recognized as an accomplishment in the financial community, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: It's also recognized, Mr. Speaker, that if we continue to do what members opposite did, the plan would be bankrupt by now.

Having indicated that particular background, the bankruptcy over here, the bankruptcy across the way, and the record of looking out to the pension plan on this side of the House, having recognized that background, I'd like to say to hon. members that I suspect the Member for Humber East doesn't even understand what's going on. It's obvious from her questions. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in any proposal that's before public sector unions now that would in any way harm the pension plan. As a matter of fact we have that confirmed by actuaries. Not only our own actuary that we use but other actuaries. We have had that confirmed, that there is no harm to the pension plan. As a mutter of fact there might even be a slight benefit in terms of the unfunded liability of that pension plan. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for members opposite to worry. Our record is clear. We do not intend to bankrupt the pension plans as they had set out on a course to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the Premier.

You can fool some of the people some of the time and you may expect to fool enough people until a mid-May election to get away with this pension scam. My question is, are you seriously saying, Premier, that there will be no harm to public service pension plans through government suspending contributions over the next year? Is that what you are saying? I ask the Premier. I would like the Premier on record.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will state again, as I have stated many times, as the actuaries have stated who have examined the proposal, and as everybody else who has looked at the proposal who understands anything about pension plans realizes, that the proposal that is now being considered by some public sector unions will have no, no, negative impact on the pension plan in any way whatsoever. Is that clear enough?

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the Premier. The Premier and the Minister of Finance use words very craftily, very craftily. I would like the Premier to explain how the pubic service pension plans will not be seriously hurt with government suspending contributions this year, since $50 million contributed now earns interest year after year, after year, and compounds in value. By suspending contributions isn't the Premier repeating the sins of the past by borrowing once again from children and grandchildren, since $50 million spent now for people today will have to be made up by taxpayers in twenty or thirty years time who then will not have to pay $50 million but hundreds of millions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that in a supplementary the hon. member is suppose to be brief and is not suppose to embellish the remarks.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member obviously knows nothing about what she's talking. It's obvious to me now how members opposite in their term of office a few years ago could have started the destruction of the pension plan, recognized by everybody in the financial community all throughout this nation. It's easy to understand why they did what they did because they didn't have the slightest clue about pension plans or what the pension plan entails.

I repeat again: not only is there not very much harm to the pension plan, there is no harm whatsoever to the pension plan by the proposal that is presently being discussed by the unions. No harm whatsoever. For the contribution that is being made there will be a 1 per cent accrual of pension. If twice as much were made there would be a 2 per cent accrual of pension. If all of a sudden we quadrupled what we put into the pension plan there'd be an 8 per cent accrual of pension. Mr. Speaker, it's fairly obvious to anybody who understands the plans that there is no harm to the plan by the proposal that we are putting forward.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you,. Mr. Speaker, I actually have a new question for the Minister of Finance this time. I'll say to the minister first though that anyone who truly does understand pension plans can see this scam for what it is. Now my question is: will the Minister of Finance table the list of so-called third party organizations, community groups, volunteer organizations, the provincial government has cut in this Budget? We know the Minister of Finance has the list. He's kept it under wraps since last Thursday. Will the Minister of Finance now table the list and let people know which groups are getting hit?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have no such list, but to respond to the first part of her question, to respond to the first comment that she made, I will in this House - because I do have it, not in my possession immediately, but as soon as I can go and get it - I will table in this House the advice from the actuaries who indicate that the hon. member is all wet.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The minister indicated yesterday he was going to today release the capital works program. Can the minister now provide the breakdown of how the $50 million was spent? What portion is spent on water and sewer? What portion under the roads component, the 60-40? What if any is going to fund regional recreational complexes this year?

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't recollect making any such indication yesterday I would release any information today. I have already advised all members of the House of Assembly what's allocated to their various districts and municipalities. Unfortunately, circumstances don't permit me today to make a ministerial statement or table the normal alphabetical list in the House. It will be done shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: The minister in his meeting with the councils always talks of the importance of the ranking sheet. The ranking is based on three or four factors: health, environment, financial ability to pay, and so on. Is the minister prepared now to table the rankings of the municipalities in the Province? Why isn't this information readily available to municipalities since they want to know how they're going to qualify for subsequent years?

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

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to table the internal work sheets of the department in the House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously we know why the minister won't table it. Of the fifty million plus dollars the minister announced he was going to have in capital works, how much of this $50 million is actually spent by the Province? In other words, how much of it is just permission to borrow given to municipalities? How much will the Province actually spend out of that $50 million capital works? What portion will be given to the municipalities to pay?

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

MR. HOGAN: That's a very pleasant surprise, Mr. Speaker. A pleasant surprise to get an intelligent question. I will table the answer as soon as I can get to the bottom of it.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this then: In past years a number of municipalities have been unable to accept capital works because of the high debt repayment cost. It happened last year, it's going to happen again this year. We know of communities already who can't take advantage of it, the communities which have funds allocated that are going to return them to the department because they can't pay. When will it be announced? Or will it be announced during the election campaign that's to follow shortly?

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

MR. HOGAN: The practice in the past, Mr. Speaker - over the past three years for sure - has been that if municipalities reject monies that were either approved to be borrowed or in grants - and I suspect they would not reject anything in grants, but to quote the phrase of the hon. member, this money has either not been borrowed by the Province or returned to general revenue. I would assume that the same practice would prevail this year, although that particular and specific decision has not been made by government, and I will deal with it and advise the hon. member, as I have in the past, of such decisions.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also to the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In last week's Budget the Minister of Finance announced that the subsidies paid for electrical power to municipalities in the Province for stadiums and swimming pools and other recreation facilities would be cut out, and also funding to sports governing bodies in the Province would be cut out.

It is no secret that this administration is famous for cutting into budgets of municipalities in mid-season. Municipalities in the Province bring down their budgets on December 31st and it is famous for the last four years that they have been notified in June, July and August that they have a $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 or $100,000 bill to pay - with no other recourse. This will mean considerable hardship, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister now tell the House of any further cuts that are going to be made by his department in the next couple of weeks, and would he table a list of all cuts made by his department in last week's Budget and those that are going to be made over the next week to ten days - the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs?

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

MR. HOGAN: It is regrettable that the electrical subsidies had to be cut, but where does one stop when one has to do essential savings to meet our fiscal and budgetary requirements?

The hon. member was not specific as to where he would like to know where the cuts are going to be, but there are no other cuts that I am aware of that were announced in the Budget to municipalities. There are yet to be identified in the specifics of the Budget where some of the subsidies to whatever are to be made or not to be made, and those details will come forth in the coming days.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is after admitting that there will be other cuts. He will probably table those next week.

If there was ever a time in this Province that we needed recreational facilities, a time of social upheaval, a time of high unemployment, one of the highest times, I suppose, for social services cases in the Province, could the minister explain to the House how municipalities in this Province today, the way they have been cut over the last three or four years, are going to cope with yet another increase to their budgets?

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

MR. HOGAN: I do not know exactly of what increases the hon. member speaks in municipal budgets, except the one that he already enunciated a few moments ago, and that was to probably contribute to the electrical subsidy, or to replace the electrical subsidy, to ice hockey arenas and swimming pools, which I said was regrettable, but it is a fiscal responsibility that has to be met by the municipalities.

The hon. member is aware that one of my philosophies is nothing new, and that I have preached it and practised it myself over twenty years in municipalities, that the municipalities are the ones and the community services are the ones which have to be responsible for the actual expense of recreation in the grass roots area of the communities, and that the Province and the federal government each have a particular role to play, and I hope that throughout the life of this administration, and our four years yet that we have to serve after the next month or two, that we will be able to develop that particular philosophy to the betterment of the sports community and indeed to all municipalities.

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

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

Based on the comments made by the minister, I will ask the minister if he would take his concerns back to his colleagues in Cabinet and ask them to overturn the decision already made last week pertaining to recreational facilities in the Province and have them re-evaluate this decision and make it easier for municipalities, Mr. Speaker, or is he going to be the minister responsible for taking away the caps from the Cubs next, the sashes and scarves from the Girl Guides, the Pathfinders and the Brownies in the Province, what is next, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HOGAN: In all my experience, Mr. Speaker, in municipal affairs and indeed associated with the Department of Municipal Affairs and the Department of Sports and Recreation, did I ever realize that that particular department contributed to Girl Guides, Boy Scouts and Pathfinders. I never knew that they actually put the scarves on the necks of those children. There must be somebody else in Cabinet responsible for that particular function because it was never there - not when any of the people over there, were minister's in recreation, was that the case. What we have been doing is subsidizing third party groups out there in the sports and recreation community that unfortunately must be in the bite of these tough fiscal times and it has to be spread as evenly as we can and as justly as we can. That is the thing that we are going to be examining with the groups over the next couple of weeks.

Again, I will reiterate, it was unfortunate that the electrical subsidies to the arenas and the swimming pools had to be done but what has to be done, has to be done. There are other things that are in the Budget, for example this year a portion of the capital works, $2 million to be exact, has been allocated to recreation in the capital works and this is the first time that this has ever happened.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and concerns the closing of the Day Break Parent Child Centre in St. John's. Is the Premier aware that this program not only assists over two hundred people in St. John's but in fact was instrumental in assisting the setting up of the Bell Island Head Start Program and also is working with the community initiative project in Port au Port, to assist in similar kinds of services there, Mr. Speaker, providing training and consultation for these organizations, it is not just a St. John's service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have brief knowledge of how this program got started, like many others, it got started with impetus from the federal government. The same as the one in Corner Brook, there is a similar facility, I do not know if it is exactly similar, it is pretty much the same as this in Corner Brook, it has been functioning. The federal government causes it to be set up, funds it for two or three years, then walks away, leaving the Province with the burden. Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue forever to allow the federal government to dictate our Budget. If the government is to change its position on this it must be prepared now to take over funding of, I think it is $194,000 for the facility in Corner Brook, that would have to be added to it as well.

If Corner Brook and St. John's are entitled to it, how can we say no to Marystown, Bonavista, St. Anthony, Port aux Basques and all the others. These things often get started when the federal government decides they want to do something that is worthwhile, I do not decry it, but the federal government cannot determine the provincial government's policies, approach and ordering of its responsibilities by themselves setting up things and walking away from it, leaving the provincial government with the responsibility.

Now, I am very, very much aware of the highly valuable work that they do but there are a lot of other expenditures that government has had to cut too that would have to be described as highly valuable work as well.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Day Break Child Care Centre has been operating for twenty years, I do not think it was a fly by night organization started by the federal government and left to it's own devices afterwards. Mr. Speaker, based on the Premier's theory and the new theory and policy of the Liberal government that if it only exists in St. John's it must be closed down, what other services can the people of St. John's look forward to being shut down by this government as a part of its new policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: You can make anything sound like an intelligent question if you are prepared to base it on a false statement, which is what the hon. member has just done. It is not the government's policy that if anything only exists in St. John's it must be closed down, it is the government's policy to treat all taxpayers of this Province on a fair and balanced basis, and we cannot cut out general services throughout the Province in order to maintain specific services for one sector of the Province, that is unconscionable and this government will not do it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier aware of the exact amount of savings the government actually hopes to receive by the shutting down of the Day Break Child Care Centre? Is the Premier aware of the analysis done by the board of directors of Day Break, showing that in fact the only savings when the alternative services that are required are paid, would amount to $8,000, is the Premier prepared to shut down this service for $8,000 at the cost of twenty jobs and a valuable service to over 200 individuals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that too is incorrect. I am aware of the proposition but I do not have confidence that the proposition is accurate. I mean, if that proposition is accurate, all we have to do is just spend hundreds of millions and why stop at hundreds of millions, why not spend billions of dollars, if it is going to do so much for the economy and do it for the economy in all parts of the Province? That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Ferry Land.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Premier.

