The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before going on to the routine business, on behalf of hon. Members I would like to welcome to the House of Assembly today forty Grade X1 students from Holy Trinity Central High School, Norman's Cove, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Roy Bennett, and teacher Mr. Paul Sheppard.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Development I will ask my question of the Premier. As the Premier is probably aware the economic conditions of the Burin Peninsula are probably the most devastating they have even been. Recent Statistics Canada figures show that in the Burin - South Coast area, as is my understanding, unemployment is the highest it has ever been. One of the significant contributors to that has to be the state or the desperate condition that the Marystown Shipyard finds itself in with approximately 400 people now on layoff and ready to go to the Mainland. I want to ask the Premier what his Government plans to do to deal with this serious problem that now exists, and when can we expect some action?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Government, together with the Federal Government, is spending some $40 million to build the Cow Head facility in Marystown to provide for work of a general shipbuilding nature and work opportunities to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the building of the Hibernia platform. There is a substantial effort underway in that regard. The other offices of the Department of Development and the Economic Recovery Commission is making its effort with respect to Marystown, as it is with all other parts of the Province, but it is not giving any priority to Marystown that it is not giving to other parts of the Province where the unemployment situation is of similar proportions.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of what is taking place in Cow Head. I was part of the Government which negotiated the deal with the Federal Government, and I was the Minister of Transportation who announced it on behalf of that Government. But that is for the future, Mr. Speaker. What we are talking about is the serious condition that exists there now and that is what we want action on.

Let me ask the Premier if he is not going to make Marystown a special case, and I not asking him to do so, but let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there was $10 million left over for a subsidy program to be spent at the Marystown Shipyard that your Government took and put into another agreement. Will the Premier cancel Government's policy not to construct a new ferry for Fogo Island and immediately proceed so that we can maintain the level of highly skilled tradespeople in Marystown?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, the Government will not alter its decision with respect to the proposal to build an ice-breaking ferry at the Marystown Shipyard. On the basis of the assessment that was done at the time of bringing in the Budget we are quite satisfied that the course that we followed is the only appropriate course for the Government to follow in the present financial circumstances. Mr. Speaker, the Government would be very pleased if we could direct all kinds of shipbuilding work to the Marystown Shipyard and have 500 or 600 or 700 people working there. Nothing could please the Government more.

But in order to generate the cash necessary to create such work opportunities, if that is what we were to do, we would have, Mr. Speaker, to tax the people to derive the revenue. Well if the tax revenue is not there because it is needed to maintain the hospital and other public services it cannot be there for that purpose. So the revenue is simply not there to do everything that we would like to do as much as we would desire to do that.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Premier the revenue was there. There was $10 million there left over from a subsidy program to build vessels at the Marystown Shipyard, and your Government removed it and put it into another agreement. It was there, Mr. Speaker. And it is still there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the Premier then if his Government will do what the previous Administration did when it was necessary to maintain the status quo of the skilled work force at the Marystown Shipyard when we built supply vessels on speculation? Will this Government now proceed to start construction of barges for Bull Arm on speculation and eliminate companies from bringing them from offshore and other parts of the country, put a Newfoundland policy in place, and have the barges built by Newfoundland workers at the Marystown Shipyard?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question. Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We have no intention of repeating the errors of the former administration. The $10 million that the hon. Member talks about for subsidy for the proposed ship building that FPI did not take up; that money was used to raise an additional $9 million to go into the Ocean Industries Agreement with the Federal Government. That is where that money is gone. So, it is used already, and to hear the hon. Member talk about it in that light is without merit.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the former administration got this Province some $40 odd million - I have forgotten the total debt of the Marystown Shipyard, so much so that we are paying about $7 million a year of taxpayers money to keep the Marystown Shipyard going and to pay the interest on the debt that has been created.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a limitation on the ability of the taxpayers of this Province to continue that. We are coming to grips with it now and trying to handle it in a very responsible way that takes into account the needs and interests of the people of the Burin Peninsula, but at the same time is considerate of the limited financial ability of the taxpayers of this Province. We cannot, Mr. Speaker, go on spending like drunken sailors as the former administration did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: A good beginning would be to stop acting like a drunken sailor, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. One of the effects of health care cuts in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, which in many cases involve the total closure of acute care beds and in some other cases the closure or reduction in lab and x-ray, is to increase the pressure on regional hospitals - surely the Minister recognizes that. He said, in fact, on Tuesday, and I quote, 'We have put in place a system where every single hospital has a role to play, and if you tamper with one you have to have an impact on the other.' That is the end of the quote. I would like to ask what plans has the Minister put in place to ensure that the regional hospitals are able to meet the increased pressure on lab and x-ray?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could best address that by giving the hon. Member an example in the hospital in Corner Brook. When the x-ray unit in Deer Lake was closed down we anticipated that there would be some extra impact on the hospital in Corner Brook. So, Mr. Speaker, what we did was discuss the whole matter with the hospital there in Corner Brook, and we discovered that access to the x-ray in Corner Brook was probably the best access available in the Province. As a matter of fact, even today after Deer Lake has been closed, if a person wants to get an x-ray in Corner Brook, all he has to do is walk in. It is a walk in service, no appointment is necessary, Mr. Speaker, even after all the changes. So that is one particular case where there has been no problem.