Memorial University has been informed that it will lose almost $6 million from its operating grant, combined with increased costs of almost four more million dollars resulting in a short fall of $10 million. Now the President of Memorial University has indicated that in order to offset this loss, it would result in tuition fees being increased by 50 per cent. Now your government has already been responsible for increase in tuition fees by 50 per cent since 1989, will your government take steps to ensure that the cost for budget cuts are not passed on to the students and parents in higher tuition fees?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware of the fiscal problems that the Province has, and when we went through the budgetary process it was expected that all the various sectors of government would take their proportionate share of dealing with our fiscal problems. In the case of Memorial University, maybe we were a little different than what we were with some of the other parts of government, and instead of saying to the university: you have to lay off ten people there or you have to do this or that, we entrusted with the university their budget of $110 million or whatever it is, Mr. Speaker, and it is their duty and their obligation and their right, and I have every confidence in the administration at the university to deal with that matter in a way which is fair, and which is fair to the people of the Province and is fair to the students as well, and I do not see a 50 per cent increase in tuition, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Premier, your government has said that there will be no tax increases. Yes, you have indicated that you would deliberately avoid tax increases because it is not the time to pass on burden to the taxpayers. Are you not, Mr. Premier, passing on the burden of higher tuition fees to taxpayers? Will you not keep your promise?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a lot of assumptions here. He is going on the assumption that tuition fees will be increased by 50 per cent; he is going on the assumption that all these bad things could happen. Let us assume the moon is going to fall out of the sky, what are you going to do then, Mr. Speaker? You see, I would caution the hon. member to get his facts right. When I am absolutely certain that they are going to double tuition fees, or if they are talking about it, then we will deal with it, but the hon. member is just going on a lot of assumptions which have no basis whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, he is just following in the old path they have always followed, fearmongering, it is called, Mr. Speaker, and trying to make political points on something that does not even exist.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Dwight W. Morrow said: Any party that takes credit for the rain should not be too surprised when opponents blame them for the drought. This government has increased tuition fees 50 per cent and I was quoting statements by the President of the University. I am not making assumptions.

MR. GRIMES: He did not say that.

MS. VERGE: He did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to ask his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they are to recover -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. members should read Hansard to find out exactly what he did say. He'll find that out tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to put his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if this government is not going to do anything to stop tuition increases, and they haven't for the past four years, will you at least accept your responsibility and increase the provincial portion under the Canada Student Loan program so that needy students will be able to access the funding they need to cover tuition costs for their education? To the Premier.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if the Province could afford it we would love to provide free tuition for all institutions in the Province. We would love to pave all the roads in the Province. We would love to build hospitals in every nook and cranny. We would love to build schools in everybody's back yard. But that is the kind of philosophy that got us in the mess we're in. For seventeen years we had a government which reacted to nothing more than political patronage and political expediency. We don't have that luxury any more. We have to govern this Province based on the amount of money that we can raise through fair taxation, based on the income that we have, and we're doing it in a very fair and rational way.

We don't have the money to increase grants to students, but I will tell the hon. member that his kissing cousins in Ottawa have frozen the Student Aid program since 1985. If he could only get some of the vehemence that he has against this administration and apply it to his cousins in Ottawa, where the real problem lies, he might be able to do something about Student Aid in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, and his department has made allowance for that inflationary cost on the federal portion, but not on the provincial portion. He has gypped the students out of the provincial portion. I'd like to ask the Premier in response to - the president of Memorial University said that Memorial University will have to become smaller. Obviously smaller means fewer students. Is this what the Premier and his government are up to in managing decline? Decline in post-secondary education in this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this government cannot take responsibility for anything that the President of the University is saying, or is supposed to have said. I can tell the hon. member this, that Memorial University, like all other government funded institutions in the Province, is looking at its internal operations. I cannot say what the President was talking about when he said it had to be made smaller. I can tell the hon. member though that they are looking at every dollar they spend. They are looking for value for their dollar just as the Department of Education and government are looking for value for every dollar we spend.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. It's a follow up to a question I asked last week as it pertained to the Roddickton crab plant. The Premier made an undertaking that he was going to check out the status of that operation, particularly whether or not there's a licence attached. There's some concern in the area as to why that plant hasn't been reopened, and the Premier made an undertaking to check out the status. So I understand the minister is going to respond.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to table the answer at the appropriate time on the Orders of the Day. But I can now tell the hon. gentleman that the building in which the crab operation operated did in fact burn down earlier. It's been rebuilt. I understand there's been some damage done to it recently because of snow loads on the roof. The licence is still there. If a person comes along who wants to reactivate the plant, if they can meet certain conditions: one, it'll have to be certified by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and two, of course, maybe the more important qualification, will be that the outstanding legal issues regarding the ownership of the building must be satisfied.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There's also some question in Roddickton about funding and so on. Apparently there was some promise of funding that was given to those people, not only for a feasibility study but to get the plant back in its proper state. I think the commitment was given to them by their member. I was just wondering if the Minister of Fisheries is aware of that commitment and what the status is now on possible funding for the Roddickton crab plant?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of there being any - certainly not to my department there's been no application. I know that a group of citizens in Roddickton has formed themselves into a cooperative. I believe they are attempting to get the necessary wherewithal to reactivate the plant. I understand they have, or they're about to make, an application to ACOA. Certainly there's no funding coming from our department.

In fact it would be extremely difficult to justify providing government funding for a plant in Roddickton, given the fact that we already have more than enough crab processing capability around the Province now. In fact, I believe, the entire crab processing sector is operating at probably less than 50 per cent of its capacity.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries could tell us if there has been a commitment given to the people of Roddickton by any other department, any other minister of government, for funding either towards a feasibility study or to aid towards the reconstruction to get the plant back in operation? I am sure as Minister of Fisheries if there was a commitment made by another minister, I am certain that as the lead Department of Fisheries that minister would be aware. Is he aware of any commitment that has been made by any other minister?

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

MR. CARTER: I cannot speak for the other ministers. I can only say that we have not made a commitment. Certainly I will take the question as notice and report back if in fact there has been a commitment made. I am not aware of one.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before going on to the next routine item of business, on behalf of hon. members, we would like to welcome to the public galleries today, twenty Grade V students from Park Avenue School, Mount Pearl, in the district of Waterford - Kenmount, accompanied by their teacher, Margaret Wakeham, and chaperones, Joan North, Dianne Spurrell and Geri Graham. I understand that maybe they have left, but we welcome them in absentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we have nine students from the PREP Centre, 30 Harvey Road, in the district of St. John's Centre, accompanied by their teachers, Sharon Byrne and Heather Powell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act."

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce the following resolution:

WHEREAS the attainment of higher education is fundamental to the future prosperity of our Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador take the necessary steps to provide adequate funding to Memorial University to ensure that tuition fees are not increased during the 1993-1994 fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for clarification.

The Premier presented a couple of petitions yesterday. As we know, members have to sign petitions when they present them. I am just wondering, looking at the remarks the Premier put on the petitions - I really can't read them, but there are two remarks made, I think, on the petition before the Premier signed them. Would the Premier clarify what they are? It says: 'Certified that this petition does not contain' - I am not sure what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Whatever claims I may make, I don't make claim to great penmanship. My penmanship is not the best and I apologize for it.

If hon. members would care to read Rule 90 of our Standing Orders, there is a requirement that: "A petition to the House shall be presented by a member in his place who shall be answerable that it does not contain impertinent or improper matter; and every member offering a petition to the House shall sign it with his own hand."

I certified that it contained no impertinent or improper matter, and signed it with my own hand - Rule 90.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I just want to rise to say that I couldn't read it. I accept the Premier's explanation for it. I couldn't pick out what he wrote, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,882 people from the district of Burin - Placentia West, consisting of the parishes of Rushoon, Marystown and Burin.

The petition is to the Members of the House of Assembly: 'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality of education for the children of our Province. We support the 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 representatives, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, the petition, signed, as I said, by 2,882 people from my district, was presented to me on Sunday. As I said yesterday, my colleague from Grand Bank and I met with the various church leaders, the parish priests from St. Bernard's, Rushoon, Marystown, Burin, St. Lawrence and Lamaline, together with representatives of the parishes represented by the six priests.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Was 'Oliver' there?

MR. TOBIN: No, 'Oliver' didn't show.

At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, they presented the petitions to my colleague and me, from the districts we represented.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did you hear what he said then? Did you hear what 'Oliver' just said?

MR. TOBIN: What?

MR. R. AYLWARD: He was ashamed of his life.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is between the Member for Fortune - Hermitage and his constituents, it is not for me in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Carbonear that when the church leaders, and the priests, in particular, presented these petitions to us, they asked that they be presented in the House, and I don't think they expected the mockery coming from the Member for Carbonear to be part of the presentation of this petition. I tell the member that I, on behalf of the people from whom I accepted the petition, do not appreciate very much the childishness and foolishness he is getting on with in respect of these petitions.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was presented by these groups representing their church and the prayer of the petition specifically spells out that there be no tampering with the rights to the denominational education system.

Shortly after the Williams Royal Commission was put in place, the leader in our caucus, together with some officials and other people, made a thorough assessment of the Williams Royal Commission Report, and shortly after that, within a matter of days, the position of our caucus was articulated by our leader and by those of us who wrote it from the very various churches and parishes in the Province. That position, Mr. Speaker, was quite clear, that the constitutional rights of the churches and those who are in adherence to these rights should be protected. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the rights of the Pentecostals to have it enshrined in the Constitution was done, I would say, by the Peckford Administration, under which many of us served in the Cabinet. That is exactly where we came from on this.

Now, several days after the Minister of Education said in an article in 'The Evening Telegram' - and the Premier and others are now basically trying to get through - but I think what really set the ball rolling and what disturbed the people in Newfoundland was an article in 'The Evening Telegram', I believe, where the Minister of Education stated, 'I would like for my grandchildren to know that their grandfather took over education at a time when the illiteracy rate was 40 per cent and eventually the illiteracy rate was licked. And I would also like for my grandchildren to know that when their grandfather was minister there was a denominational education system and eventually there was no segregation based on religion.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the statement by this minister that caused the churches and other people in the Province who wanted to protect the denominational education system to become outraged. In that interview, the minister went on to say, 'There are recommendations which require changes to the Constitution and changes could be made through consensus or by force, but hopefully it can be reached through consensus.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition to the House of Assembly on behalf of the people from whom I accepted it the other day, with my colleague from Grand Bank, and I ask the government to strictly respect the wishes of these people.

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

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

I rise to support the petition presented by my colleague from Burin - Placentia West. The member has outlined basically how he got possession of this petition. It was in a forum on Sunday with representatives of church and community that we were presented with the petitions. As I said yesterday, it was most interesting to hear the views of those people, to hear church leaders and parishioners express their views on denominational education. They feel very strongly that it should remain protected under the Constitution but, again, I reiterate they do not mind sharing. They think duplication should be eliminated and avoided, but they were very, very strong in their resolve to maintain the protection they now have in the Constitution. Of course, as I said yesterday, they are not all that certain that the government of the day has been definite enough that it will not tamper with their rights under the Constitution, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: Go on, right there, about the Constitution.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, to go on, as my colleague says, about what the Minister of Education says: 'There are recommendations which require changes to the Constitution and that change could be made through consensus or by force. Hopefully, it can be reached through consensus.'

Now, if there is one person who has inflamed the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: If there is one person, I guess, who has inflamed this debate more than any other, it is the present Minister of Education. My understanding is that the former Minister of Education had to be brought in at the eleventh hour to try and pull this thing together for the Premier and the present Minister of Education. He had to be called in to sort of put down the flames and try to find some way to resolve this matter and to get the church leaders in last Friday with the statement that we saw. That is what I am hearing, Mr. Speaker, from very good sources. I see the former Minister of Education is blushing somewhat, and that is usually a sign that you're right on the money, when you get the former minister to blush.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I understand the views and the wishes of those people who signed the petitions, and I want to go on record as very clearly supporting their position.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite are really trying desperately to get a fight going between myself and the churches in this Province, because they realize they have lost it. They were all set to make this Williams report and the denominational issue into a great big political football and they really thought they were on to something. I remember how their chins fell the day that the heads of churches walked in there and stood cheek to cheek with government and showed our consensus, church and state together, to try to deal with the problems that we have in education.

Hon. members opposite are trying to take words out of context. I don't mind getting up and saying what I told the reporter from 'The Evening Telegram'. I told him I would like to be able to say to my grandchildren that as a result of what the Liberal Administration did, illiteracy has been eradicated from Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be a great achievement. I would like to be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I said I would like to see the day when children are not segregated, based on their denomination. I say that as a Christian, I say it as Minister of Education, and as a Newfoundlander. I would, indeed, like to see that day. But when I say that, I can tell you that I am saying exactly the same thing the churches are saying - that the hon. member pointed out they are saying - that they don't mind sharing. They are encouraging sharing. The churches recognize today that in this fiscal climate we live in, we have to share. As a Christian, I don't want to see children segregated simply and solely on the basis of denomination. I stand by that point. I can tell the hon. member that there are a good many members of a good many churches in this Province who would stand up and say exactly the same thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the people who presented the petition, I would suggest to them that they get their hands on the statement that was presented in this House by the hon. the Premier on behalf of the churches and ourselves some weeks ago. The hon. members opposite will not be sending these statements out to their constituents because the hon. members want to have a fight, they want to make a political football out of this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind hon. members that it is too noisy here. The Chair can hardly hear what the hon. member is saying. I ask hon. members, please, to keep their conversation at a minimum.

The hon. the Minister of Education may continue.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate, Sir, that you would have to do that. Hon. members presented this petition which I thought they were serious about. I thought they wanted to hear the position of government on this. It is unfortunate that they won't give the courtesy to whoever is speaking so we can put out the truth. They want to make sure that the word that gets out from this Chamber is anything but the truth, and so they kick up all the disturbance they can so that the good people who signed this petition in good faith will never be able to hear that government is in agreement that we do not want to get out and take away their rights, Mr. Speaker, we want to give a good quality, sound education. The hon. member also talks about changing the Constitution. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I should clarify it to the hon. members so that they could go back to their constituents and explain the reality of what we are talking about.

The reality is, this is the legal advice I am getting, I am not a lawyer, the reality is, Mr. Speaker, that if all the churches came together and reached a consensus that would see some kind of sharing, the Constitution would have to be changed. Now this is the legal advice I am getting. I am also getting the advice that what happened back in 1969, when the Integrated Board was formed, in the strict letter of the law, the Constitution should have been changed, and no one was forcing it, but it should have been changed. It could easily have been changed by consensus because, as the terms of union are written, it is my understanding, and I say it clearly, I am not a lawyer, it is the legal advice I am getting, it is my understanding that any member of any church could challenge what happened in 1969, because it is breaking an individual's rights under the Constitution, so if all the churches today were to agree by consensus, to come together in one, say unified system, the Constitution would have to be changed in order to protect that from being challenged some years down the road, so the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, could be changed by consensus.

I also said, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution could be changed by force, so it can be changed by force I suppose, but this administration has no intention of changing it by force. I suppose anything could happen if you have a mind to speculate on it, but I caution hon. members not to read any more into that, than it actually says. There is no intention to force the change in the Constitution.

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

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

I have a petition also with 574 names and the prayer of the petition is much the same as other petitions that have been presented in this House of Assembly over this past while, particularly since this Minister of Education has taken over, the minister who wants to be remembered as the minister who did away with denominational education.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Since he took over as Minister of Education -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, so that the record will not be confused, the hon. member is either misadvised or ill-informed. He is assuming that I have said things which I did not say, so, Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to show that what the hon. member is saying, shows that he is ill-advised or misinformed.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. Member used the occasion for a point of clarification.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

The hon. minister can squirm and twist and squeal all he likes, but it was in the papers that he wants his grandchildren to remember him as the one who did away with denominational education. I do not know what paper it was in, it was November the 1st, 1992, but it does not say on this which paper it is. He also wanted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Education, on a point of order.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am not allowed to use certain language in this Chamber, but surely there must be some way by which an hon. member in this House should not be allowed to get up and lie, Mr. Speaker. I am not accusing the hon. member of lying because I am not allowed to say it, but surely there must be some procedure that would prevent this kind of thing from happening because it is certainly giving misleading information to the people of this Province, and I do not think it becomes either the hon. member or this Chamber to allow that kind of attack to be made, Mr. Speaker, without some basis of truth to it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister cannot be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to do through the back door, what he cannot do through the front. Now really what this minister has said right now is that the Member for Kilbride is lying, he is accusing him of lying and, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend and suggest to Your Honour that the minister be directed to stand in his place and withdraw any references whatsoever, that the Member for Kilbride lied.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear the member say that the Member for Kilbride actually lied because as the member said he was not allowed to say that. I would hope that members would not put the Chair into that kind of position by trying to do it through the back door, and I would ask the hon. member if he made any reference to the fact that the hon. member lied, that he withdraw that statement.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly did not make the suggestion, the only reason I did not make it is because I am not allowed to make it, Mr. Speaker, so if there is any suggestion -

MR. SPEAKER: Again the hon. minister is not to qualify and I would ask the hon. minister to make a total withdrawal.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if I have in any way suggested that the hon. member was lying, Mr. Speaker, if I suggested that he was lying about what I was supposed to have said, I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: He told the truth.

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

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I know for the rules of this House of Assembly he had to apologize. Mr. Speaker, he would be like the Minister of Environment and Lands, he would be down on his knees in a day or so -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to carry on with the petition.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - apologizing to me. Now, to get back to the petition, Mr. Speaker, not only does he want to be remembered by his grandchildren as the minister who did away with denominational education but he also goes on in that same article and says: this is going to take constitutional changes, Mr. Speaker, and he said if they do not agree with it, if they do not do it by consensus, I will shove it down their throats, Mr. Speaker, that is what he meant in his article. If they do not agree with me, if they do not come along and do exactly what I say, I will make sure they will. Mr. Speaker, he will probably hire a lawyer like the Premier, who tried to take away our offshore rights or one of these things, and maybe he can get away with it, maybe the churches will knuckle under to him, I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest deceptive statement that was ever made in this House of Assembly was the Premier's statement on this issue a little while ago, when the Premier came out and said all the churches agree with what he wants to do. I do not know if the church leaders read this or not while they were agreeing to it, Mr. Speaker, but actually what the Premier says in his statement is: the government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking changes in the Constitution.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No Leave. The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: That is okay, Mr. Speaker, I forgive you. I am proud to be from that district.

MR. SPEAKER: I confused the fact that the hon. member lives there.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition to the hon. House, it is directed to the hon. House of Assembly in Legislative Session Convened: The petition of the undersigned at the Parish of Holy Redeemer in Trepassey, is that Catholic schools be retained. Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to accept and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. Proper presentation signed by approximately 1200 people of the Trepassey area.

The petition, Mr. Speaker, is very similar to others presented over the last few days by many members in the House, requesting that this hon. House of Assembly not do anything to undermine the system of education that we have. The heading of the petition also goes on to say that the undersigned are committed to the highest quality of education for the children of the Province. They support Roman Catholic schools and we have had other petitions supporting schools of other denominations and they want to keep them in the same way they want their rights protected. They recognize that others also have rights and have no argument with the rights of other people. They also agree with sharing and support the sharing that has gone on, that has been part of the developmental process over the last number of years, here in the Province.

The Minister of Education, when he spoke just a short while ago, talked about the time when the Integrated Faiths came together to form one unified school system, known has the Integrated School System in the Province. That narrowed down the number of specific systems, to the four that we presently have. One of them did not have their rights protected under the Constitution, that would be the Pentecostal Faith. Just a few short years ago, in fact when I was Minister of Education, we did arrange for a constitutional amendment, passed both here in our House and in the House of Commons in Ottawa, which assured the Pentecostals the same protection under the constitution as the Integrated Groups, the Catholic's and also the other people that are protected by the Constitution.

So, Mr. Speaker, what the petitioners are asking is that we leave our system of education alone. We encourage and promote sharing, we encourage and promote fiscal responsibility but that we also tryto work together to provide the highest quality of education that is possible within the Province.

In speaking earlier to some of the other petitions I mentioned that the system that we have is a product of our history and geography, and we can be very proud of how far we have come over the years when we look at the elements that we had to face in this rough and rugged Province of ours.

Mr. Speaker, we can be very proud of the products of our educational system and seeing what we have been able to do under such adverse circumstances and situations, we should be encouraged, under present day performances, that we can do a lot better.

When we realize that just a few short years ago we had almost 1,300 schools in this Province, and today we have fewer than 500, shows that there has been a tremendous amount of consolidation going on. That hopefully is going to improve the educational opportunities for our young children.

The people also have some concerns, mainly because of remarks that have been made by people who now sit on the government side. They are concerned that their system of education might be in jeopardy. They are concerned with the recommendations in the Williams Report. Hopefully they will be encouraged somewhat by the remarks of the Premier when he says that the government will support and maintain the denominational system. We will always try to make sure that he is held to that commitment. Also the people are concerned with what they see happening in the field of education in relation to cutbacks by the present government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will table the petition signed by 1,200 people of the Trepassey area.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any of us who want to be repetitious when those petitions are coming before the House, but we want to make sure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I want to remind the hon. minister that I am not involved in severance pay. Even though I am going out, at the moment I am not eligible for severance pay.

The minister knows as much about severance pay as he does about agriculture, and I could put all that he knows about agriculture on that little page right there; but that is not why I got up.

Mr. Speaker, I know that no one wants to become repetitious, but I think that each and every one of us has to say what we have to say, and repeat it as often as it needs repeating.

It with great pleasure that I rise in support of my colleague and friend. In his submission, what he states is what is in the hearts of the people, and no matter what the minister says, the point remains that it is the minister who put the doubt in the people's minds. It was the minister who created it. It was no one else only the minister. If the minister had to keep his mouth shut - the way he is trying to explain it now, that he never meant it; he never said it; he never meant anything by it; it was something that might happen a hundred years down the road; but that is not what the minister said, and the minister put the fear of God in all the people who recognize the needs of a denominational educational system and are prepared to stand by what they think is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture can say: Talk so foolish. That is up to him, but the point remains, he will never quieten this member here while he is in the House. There is no such thing as me playing politics. I do not do it. I am not like the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I do not do it. Neither would I resign my seat for someone else to sit in my place, to run in his place. I would not do that either.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, could I have protection from the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: And the parrot from Eagle River.