I should say to the hon. Member for Humber East who keeps interrupting when people are speaking in this House, I do not want to talk about her manners, that is one topic, but I should tell her that the intent of the hospital in Corner Brook is to try to get a person who can do both x-ray and lab work. People are not being trained for that any longer. It used to be a profession at one time, but there are still quite a few people around who can do both x-ray and lab, and if such a person can be recruited the intent of the hospital administration is, indeed, to recruit such a person and still carry on. But it is just not viable to put two people in Deer Lake.

That is the example that I quoted to the hon. Member, but I can give illustrations all throughout the Province where we made sure when we did one thing in one part of the Province, we considered the impact it would have upon another - a very rational approach, Mr. Speaker, I should say.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rather disappointed the Minister could not answer the question a bit more directly; it was a rather simple question. We have heard the Member for Humber East and is he not aware that the Member for Humber East said the other day that the hospital in Corner Brook had to lay off eleven staff from their lab and x-ray Department, is he aware of that? But at the same time, obviously they were faced with increased work-loads, because of the closure of the Deer Lake clinic.

I want the Minister to confirm, if he will, that in Grand Falls, at the Grand Falls Hospital or the Central Newfoundland Hospital, five employees have been lost in the diagnostic services area, one technician has been laid off at the clinic in Lewisporte. How does the Minister expect the Central Newfoundland Hospital to be able to cope with all the additional work-load that it is going to have to face because of other things that have happened out in the Baie Verte area and in the Springdale area, how does he expect the Central Newfoundland Hospital to cope?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm whether there were five laid off or ten or twenty laid off; these are details which are run by the Administrator in these institutions. I should tell the hon. Member though, that when we put our rationalization programme in place, it was something which was done over a considerable period of time and hon. Members will remember how they were criticizing us because we were taking so long to pursue, to investigate and to discuss back and forth, so, all these things were taken into consideration.

The same questions that the hon. Member is now asking, were asked by me and asked by my colleagues in the Cabinet before we went ahead with this, and we have taken into consideration every single possible thing that could happen as a result of our rationalization. One thing I will tell the hon. Member, as a result of what we did in Springdale, we were able to move thirty chronic care patients out of the hospital in Grand Falls and free up twenty-five or thirty acute care beds which are now available to the people in the Springdale, Baie Verte and the Grand Falls area, so everything that we have done, Mr. Speaker, is done - it is the functional approach, where we did not touch one domino unless we considered the impact which that would have on the other one; it is a tremendous approach, I am proud of it, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the way it was done and I am proud of the support of my colleagues in Government who saw the wisdom of what I was doing and backed me up 100 per cent.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Is the Minister not aware that the Central Newfoundland Hospital has received complaints of long waits for certain diagnostic services already, at this point in time, after only a month or so? And when is he going to take his head out of the sand and acknowledge and recognize that regional hospitals are in fact being dramatically affected negatively by the health care cuts that he has announced, and the quality of health care services are on a downward slippery slope in this Province? When is he going to acknowledge that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I spent four years sitting where the hon. Member is now sitting and I spent most of my life involved in public affairs and I can tell the hon. Member that there have always been long waiting lists for people to get to hospitals in this Province and the reason is not always because beds are closed. The reason is because the system has not been organized. We are trying to organize a system which was practically allowed to go off in a hundred different directions when the previous administration was in place.

For example, Mr. Speaker, there was a waiting list at the General Hospital in this city which was caused not by the lack of beds but was caused by the fact that there were not enough ORs available, there were not enough Intensive Care units available. We addressed that bottleneck and made access a lot better.

We have taken out of the system this year 180 acute care beds which we do not intend to replace. They were beds which were underutilized. And we are smartening up areas, we are rationalizing it, and I am proud to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador we are doing this. Because it shows that we are not wasting their money, we are spending it in a very proper manner, and all the questions the hon. Member asked were asked by me and my colleagues and they were addressed. Now we recognize that there might be one or two areas where we have to do some minor fine-tuning and we are prepared to do that if we have to.

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

MR. POWER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the same Minister on the same topic, but as they relate to overall in the Newfoundland situation. This week we have heard the Member for Humber East who has brought certain concerns to the Minister and he has basically said there is not a problem in Corner Brook, in Western Memorial. We have now heard the Member for Grand Falls who says - in dealing with real people and real situations in central Newfoundland - that there is a broad number of complaints, a lot of concerns about the rate of service, how long it takes to get in and get work done, how long it takes to get test results.

Will the Minister confirm that in excess of twenty-five or twenty-six lab and x-ray staff have been laid off in the recent round of layoffs? That in effect, those layoffs have seriously affected the service that is available to residents of Newfoundland? Will the Minister confirm that.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I said in an earlier answer to a question, I cannot confirm whether it is twenty-five or thirty, it could be fifty, I cannot confirm that, but I do know this, Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring the impact of our reorganization on the system and we are finding that there are no major problems anymore than there were major problems before the system was organized. Of course, we have the assurance that we are also trying to address them. There are some lay offs in lab and X-ray, Mr. Speaker, but the hospital in Melville advertised in yesterday's paper for lab and x-ray technicians, so throughout the system overall there are still some vacancies. A very clear case in point is the Corner Brook hospital where you just walk in for an x-ray, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. POWER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

The Minister keeps saying he is monitoring the situation but he did not confirm and does not know the actual number of lay offs in the lab and x-ray departments around this Province, and each time we bring this up, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Humber East did the other day, we get a lot of phone calls, letters, letters to the editor of the paper, criticizing the service we have in this Province. Will the Minister confirm if he has received complaints from the Newfoundland Medical Association, or from individual doctors, complaining about how long it takes to get test results back to the doctors, and therefore back to the patients? Has he had complaints from those doctors?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall one complaint from one doctor which came to me personally, or to the Department of Health, complaining about getting their records back. Now, there might be one or two but there certainly are no great numbers. I cannot even recall one.

I cannot say the Newfoundland Medical Association is 100 per cent in agreement with what we are doing, especially as it relates to the MCP board, but generally speaking I am quite confident that the Newfoundland Medical Association sees the wisdom of what I am doing. They, like us, would like to see more money. No one more than I would like to see more money in health but they, too, live in the real world and recognize that there is a fiscal problem in this Province. But I am quite confident in saying that the Newfoundland Medical Association is in agreement with the principle of what we are doing. They might make a few minor changes but I am not aware of any. The Newfoundland Hospital Nursing Home Association, which the hon. Member did not ask about, they issued a press release some time ago saying they accepted the principle of what we were doing. They had a slight disagreement as to whether or not we had made enough money available for slippage so I think in true medical terms from a health perspective what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely right.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I too have a question for the Minister of Health. I understand in recent days that the Minister himself had occasion to visit St. Clare's hospital, and probably met with some of the administrators in the hospital, and had some tests done himself while he was at the hospital? Could the Minister confirm this?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I find more boring than to sit around and listen to someone talking about his complaints, but if the hon. Member wants me to tell him about the complaints I have I will tell him about my heart, the pain in my chest, and the pain in my foot, but I hardly think that would be relevant to the people of the Province and I do not think the people of the Province would want to know that. If they do I will be quite pleased to tell them when I have been to the hospital for some tests, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I guess we all on occasion have to visit the hospitals for pains in our heart, and pains in our chest and operations some times, which I had. Mr. Speaker, I understand and I know that the Minister was at the hospital and he had some tests done. I just want to ask the Minister if he noticed any line ups or undue delays when he did have his test done? I do not care about what complaints he had.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware - I do not spend that much time visiting hospitals as a patient. So it is difficult for me to say whether or not there was a big line up or a small line up. I know I had to go early in the morning to get my test done, but I feel foolish talking about my personal complaints. I do not think that is required.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final supplementary. I am not overly interested in the Minister's personal complaints. Certainly if he has any complaints, I certainly wish he will get well as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.

But, Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know when the Minister went to St. Clare's in recent days to have some blood work done, as I understand it, is it true that his Department or his office phoned the administrator of the hospital to set up an appointment to see that he would not be caught in any undue delays and line ups, Mr. Speaker?.

MR. SIMMS: Special treatment.

MR. R. AYLWARD: To try and make an appointment so that he could jump the line, Mr. Speaker, and he certainly could have a walk-in service, as he said earlier today.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question has been asked. The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, when patients go to a hospital they make appointments and they have their work done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: When people go to get a haircut they make appointments, Mr. Speaker. When people go to see various professionals they make appointments. I made an appointment, and to do that I had to phone the hospital. I did not see the point in phoning the barber to make an appointment to go to the hospital, Mr. Speaker, if there is something out of the ordinary about that. But I would look forward to telling the hon. Member whether or not I had an urine analysis done, whether or not I had blood work done, when I sit down I would invite him after a cup of coffee (inaudible) all other complaints (inaudible), then he can talk about his complaints and we could see who got the worse heart and see who got the best blood.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the whole health care system is just a joke to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. And if it was not such a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, I might even get a chuckle myself out of what the Minister is saying. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that when he visited St. Clare's to get his tests done, whatever they were, and I do not really care which ones they were, that he jumped the line, Mr. Speaker, ahead of eleven people who were waiting for up to an hour before he got there, and he went through to get his tests done. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, he could also confirm that he was so embarrassed of jumping the eleven people that he did not come out the same way, he had to go out some other way, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: He phoned the Administrator to get it done.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe the hon. Member who has an half an hour to discuss the concerns of this Province is wasting the time of this House on such petty nonsense. As I pointed out I had appointments. I went in, I was there on time for my appointments, and I saw the people who were necessary to see, and I do not see why he wants to continue getting down in the mud and dragging people (inaudible). But I can tell the hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that when the previous Government was in power the only way you could get admitted into a chronic care facility was if you knew the Minister of Health or the Premier. The only way you could get your mother into a hospital, Mr. Speaker, is if you had some one in Cabinet. That day is thankfully gone.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm now that for anyone in this Province who wishes to have a blood test done or some lab and x-ray work done that they must do as the Minister did, phone the administrator of St. Clare's and make an appointment?

AN HON. MEMBER: A good question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DECKER: I will confirm for all the people of this Province, that if they have any work that has to be done by specialists, first they will go to their GP who would refer them to have whatever tests they want to have done and then when their tests were prescribed, they would phone the hospital of their choice and set up an appointment -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no, no!

MR. DECKER: I would suggest to them, Mr. Speaker, that they be on time for their appointment and I have absolute confidence in the health care system of this Province that all these things will be done, that all of these things will be done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Go in seven o'clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Maybe the Member for Grand Falls might want to talk to me about his blood test as opposed to my blood test, which, I am sure will make an interesting conversation.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

The Premier's Minister of Health has been on his feet on three separate occasions today, telling this House that people can go for blood work and x-ray work, diagnostic work in hospitals by making an appointment. That, Mr. Speaker, has never been so and is not so today, unless you are a Minister.