Mr. Speaker, I have a real problem with what is coming across from the other side. It is insulting to the integrity of the people who signed those petitions. It is a big joke to everyone over there, a big laugh about the thousands of names coming in here from people signing those petitions.

Let me tell the hon. the Member for Eagle River that there is no need for this to become political because the Minister of Education created that animal himself, and now it is going to bear fruit because, not alone the Catholics, but every other religious person who is active in this Province wants to retain the denominational education system. And, if those members opposite, not all the members across - yes, Sir, I can look at the Minister of Fisheries and I have never seen him smile yet when this topic came up for conversation. But there are some people on that side who find this facetious, it is a joke. This is not a joke to the thousands upon thousands of people who have signed this petition.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, I say it over and over again, we have no problem, I say to the ex-Minister of Education, we have no problem whatsoever with sharing. I spent fourteen years on a St. John's school board, and from the day I went on that board, I advocated sharing the facilities and sharing wherever it was necessary, and that is within the guidelines of the present denominational education system. I think, Mr. Speaker, out of all the recommendations of the Williams Commission, 114 of those recommendations have already been dealt with, and I am sure the rest of the recommendations can be dealt with.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I support my hon. friend's petition on behalf of his constituents and I hope that the people in government are listening.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: This is a further petition, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is presenting a petition?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 191 residents of St. John's and other parts of the Province who are opposed to the closedown of the Day Break Parent Child Centre, and also, a petition from thirty-two participants in the First Provincial Family Child Care Conference which was held in St. John's on March 19 and 20.

Mr. Speaker, of these two petitions, the second one is part of another petition which had a further eighty-two names, or a total of about 120 participants in the First Provincial Family Child Care Conference who are also gravely concerned about the services being provided by the Day Break Parent Child Centre being shut down. They say it is critical that the service be one of the options available for supporting families who need parenting support and other specialized services, and furthermore, protest that an agency working with families and children would be given twelve days notice to seek services. This indicates a lack of understanding of how much risk there can be to some children when services to families are discontinued in this abrupt manner. Such actions contribute to the disempowerment of families and the victimization of children. That comes from professionals in the child care field who are attending the First Provincial Family Child Care Conference.

Mr. Speaker, these individuals, the professionals we are talking about, come from all over the Province, not just from St. John's, but also from Conception Bay South, Bonavista, Trepassey, Placentia, and other districts of the Province. Some of the other petitioners are from Ferryland, Harbour Main, Menihek, Burin - Placentia West, as well as from every part of St. John's. The centre, itself, is in St. John's East, but this is of concern to all residents of St. John's and other parts of the Province. The signatories on this petition are from St. John's East, St. John's Centre, St. John's South, St. John's North and St. John's West, as well as from outside the city.

MR. DUMARESQUE: How many (inaudible) do you have now?

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that the people of Eagle River are also very interested in seeing quality services for families being presented and provided for the whole Province and would look to this centre as a model for other services that could and should be developed throughout the Province.

We have a very dangerous situation occurring in response to the objection to this closedown. We have the Premier of this Province basically taking the view that there ought to be some sort of fight between the people of St. John's and the rest of Newfoundland and any service that exists in St. John's is going to be questioned unless it exists in every other part of the Island.

Now, if the Premier wants to take that argument forward to the people of St. John's, as well as the rest of the people of Newfoundland, well, he is welcome to it. Because the people of St. John's are not going to take that, and the people of the rest of the Province are not going to take it either. I think you are going to see over the next few days that there are going to be more people from outside St. John's also objecting to this kind of policy that the government is undertaking. Because we are not just seeing the closedown of a particularly vital service in St. John's, what we are seeing here is an attack on needy children and an attack on needy families.

Mr. Speaker, the analysis that was done - and the Minister of Finance has an obligation to the people of this Province to give a proper and appropriate analysis of the figures that have been presented to them by the board of directors of Day Break Parent Child Centre. The clear cost of closing down the centre, an expected supposed saving of $350,000, because that is the Province's contribution to the $700,000 cost on the 50-50 cost-shared basis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are only going to close down programs because the feds are in on them - if the feds are in on them, the feds are providing support - the entire social services system in this Province will be closed down. Because each and every dollar that is spent by the Minister of Social Services under the Canada Assistance Plan is matched dollar for dollar by the Government of Canada.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: If that is the criteria, Mr. Speaker, the whole of the social services is going to be closed down and not just the Day Break Parent Child Centre. So everybody in Newfoundland is concerned about this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East. I, too, have a lot of concern about this centre. I know that there are areas of concern with respect to economics in this Province, but I am not sure that this is the right area to completely eliminate.

I have had calls from people who have been actively involved in this centre. Mr. Speaker, this centre is not only a child centre, this centre educates families in the matter of good housekeeping, people who are in small income brackets. It is an area where they are shown how to conserve, how to preserve their family lifestyles with smaller amounts of money. One gentleman who called me is actively involved. He is a volunteer worker. He told me something that I never knew: For every child born prematurely, it costs this Province $10,000 after that child is born, to put one pound of flesh on that child. To increase the weight of that child by one pound, it costs $10,000.

For all the pre-natal women who have attended this centre, because of the influence of the experts who teach them the way to go, who teach them the rights and wrongs involved with pregnancy, not one who has attended that clinic or that establishment has had a baby that is underweight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is very simple. This might be classed as a social program but I think this program goes much farther than that, in that alone, it costs $10,000 for one baby to increase its weight after being born prematurely, $10,000 per one pound of increased weight. And, for every woman who has attended this care centre - because you cannot call it a child centre; it is not a child care centre, it is a combination of many aspects of living. And for all the women who have been through this system, not one child has been born prematurely, because of the expert advice that has been given to those mothers by doctors, nurses and other people who have the knowledge, who can tell them the right way to go with respect to exercising, and with respect to diet.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise today to support the petition of the Member for St. John's East and to say to the government: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water - let us see if there is something else we can do as legislators.

Granted, I heard the Minister of Finance on the radio yesterday, saying, 'Well if the centre is to remain in St. John's, why not have one in other areas of the Province?' I know where he is coming from, but the point remains, we shouldn't abolish the one in St. John's just because there is not a facility, likewise, in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, there is no rationale behind it, it is not common sense, and I ask the government to reconsider this. It only takes $750,000 to keep that whole establishment operating, which is not a great lot of money when you look at the lives involved, the people who are taught right from wrong with respect to family living and to other aspects of our environment, and, Mr. Speaker, I again say to this hon. House, be careful when dealing with people who do not have the educational background or the facilities to care for themselves.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present and support a petition on behalf of 1,020 people in the district of Menihek, comprising residents of the towns of Labrador City and Wabush. The prayer of the petition is 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. 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 representatives, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak in favour of this petition, and I have signed it, signifying my support for the intent and the prayer of this petition. I have had the opportunity of having two children - my wife and I have had two children educated in the schools of Labrador City, and I must say, we are very pleased with the quality of education delivered by the two schools in Labrador City, namely, Notre Dame Academy and Labrador City Collegiate.

One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we have such a high quality education in our town and in this Province, is the fact that it is a denominational education system. We do not have, we do not want, a secular system, a godless system in Labrador City or Wabush, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to have the opportunity, for a few minutes, to speak in support of this particular petition.

The constitutional rights of people are very important. They are very, very important and shouldn't be tampered with. It is not something of which one should misspeak or engage in double-talk. What we should be doing is telling the people of this Province whether we do or do not support the system of education that we presently have.

The Progressive Conservative Party and myself - I am pleased that the party has this position, that a Progressive Conservative government would respect existing constitutional rights and would not try to change them without the consent of the people who hold those rights.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is very, very plain. That is ordinary English. You can easily understand it. But what this government indicates when they speak about constitutional rights and how they are going to maybe take them away from people, rights set out in the Terms of Union, in Term 17 - some people suspect that after an election, this government, if they were to win, would immediately nullify Term 17. A lot of people suspect that.

It is because of the misspeak and the double-talk - and I quote what the Premier said, in presenting a petition yesterday. He said that the government's position is that it is not seeking to obtain an amendment to the Constitution in relation to the educational rights of the different denominations as is provided for in Term 17.

He goes on: "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." He does not say that he will do it - 'if you don't agree with me in the negotiations we are having now - I will not tamper with the Constitution.' He doesn't say that. He just says that he will not do it at this time. A lot of people read into that, that after the election, if the Liberal party wins, they will tamper with the Terms of Union, they will go and ask for constitutional changes, and that would be wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Why do the people believe that? It is because of the misspeak and the double-talk that the Premier gets on with, and the Minister of Education, when he says that he wants to be remembered as the person who did away with denominational education in this Province - that is why - when the Minister of Education suggests that if the church leaders or the people will not agree with the changes that the government proposes, he will tear them up and go and ask then for constitutional changes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, says that we support the constitutional rights of certain religious groups in this Province and that we will not, without their consent, ask for any constitutional changes to the denominational education rights in this Province - that is Term 17. We will not ask, and that is the only caveat we have to it. It is not the time, but whether the people who have the rights want to give them up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up today and support the tone of this petition.

It is almost comical to see the hon. Opposition members scramble. They were convinced that boy, did they have an issue! Did they have an issue! They were determined that they were going to make this Royal Commission report, denominational education, a great big political football.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was a flop - the biggest political flop that I have seen in my life since I have been involved in politics. I would say, they even had their brochures printed. I would say they had their election propaganda printed to circulate to tell the people of the Province: Look, there is the crowd of people over there who want a godless, secular system of education. Mr. Speaker, that was a flop. They have recognized that it was a flop, so now they are trying to create something that they can knock down. They are trying to create the belief in the people's minds that this administration wants to abolish denominational education.

I don't know how they are going to rewrite their political propaganda they have to circulate. Mr. Speaker, they're going to have one heck of a time trying to rewrite all those brochures they had to send out in view of this. Listen to this: "I am pleased to be able tell the House that at a meeting between church leaders and the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet on March 10, significant progress was made towards achieving a consensus which will lead to major improvements of the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador."

Hon. members don't want to hear that. What they would have liked to have heard was to say that no progress was made. But significant progress was made. "Government and church leaders have agreed to work cooperatively...." That means cheek to cheek, that means hand in hand, that means arm in arm. We're going to go arm in arm together. What for? We're going to develop "...new approaches which will: enhance the quality of education; achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of services; and make substantial changes in administration that will lead to a major reorganization of school districts."

Now when the hon. Premier read all this out do you know what he said in the introduction? He said in the introduction that although he was reading this statement, the statement was in fact a joint statement by government and the heads of churches. Did any of the heads of churches get up and deny that? Obviously they couldn't get up in the Chamber and do it. Did they go out to the media and deny it? No, they did not go out and deny it. Because they recognized that this government - for the first time in the last seventeen years there's been a government which has been up front with the churches.

We told them this. Here's what we agreed on. We agreed, and they agreed, that we are not satisfied with the status quo. We're not satisfied with education the way it is. Church leaders said that. Because they are involved in education on a daily basis and they have been for the last 200 years in this Province, and they are not satisfied with the status quo. That doesn't mean you have to throw out the baby with the bath water. That doesn't mean that you cannot enhance the quality of education, achieve greater efficiency, and make substantial changes to the administration. You can do all these things within the denominational system.

So I would tell the hon. member who presented this petition to take this statement and circulate it to every single person who wrote it. Because it lays out clearly that this administration is not satisfied with the status quo. It also says that the heads of churches are not satisfied with the status quo. So we are going to see major reforms to education, the like of which has never been seen before in the history of this Province. Major reforms. But they're going to be made under the protection of the Terms of Union with Canada. That is the wish of the people of this Province. Because no one wants a godless, secular system of education. Nobody wants that.

People want sharing. People want to spend our money wisely. People don't want to waste too much money on unnecessary administration. The list goes on and on. The hon. members opposite, I would advise them: look, don't flog a dead horse. All this information they had printed, all the brochures they had printed, all the money they had spent on the next election trying to make us like the big bad guys, Mr. Speaker, it's too bad. They wasted their money. But look boys, don't flog a dead horse. You've lost it. Go and find another issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister: thanks but no thanks. I don't need his advice. I don't want his advice. I listened to his advice in his speech but I can tell him I don't want his advice. When the Minister of Education started off it showed why he's on the wrong track. He said it himself why he's on the wrong track, when he started referring to these petitions as the petitions of the hon. members opposite. He suggested that the Opposition members were trying to stir up these petitions to get people stirred up on the denominational education commission.

I presented a petition here today, some 600 names, that I didn't even know was being collected in my way. It was collected before I even knew it was asked for. So I had no involvement. I didn't try to get people to present that petition or collect a petition. They did it themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not try to get the people to present that petition or collect a petition, Mr. Speaker, they did it themselves and they did it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I do not. They did it themselves, Mr. Speaker, and the reason they did it is because the Minister of Education we have now is not trustworthy, as they say, they feel that. The Minister of Education who will come out in the paper and suggest that he wants to be remembered, he wants his grandchildren to remember him as the person who did away with the denominational education system, that upset the people. That upset the people in the parish that sent in the last petition that was just read from Menihek and the petition that came in from Kilbride and the petition that came in from St. Mary's - The Capes, from Ferryland and from other areas in this Province. It was the minister himself who upset the people enough so that they went to take up a petition. It was the minister who said that if they do not accept the constitutional changes, he said these changes will require constitutional changes and if they do not accept them we will force these changes on them. That is what the minister said before the Premier pulled the rug out from under him again, as he did with several of his ministers recently.

The Premier sat down with the ministers and people in charge of the churches throughout the Province and came up with a deal, a deal that will get him through the next election. A deal that will keep people down, keep people happy as much as possible until the election is over. The statement that the Premier made, and he is always very careful of what he says, I will give him credit for that, he is always very careful. We had an example today in a petition that he presented where he stuck right to the letter of the law on the rules of paper where he signed it. He claimed that there were no distortions in it to his knowledge and whatever the rules say but, Mr. Speaker, when you read the sentence in his statement that says this government is not seeking to change the Constitution that would remove constitutional protected rights of classes of people significantly provided for.

Mr. Speaker, he says; the government it is not seeking, it is not seeking now, these changes. It does not say he will not in the future seek the changes. That, Mr. Speaker, if he had put it in there would have been security for people who send in these petitions. One bit of advice the minister did give, well I had been doing it anyway before the minister gave me the advice, Mr. Speaker, it is taking this statement and sending it out to people who I know are interested and underlining that clause in the paper with a little explanatory note, asking them do they believe that this Premier who brought in their Bill 17 and Bill 18 and promised wage increases one year, changed them the next day, do you think that Premier, when he worded this to say the government is not seeking change to the constitution and he would not say the government will not seek changes to the constitution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) past tense.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Now, Mr. Speaker, when I send that out to my constituents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: - and I have only sent it out to a very small number yet and I have gotten some reaction from it. Today there will be a copy go to the parish priest in Corpus Christi, Father Molloy, and I will talk it over with him and explain to him what he thinks about the statement that the government is not seeking change today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: And I will ask him, at the time, if he thinks it would be more secure, if he would feel more secure if the government said it will not seek these constitutional changes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from six communities on the Isthmus of Avalon concerning Newfoundland Power's proposal to store PCBs on the Isthmus of Avalon. It is not in the proper form as presented to the House, so I will ask leave of the House so that these petitions can be presented at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have not seen the petition, has the hon. member showed it to the Chair?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave of the House to present the petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. BARRETT: This particular petition is signed by 654 people in the communities of Thornlea, Bellevue, Bellevue Beach, Chance Cove Little Harbour and Fair Haven in the District of Placentia East. The prayer of the petition is that we, the undersigned, are against Newfoundland Power's proposal for a PCB storage facility near Chance Cove. We strongly advise government to reject this proposal.

Now the history of Newfoundland Power's attempts in Newfoundland to find a storage facility for these PCB's goes back some time. They have tried in the City of Mount Pearl to expand the warehouse where they now presently have PCB's stored, but this particular proposal was rejected by the city council in Mount Pearl. They then put in a proposal to store these PCB's, expand on their industrial facilities in Paradise, and the town council of Paradise, of course, would not issue them a building permit. As a result, they had to cancel putting these PCB's in Paradise and in Mount Pearl.

The documents that have been registered with the Department of Environment and Lands, the site that they have chosen to store these, to build a facility, is just yards away from the boundary of Chance Cove - just a few yards outside the boundaries of the Town of Chance Cove. I think it was a deliberate attempt to make sure they were not inside the municipal boundaries of any community, so they would not have to go through the municipal authority.

The people in the area are very concerned about this, and I think one member of the Newfoundland Power Company said that it would go there whether the people wanted it or not; that they could not care less what the people felt about it.

I think in this particular area there is a grave concern about the pollution and, of course, in this particular area we have one of the most scenic spots within Newfoundland. We have a provincial park - the Bellevue Beach Provincial Park - and all that particular area there.

What they propose is to put up a building that would have a twenty-four hour surveillance by cameras, remotely controlled from St. John's. Inspections would take place on a monthly basis, and some of the concerns that people have expressed are: What happens if the power goes off? It is also in an area where there is a great deal of hunting. People would probably just take potshots at the cameras, at the building, and we all know the dangers of PCB's if they are let go into the environment, particularly if there is a fire, if there is a forest fire and this building is burned, and all these other concerns.

The people in this area request this government - which can stop this proposal in two different ways - it can stop it in terms of the hazard to the environment and the other control is that the people in this area have trusted their faith in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in that in this whole area right now there is a freeze on construction. It is in the Hibernia impact area, and all building permits have to go through the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and through developmental control.

Since Newfoundland Power were so deliberate and went directly outside the boundary of Chance Cove so that the town council in Chance Cove would not have a say in this, even though they participated in circulating the petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. BARRETT: I just need a minute to clue up.

I would request that the -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up. He has to have leave of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BARRETT: I request that the way to stop this is to make sure that our provincial government does not issue a building permit, as the town council of Chance Cove would do if it had the authority.

Thank you very much.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak today to that petition signed by people in the area of the Isthmus on an issue that is certainly very important to the Province. It is more important now, I guess, to the people in the Isthmus area than anywhere else, but I cannot understand for the life of me what Newfoundland Light and Power is doing, going around the Province looking for places to store this PCB. Get rid of it. Deal with it finally, permanently. It is going to cost money. Whatever you have to do to get rid of this stuff, get rid of it - and it might mean transporting it as far away as Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Minister of Environment and Lands to speak on this today, and the Minister of Environment and Lands should stand in her place and say that there will be no PCB storage in the Come By Chance area. It is bad enough out in that area now with the smoke and the acid rain and the refinery mess that is going on, that the minister ignored for two years. The minister, when asked by the Mayor of Sunnyside: What is going on out there? The minister said that the company is looking after all of that. The company is doing all of these tests. What's the company going to do, come back to you and give you a report and tell you that they're polluting the country? I'm sure they're going to come back to you and tell you something like that. Yes, run out of the House like you always do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Stay out while you're out there!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member should keep his comments to the petition.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I must stick to the petition. I am very supportive of the hon. member's petition, the people who sent in the petition. I know the PC candidate in the area, Fred Drover, is very supportive. He has a copy of the petition also. He is out there as I understand it almost daily working with these people to try to make sure that this storage facility is not allowed to proceed.

The member for the district, if there was any solidarity over there, all the member for the district would have to do would be phone the minister and say: Madam Minister, I do not want this in my district and the people in my district do not want this. That minister should say right off the bat to Light and Power: there will be no permit issued for that. That should have been taken care of the day after the meeting when they went out - I saw the meeting on television. I saw Light and Power out there trying to smooth things over, to - they figure it's a bit barren out there, a bit rocky. Who cares about this little bit of rock that they're going to pollute and put PCBs in?

Even worse, it's bad enough trying to put it in Mount Pearl, I guess, and Paradise. At least these are built up areas. They're areas where you can see vandalism going on if it's going to happen. You stick one of those things out in the middle of nowhere and it's an invitation for vandalism. It's an invitation for people to try to break into them and maybe destroy the barrels, the storage areas that they're in.

I know in my area for all of my life - it would never be allowed to happen now and most of them are closed - but up in Petty Harbour/Long Pond area, Kilbride, there were six dynamite houses up there all the time I grew up. I was as evil when I was young as I am now. I was mischievous at the time. We'd go up and try to get into those places. That was something to do. I couldn't get into them because they were smarter than I was, I guess, they made them strong enough. But just to make the point, I was not there to destroy the place, I just wanted to get in and see what was in there. Had I ever gotten in I guess there would have been - well, I wouldn't be here to talk about it most likely, because I would have been curious enough to try whatever I could try.

That's why I say to Light and Power to forget trying to put this facility, this storage area, in a remote area. It's bad enough trying to put it in a populated area where you can have a look at it. But don't put it in a remote area where it is a prime target for vandalism. If Light and Power is serious about getting rid of the PCBs that they brought into this Province, unaware I suppose at the time that they were going to pollute, not many people knew the problems with PCBS. By the way, I get conflicting reports on PCBs. I know of some people in the Argentia area who used to go down to the American base and get it for their arthritis, and rub it on their hands and their knees, or their elbows and their knees. Maybe they all died by the time they were twenty or thirty. I don't know.

I just say to Light and Power, if you have a problem, if you have PCBs - the problem has to be dealt with - take it and deal with it finally. Take those PCBS and get them wherever they can be destroyed. They should have tried to get them to Goose Bay when we had the temporary incinerator in Goose Bay and do it at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave!

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

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

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise and support the petition as presented by my colleague.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Do you have a pain in your stomach or something?

MR. TOBIN: I hope you don't get a pain in your stomach (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HOGAN: I would like to rise and support the substance of the prayer of the petition that was presented by my hon. friend for Bellevue and so eloquently supported by my colleague opposite, the Member for Kilbride.

The part of his presentation that we can't support, that is the Member for Kilbride, is that the intent of this company is to store this particular toxic substance in the so-called boonies in an isolated area, where it is subject to vandalism and subject to the elements and subject to anything that might come along that could make it a hazardous product in that particular area. So, Mr. Speaker, what the developer must do and, I might also add that our friend is quite right over there, that PCBs may or may not be the fearful toxic substance that some of us believe it to be.

I happen to be one of the proponents that PCBs can be handled safely, there are lots more hazardous products around our environment that are not being handled properly, PCBs are ones that can be, and I would suggest to anybody who is dealing with this issue that the proponent, Newfoundland Light and Power, take this particular product, store it in an area in a proper facility, provide it with the proper security, provide it with the proper guards that the Member for Kilbride has suggested, put the proper security around it and it would be accepted by anybody.