What the ordinary Newfoundlander and Labradorian has to do, is, as the Minister said, go to his GP, take the prescribed list from his GP and go down and sit and wait, pull a number and wait until the number is called; that was the case today when my colleague went.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I want to ask the Premier is this: Is the Premier concerned that the Minister of Health, the protector of the health care system in Newfoundland and Labrador, this week, abused his position, abused his office by calling up an administrator of a health care institution in this Province and demanded that that administrator get an appointment for him to have ordinary diagnostic work done at a lab at St. Clare's Hospital, is the Premier concerned about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: He did not have time to stand in line.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple things that one needs to say to address that. First is, that in my experience over the last twenty or thirty years, it has been frequently common for people, all kinds of people to make appointments, it is not unusual -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - well, they can shout no, if they want to. I can say to this House, Mr. Speaker, without hesitation, that fifteen and twenty years ago, ten years ago, I made appointments to get work done and I know that from my own personal experience, so for the Member to say, no, is not correct -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: - so, it is not correct.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, it is not correct. The second thing that I have to say is: to see hon. Members Opposite display the picayune mentality that we are seeing here this afternoon, in this kind of an attack because a Minister operating efficiently, working day and night for the people of this Province, makes an appointment to have some blood work done at a hospital and to see this kind of picayune mind, spend a half an hour of the time of this House, in this kind of small-minded, narrow-minded display, Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why anybody in this Province who wants to call up for an appointment cannot call up for an appointment; I do not see why anybody -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: I do not see why anybody who wants to call up to have an appointment for any medical work -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The purpose of Question Period, is to solicit information and there must be a certain atmosphere and a certain level of quiet so that it can be done. The hon. Members to my right are given the opportunity to ask supplementaries and I think I have been pretty liberal on supplementaries, but once the supplementary is asked, then they should afford a Minister the courtesy of giving the answer. This helps the Chair to decide whether the Minister is dragging on or not getting to the point and I can ask the Minister to sit down, but when we get a barrage of supplementaries, it makes it very difficult. I would ask the Premier to clue up his answer please.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have just another point or two to add. I do not know what practice different medical practitioners or hospitals or people generally delivering medical services in this Province follow with respect to appointments, but if the House wants me to take the trouble and go through the expense and effort of finding out, I will undertake to do so.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier talked about the Minister of Health working night and day for the people of this Province. Let me say to the Minister, there were more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians working night and day in this Province before he became Premier than are working in this Province today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true!

MR. SIMMS: It is true, don't be so silly.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not concerned about the actions of his Minister getting preferential treatment at a hospital for diagnostic work that is not available to any other living, breathing Newfoundlander and Labradorian - and this will come out. Because whether the Premier wants to admit it or not, it is a fact. Nobody else can get one. Is the Minister -

MR. SIMMS: Blood work.

MR. RIDEOUT: For blood work, yes. Is the Premier not concerned that employees of St. Clare's Hospital had to be called directly by the administrator of that institution? They had to go through the distress of refusing their administrator to schedule an appointment for the Minister because they told the administrator: that you ought to know, nobody can get an appointment for blood work. It is come take a number, first come, first serve, when your number is called. But that those employees were ordered to set an appointment and to see the Minister of Health of Newfoundland and Labrador. Is the Premier concerned about that?

MR. SIMMS: No, of course he is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in Question Period -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DECKER: My privileges are being abused in this House, and I have a right as a Member of this House to stand on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we saw a short time ago that a Minister of the Crown in Ontario had to resign for breaching information that a person in that province had received the services of the hospital system. I, as a private citizen, as a Member, as a person, had to have some work done in a hospital. My privileges have been abused today by the hon. Member who stood up and dragged my personal life through the mud in this Province. And I was not elected, and the people in the Strait of Belle Isle did not send me -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Just before the hon. Member - and I want him to get to his point of privilege - but just before the hon. Minister is permitted to pursue it, I want to advise hon. Members that Question Period has expired, so that we do not run into any problems.

I will listen to the hon. Member for a short submission.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I was not sent here to be dragged through the mud by people with a political agenda. Now, inside these four walls, hon. Members have the right, they can say things that they would not say outside this building, and they have legislative immunity, but that does not give them the right to drag any Member of this House through the mud. Who is to say what impact this will have on the loan I happen to have with a bank because I was to see a hospital. They have created -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Who is to say the impact this is going to have on my family who may or may not know that I had to take advantage of the services of this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not expect Your Honour to make a ruling on this at this time. You will probably have to take it under consideration. The fact of the matter is that no Member, whether he is a Minister of Health or a backbencher on either side of this House, should be able to have his personal privileges abused for purely political gains, Mr. Speaker, and I would like Your Honour to take that under consideration.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect Your Honour would take all of 30 seconds, if I did not stand, to rule that there is no point of privilege because there is not one. No prima facie case of privilege has been established by the Minister of Health at all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour was in the Chair observing what took place in this Chamber during Question Period today, and the evidence that there is no prima facie case of privilege can be no better illustrated than asking Your Honour to recall the actions of the Minister of Health when this matter was raised first in the House of Assembly this afternoon. The first reaction of the Minister was that of a buffoon, Mr. Speaker, laughing and joking about pains in his chest and blood work here and pain. It was a joke! Is was not even worthy of sober consideration by the Minister of Health.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Health gets backed into the corner, and it has become clear that the Minister of Health had afforded to him, by abusing his office, a privilege that no other Newfoundlander and Labradorian has a right to expect. Then it is a matter of privilege. And I say it is privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is the privilege of the people in Baie Verte, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Grand Falls and everywhere else in Newfoundland and Labrador who have to go in with a prescription from the doctor, haul down a number and wait until a lab or x-ray person calls the number so they can go in and get medical service. That is the privilege.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the privilege, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister with the authority of a Minister of the Crown breached on behalf of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian. And as a result of it, if the Premier had any integrity he would investigate it and it would be proven correct, and the Minister, Mr. Speaker, would no longer be a Minister because he is not fit to occupy the office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to very briefly respond. I will try not to match the histrionics of my friend opposite who, I suppose, believes that the louder he shouts the more persuasive his argument is, and it is not necessarily so.