Those of us who are legislators, have to be sensible in applying our laws in this particular regard and permit such products to be stored in areas where they can be secured, and be under constant surveillance and the witness of people. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for any proponent to say that a particular site will be visited once a month, it has to be under constant surveillance and that can be mechanical, it can be electrical, there are 101 ways in this modern age. If the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West does not want me to finish supporting this petition, very ably presented and supported by his own party, well then, he does not have to stay here and listen, he can always leave - but the petition is worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, and I am delighted to be able to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Orders of the Day, the Chair would like to make a ruling on the point of privilege raised by the hon. Opposition House Leader. In his submission, the hon. member referred to Beauchesne, and I would like to say, Beauchesne, paragraph 979 pertains to the Ottawa procedure relating to the Budget debate which is governed by Standing Order 84.

Our procedure and custom are different. For example, in Ottawa the Opposition response begins on the day the Budget Speech is delivered and the Opposition critic adjourns the debate. In our case, the debate is adjourned on Budget Day by the finance minister and resumed on another day. There is no requirement that the Budget debate be taken up on the next sitting day. We have had in our quick research this afternoon, found out that the exact procedure was done in 1983, when the Budget debate was delivered on March 17th, and the House closed as normal, the same as we did here, and when the House resumed on March 21st, the Interim Supply debate began and finished as the Interim Supply was passed on March 29, 1983.

In 1984, the same procedure was adopted. On Tuesday, March 20th, 1984, the Budget Speech was delivered, the House recessed for Wednesday, on Thursday, March 22nd, when the House resumed, it was the Interim Supply that was debated and was debated until it was passed on March 30th, and again, the same procedure was used in the Budget of 1990. Therefore, our procedure and our practise permit the procedure with respect to the Budget debate, therefore, no primae facie case was established and no point of privilege established at this point in time.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, 2 (a), Resolution and Bill No. 12 respecting the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to debate Bill No. 12 and a resolution relating thereto, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill 12.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak too often on this particular Interim Supply Bill because eventually, I am sure, we will have a Budget debate. I suppose we will, I assume we will. I may be making a foolish assumption but I do not think we need to take all our time debating the Supply Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MS. VERGE: Yesterday's prediction that they will not go with this Budget.

MR. WINDSOR: That stands. That is depending, of course, on when we finish the Interim Supply debate. We may just chose to let the Interim Supply go through, which is what the House Leader would like, or we may decide to keep the Interim Supply Bill going for a long period of time. We are going to think about that a little bit more. We have not yet decided on that issue. What I said yesterday was that I do not think the government wants to bring this particular Budget up for debate, and that if they do not bring it up before Easter there will not be an opportunity. As I said yesterday this Budget will never see the light of day anyway. It really does not matter. That was quoted on at least two radio stations this morning. That clip was used from what I said yesterday, and I stand by it, because there is nothing in this Budget of any consequence. All of the tax implications were done in December so what we have is just something that is window dressing for the election, simply window dressing. I do not think the government really wants this Budget to be debated. They do not want to defend what they know will never be put into effect so they have come forward with a Budget that on the surface shows a $51 million deficit, but actually it is $121 million. That is by the government's own prediction, and I am predicting that the deficit, the real deficit, is closer to $200 million unless this government deals with it.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Of course. My friend for Fogo points out that the numbers in relation to the Department of Social Services are fictitious numbers and the government has done it consistently in every Budget this government has brought before the House of Assembly. They have brought in unrealistic predictions and then later on in the year they say: well, things have not worked as well as we thought they would. The federal government is not sending down as much money as we thought. I am familiar with the system. The federal government does it's estimates and tells us what they think revenues from that source will be for the coming year. It is done on a regular basis. It is nonsense for the Minister of Finance to come in this House toward the end of the year and say: we had no idea of the numbers we were given before the Budget had changed. These are updated on a regular basis and adjusted accordingly. There is no excuse for blaming it constantly on the Government of Canada or the economy of Canada, that transfer payments have decreased.

The real problem is the absolute failure of this government to do anything to stimulate the economy of this Province. This Budget is no different from ones we have seen before. If ever I get an opportunity to address the Budget itself I will take some time and go through the weaknesses in the Budget which does not provide any stimulus for the economy. The approach of this government is one of taxing people to try to raise more money at a time when people can ill afford to pay taxes, and particularly at a time when businesses can ill afford to pay more taxes. It is just not there. Businesses are having a hard time and instead of trying to help them this government increases taxation on them, businesses that try to employ people, which is good for the economy, which is good for government and for the finances of the Province, this government imposes a payroll tax on them. A penalty for employing people. Instead of trying to help them to try to employ more people, instead of putting in place incentives for business to employ people, this government penalizes anybody who employs anybody. It has to be the worst example of a counter-productive tax measure ever instituted anywhere in Canada, Mr. Chairman.

In this Budget there are a couple of little tidbits there of trying to create some job creation money through Enterprise Newfoundland, all these sorts of things. How can we be competitive with other provinces of Canada as long as we have a tax regime which makes it impossible for any business in Newfoundland to compete with other parts of Canada, particularly other parts of Atlantic Canada?

So the whole policy, the whole approach of this government, is in error. That's the fatal flaw. When you have a financial problem in a province you don't solve it by taxing the people more and by providing less services. It's not the answer. The answer is investing in the future. You have to invest in education. That's a long-term answer but it has to be done. This government came to office with cries of all kinds of priority on education. Where is the priority now? We've cut back from $20 million or $22 million to $8 million, or $12 million for school construction. Twelve million dollars for school construction. We've been spending $22 million and $23 million for the last ten years, a year. What is $12 million in 1993 dollars compared to $22 million in 1983 dollars? It's worth about $6 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That includes what was left over from last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-seven million dollars (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Twenty-seven million dollars four years ago, my good friend reminds me. Now we're going to spend $12 million to finish up basically what was already started. No new construction. My friend for Fogo was in his district last week meeting with people. The needs of schools on Fogo Island, desperate need for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Gander Bay.

MR. WINDSOR: In Gander Bay? In Gander Bay it was, in his district. Crying out for a new school in that area. They'll not get it this year for sure. No new construction this year. So is that a commitment to education, I ask, Mr. Chairman? Obviously not. It's no wonder the former minister resigned. He knew the approach that was being taken by government. He couldn't stand it any longer. Because I think he honestly wanted to do something in education. He couldn't stand it any longer. He was a good minister. I didn't totally agree with everything he did, but he was sincere and he was trying hard.

MS. VERGE: He didn't accomplish anything.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, he didn't accomplish a heck of a lot. That wasn't his fault. I think it was more the fault of his colleagues over there. He was stifled. He was not able to move forward and so he quit. At least he had the intestinal fortitude to do that.

Mr. Chairman, this Budget doesn't do anything for education. Tried to say: we're going to spend $24 million on education construction. You had to dig into it to find out it was only $12 million for schools and $12 million for the universities and the community colleges and all the rest of it. Very deceiving statement. So if you're not going to put money into education so that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be better able to support themselves and to contribute to our economy and society, if you're going to tax businesses more, tax people more, if you're going to provide less services, how do you propose to stimulate the economy?

The number of dollars that's there for job creation or stimulating the economy are almost negligible by comparison. It's a drop in the bucket. When you counteract that by a tax regime which makes any Newfoundland business less competitive than their counterparts in the Maritimes, how do you expect that to work?

We all know we are in a difficult financial situation in Canada - not only in Newfoundland, but in Canada as well. We all recognize that, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been asked by this government four times in the last four years to rally to the cause, to rally around the flag, to make concessions, to pay more taxes, to work harder, give more and accept less, and they have done that, and they have done it willingly. Certainly the public service has taken the brunt of it. They have taken the brunt of it from this government.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I will be back again, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

I would like to have a few words in this debate as well - the Interim Supply Bill - if I had a copy of it.

Mr. Chairman, it is rather unique that the government would present to this House a request for Interim Supply before they would bring the Budget into the Legislature. It is rather unusual for the government to come in, looking for a billion dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, we would not do that.

MR. TOBIN: We did not do it. We would not even think about doing it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know from where this government is coming. Looking for money throughout this Budget in different areas such as - you know, when this government has to come in for Interim Supply, and you look at the Budget that they brought in a few days later as it relates to what was actually budgeted and then the revised Budget, it would make you wonder what is happening.

It is time that this government started taking a few things seriously. It is time that this government started dealing with the real issues of the people of this Province. It is time that this government started dealing with the real issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did have a word with my colleague because it was an important issue.

I guess the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology must have gotten the call to go to the Premier's office first. We were wondering which one of you were going to get the call first to go to the Premier's office, whether it was you or the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that right? I must say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did not come in and go on his knees. He did not do that. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did come - one thing is apologizing to the Premier and saying: Mr. Premier, I am sorry if I offended you; but apologizing to the Minister of Education -

MR. MATTHEWS: That took the cake.

MR. TOBIN: That took the cake. When you have to come into this Legislature and apologize to the Minister of Education - a man who ruined the health care system -

MR. R. AYLWARD: He had to apologize to me for calling me a liar, sure, didn't he?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Kilbride got up in the Legislature today and told the Minister of Education of his statement whereby he categorically stated that he would like for his grandchildren to remember him as the man who destroyed denominational education in this Province, and he had to get up and apologize to the Member for Kilbride and withdraw his comments that it was not true. He confirmed that what the Member for Kilbride said was true. That is what we had here today - a confirmation that it was true.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what he did not do to the health care system, will be done in the next little while by the present minister, no doubt about that, no doubt about that. The minister of destruction -

DR. KITCHEN: It was better before and it will be better again.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

DR. KITCHEN: It was good before, we made it better, and I can make it better again.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking of issuing apologies in this legislature to the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: - the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was not the first one to get up in this Legislature and state publicly: I am sorry Mr. Premier, if I have caused you problems. I am sorry, Mr. Premier, if I have caused you problems. The first one to stand up in this Legislature and say I am sorry Mr. Premier if I caused you problems was the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is the kiss of death, that is.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, they would do anything to stay in Cabinet when you go on your knees to the Minister of Tourism and Culture, you would do anything to stay in Cabinet when you go on your knees to him or to the Minister of Health.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the Minister of Health at the time was just a new minister, only there a year. The ultimate insult, he was only a new minister, he was only there a year and did not know the difference. Mr. Chairman, any man that wept on the steps of Confederation Building, wept on the steps of Confederation Building when he could only get a 5 per cent increase for the teachers, wept.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was last week.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, last week that is right. He wept out there last week, a couple of years ago and last week he wept. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: On the steps of the building he asked if someone had a tissue, had a kleenex. Mr. Chairman, I would suspect that after last week he will ask if someone has a pamper.

Be that as it may, we have seen this Premier bring two ministers basically to their knees, in terms of getting up and saying; I am sorry, Mr. Premier. I am not surprised that the Member for Exploits did it to the Premier but I was surprised he did not tell the Premier to go fly a kite when he told him he had to apologize in the Legislature to the Minister of Education. The man more responsible for the destruction of social programs in this Province than anyone will ever know. I would not apologize, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Education for all the tea in China, if I told the truth. You went out and you told the truth. You told the people at the meeting that the Minister of Education was basically addressing these like a fool. A featherbed approach, she called it I believe it was, and do you know something else? The old featherhead, Mr. Chairman, did not have the courage to go down to the Radisson the other night and face the music, I have been told. I have been told he lacked the courage to accept the invitation to go down to the Radisson and speak to the conference called Classroom in Crisis.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, the Minister of Education, the fellow who believes that it is a featherbed system in education in this Province. He lacked the courage to go down to the Radisson Hotel and address 270 teachers. Now, why would he do that, Mr. Chairman? Why would the Minister of Education refuse to go down to such a conference? I know my colleague from Ferryland, for example, has registered as a delegate to that conference and I know some other people who are registered down there. I went down this morning, Mr. Chairman, and met with several teachers and if you want to talk to a group of people who are upset with this government that is -

DR. KITCHEN: Nonsense, nonsense, I was down there is no (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: You were down there, Mr. Chairman - if you make the same contribution to Classroom in Crisis -

AN HON. MEMBER: He has created the Classroom in Crisis.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if there was ever a creator of Classroom in Crisis, it was that minister when he was over in university.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is hospital in crisis when you look at that Budget of the other day, it is all in crisis. Now, there is an excuse, and to be fair to the Minister of Health, he told this House one day that there is a reason, there is a reason why he is not sure what he does at sometimes -

AN HON. MEMBER: The books fell on his head.

MR. TOBIN: - the books fell on his head, Mr. Chairman. He got up in the House and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what fell on the head of the former Minister of Education -

AN HON. MEMBER: A dingbat.

MR. TOBIN: No, the former Minister of Education, I do not know if anything fell on his head, but I do know that the former Minister of Education was brought in at the last moment last week, when the denominational system was about to blow apart, and rescue it from the hands of the present Minister of Education. Now, what does that tell the people, what message should that send to the people in this Province, when the Premier has a Minister of Education in whom he has no confidence? Because if there was ever a lack of confidence in a minister, it's when the Premier has to bring in the former minister to make a decision.

Now it is one thing for the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to apologize in this Legislature, to be humiliated in this Legislature, but it is another thing for a Minister of Education to be humilated in the Province to the extent that the Premier had to go out and get the former Minister of Education to come in and rescue the education system before it fell apart. Why would this minister not go out and publicly admit that what I am saying is true. I would like the former Minister of Education, from St. John's North -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Chairman?

I would like the former -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, go ahead boy.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like the former Minister of Education to tell the people of this Province if it is true that he was brought in on a meeting -

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you find that out?

MR. TOBIN: How did I find that out?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The churches told him.

MR. TOBIN: I would like to ask the former minister if he was brought in on that Cabinet meeting, the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet it was, and I think that is very serious because it tells the people of this Province that the Premier has no confidence in the present minister.

Now the past minister, Mr. Chairman, asks how did I find that out, is it supposed to be some kind of a secret? Is it something you are ashamed of, is it something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not say it, you can go over and say it, you go over and say it to the minister yourself, I would not repeat it. Mr. Chairman, what the Member for Placentia said about the Member for St. John's North, I would not repeat it because I do not share the same view. I think the Member for St. John's North is not that type of person I say to the Member for Placentia, I do not believe he is that type of person and I do not share his view.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well he should.

Mr. Chairman, that is what is happening, we have a government that is falling apart; we have a Minister of Education in whom the Premier lacks confidence; we have a former Minister of Education who wants to get out of politics and the Premier is bringing him into P and P meetings, is what I have been told, to try to put this together with the churches at the last moment. Now that has to get out, the people of this Province have to know that there is no confidence left in the present Minister of Education.

Mr. Chairman, there is only one thing I want to say, the Member for Placentia is asking me to say something over here, but there is only one thing I want to say to the Member for Placentia, that I never thought that I would live long enough to see a minister in Municipal and Provincial Affairs who would make the Member for Waterford - Kenmount look good in that department. That is all I have to say, I never thought I would live long enough to see a Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs who would make the Member for Waterford - Kenmount look good as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but right now, we have that situation, and, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of problems in this situation.

We have the road problems, the transportation problems, the list that went to the federal government for the upgrading of roads in this Province is what I want to get at one of these days. This government sent a list to Ottawa for roads and I will just give you one example of the Burin Peninsula Highway. Now most of it is not in my district, most of it is in the district of Fortune - Hermitage, my district is mostly done. It is done from Marystown to Red Harbour and then there is a section between Red Harbour and Rushoon that is not done. Last year they put the base course on twenty kilometres.

I want to say something else. When the Road for Rails deal was done, the regional trunk roads program was put in place, in that there was $22 million identified for the Burin Peninsula Highway. That took in the district of Burin - Placentia West, Fortune - Hermitage, and Bellevue. Mr. Chairman, $22 million was put in that Budget to do the Burin Peninsula Highway. Now, basically all my district is finished as it relates to that. There are a few kilometres left between Rushoon and Red Harbour that have to be upgraded, but last year my district was going to be finished, when government did the twenty-two kilometres to Clam Brook my district was going to be finished. The base course was done with the rest to be finished this year, the surface course. Those in engineering know more about it than I do. Mr. Chairman, do you know that this government refused to go to Ottawa with a request to put down the surface course on that section and to continue any other aspect of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: They would not do that.

MR. TOBIN: Well, that is what they did. Now, I understand that when they sent up the request for some other parts of the Province they had little notes: base course was on this road last year and this is the surface course. Mr. Chairman, what is the difference I ask members opposite? Why could they not do the section of road in Fortune - Hermitage district to the Burin Peninsula Highway? Why was Fortune - Hermitage left out? Why was the Fortune - Hermitage district left out?

AN HON. MEMBER: They are waiting until the road falls apart.

MR. TOBIN: That is right. The base course is gone out of it. Why was that section of the Burin Peninsula Highway left out, the section that the base course was put down on last year and this year they did not apply for any more? That is the question that has to be answered.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down Glen.

MR. TOBIN: I will not sit down, Glen. You should go sit down and talk to the hog farmers. That is what you should do. Another fellow trying to create employment in Newfoundland when the hog producers have to send their product to New Brunswick somewhere. Was it New Brunswick he was trying to send it?

AN HON. MEMBER: New Brunswick.

MR. TOBIN: Lay off the Newfoundlanders. Send them home and send their product to New Brunswick. Could you ask Boss Hog to be quiet? There is a story about a boar and a sow in a wheelbarrow. Well, you are the fellow in the wheelbarrow. I cannot tell the story now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health comes up with some old crazy questions. You are the government. Now, if you cannot govern and make decisions then get out before the voters kick you out in the next election in any case. It is pretty obvious from some numbers that have been flicking around here today what is happening I say to members opposite. It is pretty obvious who is going to be making decisions in the next few months. It is very obvious who is going to be making decisions in this Province whenever he gets the courage to call an election. That is what I say to the Minister of Education, the fellow who wants his grandchildren to remember him as the person who abolished the denominational educational system in this Province.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible)

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture one thing, and that is whenever the Premier gets the courage to go to Government House and the writ is issued, that it will not be the same worry for me as it will be for him the day after. Severance pay will not be the same for me as it will be for him when the election is over, I can tell him that. There will be a lot more over there crying the day after the election. There will be a lot more over there, including the Member for Windsor - Buchans. He got the flick before. He knows what it is like to be flicked out, to be turfed out. He knows what it is like, and he is going to know what it is like again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: All I can say to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is that my supporters were somewhere in the area of 3,000 the last time. What was yours? I ask the member. Match those numbers.

I give way to the Member for Port de Grave - he is the only member over there who had a bigger majority than I had, I say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I have four in now, I say to the member.

Mr. Chairman, I know one group of people who won't be very happy after the election is over, and that is the crowd who pluck chickens, because they are going to have competition again from the Member for - where is he from? - the old chicken plucker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mount Scio - Bell Island.

MR. TOBIN: Mount Scio - Bell Island. He will be plucking the chicken again.

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Chairman, have you ever witnessed such disgusting conduct and comments as we have just heard from the Member for Placentia?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I will.

What I was saying before I was interrupted by the Minister of Education, and particularly the 'bah-bah' Member for Windsor - Buchans - I was talking about the need for an improved health care program in this Province.

I want to say to the Minister of Health that last night, I believe it was, in Marystown, a meeting was held. I think just about all the mayors and councillors from the Burin Peninsula were represented, because of your plan to once again attack the health care program on the Burin Peninsula.

I understand right now that the doctors on the Burin Peninsula are becoming very heavily involved in issuing a protest.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, is there any way of keeping the minister of pigs quiet, please?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: I know the Chairman just came to the Chair, and he probably doesn't realize that I am speaking by leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand you are speaking by leave, and you have used up another lot of time, so I just want to check and see if any other hon. members want to take the opportunity to have a few words.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will get back to these issues afterwards.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was sitting there doing my work. I was working away - hardworking MHA that I am - doing my work, and I was listening to the Opposition. I was hoping to hear all the things that we should do about resolving our problems, and again, I was thoroughly disappointed.

I thought I would hear from the Member for Burin - Placentia West as to how we would resolve our money problems; how we would be able to stimulate the economy; how we would be able to resolve all the social problems that we have to deal with as a government. I heard a lot of things, but, no, I didn't hear any of those things you want to hear about how you resolve the problems.

I suppose it take awhile, because when you are in Opposition, you tend to get into that mentality, I suppose, of always criticizing. There are some good suggestions that come from the other side, and we always like to listen to these suggestions.

You know, I saw the Minister of Finance bring down a very decent Budget, considering the times, considering what we are dealing with - the economic upheaval in Canada and worldwide. Considering all those times, I thought it was a fair document - a very fair document. Nobody likes to have to work with less money, but that is the reality.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it? - full of hope.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Full of hope. But I went back, because I am sure that when the other government was there they must have dealt with these problems much better - they must have dealt with them pretty well, because they thought they did and they felt they did. I said, well, I am going to go back and find out what they did to resolve their economic problems. But they never had to face the kinds of problems we have now. They have never had to face them, and God knows, that if they did - in the good times when they had more money coming in from Ottawa, they came up with projects like this. What is this, I wonder? I took a photocopy of this because I am sending this out. This is the cover of the Estimates for 1988, Newfoundland and Labrador, presented by the hon. Len Simms, President of the Executive Council, and on it is a picture of the Sprung greenhouse. It is on the Budget cover, not just a document like, this is the project - this is our economic policy, the Sprung greenhouse.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the picture inside?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The picture, no, they put it on the front cover.

So, I look back and I say now, come on you have to have some good ideas over there, you were the government for a number of years. And, of course, they had nothing to do with the debt problems we have now. They had nothing to do with that, nothing to do with the economic problems we have now, nothing to do with getting Brian Mulroney elected, inflicting some of the things we have down here, all that prosperity. So, when I see the suggestions coming over -and some of them are legitimately good, some of them are, from certain members. And always, whenever I stand up, I say there were some good ones from this member or that member. But, you know, the time has come, people are not going to be bluffed anymore. If you want to be a critic, that is fine, but somebody at the end of the day had better have some real suggestions about how they are going to fix these problems, because these are not just normal times where you had a recession in 1982. When they talk about when the recession was on in 1982 and how they performed, they had more money coming from Ottawa at that time. They were still spending money. You could still go borrow the money. These days you can't do that anymore, the credit card is dried up. We had better start figuring out what we are going to do in the future, about how we are going to pay off the debt - the debt that our kids are going to have to pay in the future. Somebody had better start thinking about it.