Mr. Speaker, the point here raised by the Minister of Health obviously is that one understands when one goes to a hospital that what is being done in the hospital and so on, the medical procedures that a person goes through, is something that normally is held very private and confidential. There have been many cases discussed publicly. There has been a complaint by certain doctors about information that MCP requires and so on as breach of confidentiality. Obviously someone working in the hospital has given the Member for Kilbride, I believe who has raised the question, certain medical information. He has alluded to blood tests and so on that were done. And then the Member stood up in the House and started referring to the Minister of Health who had to get certain procedures done in the hospital a few mornings ago, I believe, or last week or whenever it was. Mr. Speaker, I believe the precedents are clear that kind of thing constitutes a breach of confidential and private information about a Member of the House. And I do not know how the Member could have raised the issue he wanted to raise without talking about blood tests and so on, but he obviously should not have. There are precedents exist, Mr. Speaker, where Members would have to resign, if they disclosed such information.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that Your Honour take some time to consider it. It is a serious question. There is a serious side to the question. In spite of the histrionics of the Leader of the Opposition who has one thing going for him, he is good at histrionics.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: To that point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I just want to clarify some of the comments that the Government House Leader made, Mr. Speaker. There was nobody in the administration of that hospital called me to tell me anything about the Minister of Health.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: There was a call came, Mr. Speaker, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will say it outside the House, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: No problem.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I will say it outside the House, everything -

MR. TOBIN: Is it true?

MR. R. AYLWARD: - everything that I say in this House, as I have always done, and always will, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the question was: Why did he get the privilege of skipping eleven other people who were sitting there waiting to go in? And people who were sitting there waiting to go in were the ones who were upset and the ones who informed me of what happened, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is going to take some time to look at the various submissions. But I want to remind hon. Members that a point of privilege has to do with a Member's parliamentary privileges. And an hon. Member, and I am not suggesting that was done today, but I want to tell hon. Members to certainly use a point of privilege with some degree of caution. And when it is done the hon. Member must point out how it is that their parliamentary rights have been broken. And in any event the Chair will look at the submissions made by hon. Members.

But before doing that the Chair would like to welcome to the House His Excellency Johannes deKlerk, the Ambassador of South Africa to Canada, and Mrs. deKlerk and Mr. Andre Nel, the Ambassador's attache.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, just before recognizing the Opposition House Leader, we would like to welcome to the galleries forty-five Grades XI and XII students from Fatima Central High School in St. Bride's, accompanied by their teachers Patsy Dohey, Hubert McGrath, and Melvin Critch.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise another question of privilege, I guess it is. And I refer to the comments - and I will not go at length about the point - but just prior to Your Honour's last ruling where he took under advisement the last point of privilege raised by the Minister of Health, the Minister of Health clearly shouted across the House to a Member over here and said: say it outside the House. Now that is clearly a threat. And I refer Your Honour to Beauchesne's 6th edition, paragraph -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: - Paragraph 93, Mr. Speaker:

"It is generally accepted that any threat" - any threat - "or attempt" - and it goes on to talk about influencing "the vote of, or actions of a Member, is a breach of privilege." Now, I will not go on and read the rest of the citation - it is all there for Your Honour - but it says: "It is generally accepted that any threat" is a breach of privilege.

Now clearly what the Minister of Health said was a threat, by any definition. And I am simply asking Your Honour if he would review Hansard, check the Minister's comments, and rule on this particular point of privilege. That is all I am asking.