So, when they get up and criticize and when they publish a document like this thing here, which is going to be forever, in infinity, in the history of the House of Assembly, that this thing got tabled, with a picture on it of the Sprung greenhouse with the economic policy of the PC Party - this is going out to my riding, I tell you; I am bringing it out with me. I am going to keep spreading it around. Because I haven't seen yet an idea that is any better than what they came up with before when they were in government.

When we hear about the ideas that they want to do and how they are going to make the economy recover, that they are going to make sure that prosperity will be there, and they remind us of the very good job that they did when they were there, then I have all kinds of things to remind them about.

One thing that this government is trying to do since we have been -I think we have been a really good clean-up crew. We have been like the batter in baseball, the fourth batter, we have been battered around but we have been batting, too. We have been trying to clean her up, get her back on stream, get her back on an even keel, and what have we? We have got Crosbie up in Ottawa, we have the Federal Government on joint management. What do they want to do with that? 'Nothing, but we want to give B.C. a joint management board.' The fishery in B.C. is important and is recognized as important to their economy. So, the Federal Government have said, 'Yes, B.C., we will give you a board.' They call it a Pacific Board. What is the history of Newfoundland and Labrador? The fishery, all of these years, and what have we got done? Well, we are going to divide it up amongst five provinces. No, we are not going to say just two or three, let's go for broke. I am surprised that Ontario wasn't put in there for good measure, as a matter of fact. I am surprised they weren't. So, joint management of the fishery - so that policy annunciated by this government, delivered by this government, trying to get done by this government, that is a very good economic policy for the future of this Province. It is the only thing that is going to save this Province in the future. So, I am glad to see that all members of the House of Assembly support this government' policy on joint management and that they are against, absolutely against the Federal Government's policy that has been annunciated by the hon. the Federal Minister of Fisheries. It is good to know that, because people ask me, 'What is the position? What is the Opposition's position on joint management of the fishery?' And we know what it is. They support this government's position and obviously, hopefully, with everybody's support, we will be able to achieve that. But that is an economic policy this government has annunciated, has been working on, and I hope that we will be able to get it. I think, actually, all members of the House hope that we will be able to get some sort of a deal to help us deal with the fisheries problems that we have.

Our Minister of Fisheries well knows that it is a frustrating experience trying to deal with and get things done with the Federal Government, but the thing is, we are working on it for the future, and we are working on it for the present.

Here we are, dealing with unprecedented economic problems, Mr. Chairman, unprecedented.

AN HON. MEMBER: That you created.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I hear another thing we have created. We have created all of these problems. The Government of Newfoundland, 560,000 people, has created a worldwide recession, has created the $4.5 billion or $5 billion worth of debt. I think that is brilliant criticism. That is brilliant. That is really going to resolve the problems.

As I said, I am looking forward to seeing their suggestions. I remind the Member for Menihek, I just remind him - I think I will send him a copy of the Sprung greenhouse Budget book. That is their economic policy and that is what was their economic policy. The other day, I sent it around to a couple of fellows and said: Look, this is what is called the light at the end of the tunnel under the Tories - the Sprung greenhouse. Well, we are going to try to create another light at the end of the tunnel. We are trying to do that, but I tell you, we look forward -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Imagine how silly that is. Was that produced with public money?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes it was.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I suppose it was, yes. The Sprung cookbook is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: This government has tried to organize an economic development program for the first time in years, and we are going to keep trying to do it, Mr. Chairman. No matter how hard they try to prevent us from doing that, we are still going to -

MR. EFFORD: Listen, you have to read that, where they mixed Uncle Dan's mayonnaise and milk (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, mixed Uncle Dan's cucumber recipes.

MR. EFFORD: Read it for the record.

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, I can't. Here, I will give it back to you because I can't read that. My speech is going too well. It is too important for me to get into reading that.

Here we are - we have to get this economy going, and the only way we are going to get it going, Mr. Chairman, is to get all our people thinking in the right way so that we can get people thinking the entrepreneurial spirit, the entrepreneurial mind and we will get this economy rolling the way it should, and then we would not have government having to be bailing out and always having to be taking care of the Province. I mean at the end of the day our own people want to take care of themselves so what we have to do is give them back their independence and that is what this government is trying to do.

I mean everybody knows it is not just Newfoundland going through this. We have the NDP governments in Canada, they are all having a problem, you know they admit the reality. The PC governments in Canada and the federal government admit the reality of what you are trying to deal with. We are in a very tight squeeze, we are trying to figure out how do you deal with the economic problems, how do you boost the economy, how do you pay down the debt and do it in a way that is the least harmful and the most beneficial to our people and that comes with some very painstaking evaluation of what government does for its people and the programs that you provide.

When I hear the Opposition, I only say to them let us be kind of credible with the criticism, let us be fairly credible, let us get inventive with some of the suggestions as to how the economy can get going. I mean, we have to become an enterprising people in this Province to make things happen. We have to become an enterprising culture and we have been, but the problem has been we have not had for example, control of our major resource and it is time that we had a say in that resource for the entire Province, for the benefit of it's entire population, so there is a number of economic policies that this government is pursuing, is trying to pursue in this difficult economic climate.

The former Minister of Finance was trying to do that. I remember, getting rid of all these nonsense fees and everything else that we had, the former minister knows, the Minister of Health now, all those nonsense fees and nonsense licenses, what was it, a thousand of them or five hundred of them were around, got rid of all those things, the school tax, getting rid of the school tax. They talk about us raising taxes, we got rid of school tax, so it balanced out at the end of the day when we got rid of that unfair school tax, unfair. They are not getting it back no matter how much they want it. I know they want it back, I think they do, but no matter how much they ask for it, this Minister of Finance now, is going to stick to his guns and they are not getting it back, that is fair ball, they are not getting it back. This year we levelled up the school boards despite these tough times, the school boards are levelled up to the highest average of the Province, the school boards are levelled up, considering the times, they are levelled up. The school board out my way, Mr. Chairman, received over $400,000 over last year's budget in 1992-1993. Over $400,000 in 1992-1993 increase. I have to tell you, that's pretty good.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: They could use it. We provided it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: This government levelled it up, and that's a good thing. I hear the critics. In education out there today, because of this government in the last three or four years, and even through the most difficult economic times that we've ever seen in our history, probably back as far back as the 1930s, education has benefited in a major way.

We're looking at changes now with the Royal Commission on education to make sure that we bring in the right polices for the future. I think we're going in the right direction. We've consulted with people, we've made people aware of the things that we want to see happen and the things that they want to see happen -

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I enjoyed listening to the Member for Stephenville telling us the economic policy and plans that this government is pursuing. He said: we're trying, we're pursuing them. That was the extent of the articulation of what they are. What were the plans? We didn't hear of any. Because there are none.

The Minister of Education just returned to his chair. This interim supply bill we're looking at calls for spending in education of $243 million in this fiscal year. About $1 billion in total, but almost a quarter is in education. Last week we had the occasion to bring a delegation in from Gander Bay North where they've been trying for the past two to three years to get a new school constructed. On the eve of the Budget, on a Wednesday afternoon, we met with the IEC. They told us their situation. Then we met with the minister. The minister said to the committee that was in: it's out of my hands. We're passing all the money over to the IEC. The EECs are going to determine who gets the money. In our area it's an IEC, because it's the Integrated Education Committee.

The minister told them, the minister said - I'd like for the minister to listen, to see if he can recall what he said. The minister said: your fight is not with me, it's with the IECs. You have to go after the IECs and get them to allocate some of the money that they're going to get. Yet the same minister had in his Budget that no new school construction would take place. As a matter of fact the Member for Port de Grave might be interested in this. The minister said that this is the second time this week that he has had a delegation in complaining about the condition of schools. Mr. Chairman, I could not believe it. The Minister of Education has been in this job now for six to eight months and he did not know that we had educational facilities out and about this Province that were substandard.

He wanted to know how we managed to spend, I think he said, $74 million in the past three years on schools in this Province and still have bad schools. That is what the minister wanted to know. I would like to tell the minister there are a couple of reasons. School construction is pretty expensive. I think the Member for Bonavista South had a school constructed in his district to the tune of $5 million. In addition to that we have the ongoing repairs that take up probably about 25 per cent of the budget. So, I let the minister know that all the money does not go for new school construction. A fair portion of it goes for repairs to existing buildings.

The Minister of Finance said we were going to have a commission, another commission, to look at schools in this Province, to do an inventory as to what kind of schools we have and what the needs are. We have been commissioned to death but besides that it is totally unnecessary. I tell the minister if he is going to do that he is wasting taxpayer's money because that has already been done. It has been done every year for the last fifteen or twenty years. He can go up to the DECs and they will give him a breakdown of the need for schools in this Province today. He does not have to worry about that.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible)

MR. WINSOR: Ah, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Forestry. I have to say Forestry because it is not Agriculture anymore, the man responsible for the demise of agriculture in this Province. I will be interested to see what the minister is going to do for my colleague for Lewisporte on another agricultural matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask him.

MR. WINSOR: No, I am not going to ask the minister a question. If the minister has a statement he wants to make then the minister can do it, Mr. Chairman. I want to get back to the Minister of Education and his failure to convince his Cabinet colleagues of the importance of education in this Province.

The former minister, when he was the minister, I think on one occasion he had up to $27 million in one year for school construction. Then he had two years of $20 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three twenty-sevens.

MR. WINSOR: Three twenty-sevens? No, twenty last year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) three twenty-sevens.

MR. WINSOR: That was not your budget last year then? The ninety-two Estimates say $20 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three twenty-sevens.

MR. WINSOR: Three twenty-sevens he says, and now we find this minister down to $12 million - only $12 million for new school construction in this Province - and it is not going to construct one school - not one. Yet, Mr. Chairman, the demands increase each year as the demand for educational facilities increase each year.

Mr. Chairman, in this we also note that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is the other one looking for $170 million. He took, I would assume, some of that $170 million for the study, looking at a causeway to Fogo Island. He went and spent $50,000. He might as well have thrown it in the garbage as to what he has done with it. He took the $50,000 plus, did a study, took the report and threw it up on the shelf along with the other reports, and that is where it is going to sit. The report is going to be shelved there because the minister has no idea - he did not have any idea when he started about Fogo Island transportation problems and he is none the wiser today because he has not even looked at the report. He has had some officials who briefed him on it yesterday -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Beaton Tulk. I took care of Beaton Tulk once before and I will do the same again. The Member for Eagle River does not have to worry about Beaton Tulk. I took care of him once and his time will come again if he wins the nomination. If he wins the nomination his time will come again.

The Minister of Social Services tried to take care of him; tried to give him a job in his department, or the Premier in his department, and he could not hang on to that one and I have no reason to believe that he will have any measure of success in this attempt at a job. As a matter of fact, I think that the Member for Trinity North had a little encounter with him at one point in time out in Clarenville North. Since 1989 his electoral successes have not been very great and there is no reason to believe that they are going to be much greater in the days to come. There is no reason to worry about that at all, and the Member for Eagle River can be well advised to keep quiet about the former Member for Fogo.

Mr. Chairman, it being nearly 5:00 p.m. I will adjourn the debate.

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 Bellevue.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, we've made such astonishing progress today that I think the House should adjourn two minutes early. Tomorrow is Private Members' Day and the motion standing in the name of my friend for Ferryland, I think, will be debated. Notice given today. The Bill variation of the Baker formula, we can call it today. That's the motion which will be debated tomorrow. We'll see what happens on Thursday with the result of certain meetings behind the Chair, they may or may not move us forward.

With that said, Sir, I move that the House at its rising adjourn until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m., and that the House do now adjourn.

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