MR. SPEAKER: Will do.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what the Member is saying here. I suppose with the vagaries of the English language, and with the many facial expressions and everything else that could be put on an individual in this House, I suppose that we could be rising on points of privilege at least fifty times in every session and making the same point that the Member opposite made. But we do not do it because to do so would be a breach of privilege of every Member of this House because we would be tying up the time of this House with points of nonsense. Now the Member opposite who made the point, and as former Speaker, should know different.

He quotes part of a section and he did not read the rest of it where they talk about attempts to influence the vote of - okay? Any attempt to influence the vote of a Member and so on, it is all in exactly the same sentence, Mr. Speaker. That is what we do here all the time. We try to influence the votes of Members of the House. So the intent of that section obviously was to point out that you do not threaten to influence the vote of a Member in the House.

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of health - I did not hear that, but if he did say it he was not trying to influence the vote of any Member in the House because there is no vote before the House. If he did in fact say: say it outside the House, then he was challenging a Member - this is done many times, (Inaudible) challenge the Member opposite to forego his privilege of Parliamentary immunity and to say the same thing without that immunity. And, Mr. Speaker, it is a very common thing.

So I would suggest to you that the section quoted by the Opposition House Leader simply referred to threats that would tend or would be geared to influencing the vote of Members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule on both.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is on an entirely different matter, arising out of - I think, I hope, I believe - some misunderstanding at the estimates committee meetings, particularly and specifically the Social Estimates Committee. I would like to have the Government House Leader's views on it, and I would like Your Honour to perhaps clear it up. And maybe even the Chairman of the Social Policy Committee could respond to it. I am not quite certain because I am getting the information second-hand. But I understand that the Chairman of the Committee and the Government Members as I understand it, believe and understand, that the Committee has fifteen hours to deal with its deliberations. I understand the Chairman has said that at a Committee meeting. Now, if that is accurate I would like him to tell me if it is accurate, if that is his understanding. Or if I am misunderstanding what was said.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) days.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, if it is days. You see, the point is Members on this side understood the Chairman to say fifteen hours, so I want to clear it up and make sure that it is fifteen sitting days that Members on the Estimates Committees have.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what happens is, as the Members opposite know, there are three hours allocated to each Department so if the Committee is examining five Departments then fifteen hours is credited towards debate on the Budget, and if it is examining only four there is only twelve hours, so the fifteen hours then does not come into play anyway, so three hours are allocated from that Committee for each Department whose estimates were examined and that total amount then comes out of the Budget debate hours, the seventy-five hours allocated by the House. Now, that is complicated by the fact that we have a schedule drawn up and we spend an evening, sometimes starting at 7 o'clock and going to 10:00, sometimes it extends well beyond 10:00 o'clock at night, so there is no problem with that at all. We have a schedule set up and if we have that schedule set up and a Department, let us say Development is scheduled for today and then tomorrow Fisheries is scheduled, because of the schedule setup we cannot then do Development again tomorrow, we have to do the Fisheries, and after we get the schedule finished then we can fit in anything else that is left over. There is no problem with that. There is no problem with extending beyond 10:00 o'clock if there is any particular reason to do so. There is really no problem with that, but we have a schedule done up so let us try to get in the meetings in all the Departments.

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

MR. SIMMS: Just to clarify it, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point. I agree with everything the Government House Leader said and that is exactly my understanding, but my understanding, secondhand mind you, was that some Members of the Committee on the Government side were of the view that they had fifteen hours to deal with the Departments referred to them, and that is not accurate. They can have 115 hours if they wish, but the maximum is fifteen sitting days. Okay, that is cleared up.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, before moving on to the next item of business I would also like to welcome to the gallery on behalf of hon. Members Mr. Gary Brenton, President of the Marystown Shipyard union and Mr. Thomas Lamb the Vice-President of the same union.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. COWAN: I wish to present today, Mr. Speaker, the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunals Fourth Annual Report. This is for 1990.

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled," An Act Respecting The Office Of The High Sheriff Of Newfoundland."

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

WHEREAS the fishermen of Labrador depend solely on unemployment insurance benefits to meet their basic needs from November to May of each year, and

WHEREAS ice conditions have been documented to be the worst in recent memory along the Labrador Coast this year, and

WHEREAS on May 15, 828 fishermen will be without any income for four to six weeks,

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly demand that the Federal Government extend the unemployment insurance benefits for six weeks this year and change their program to stop this discriminatory action against the fishermen of Labrador.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition on behalf of 5,514 people from the Burin Peninsula. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is to the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in Legislative Session convened - I am sure that meets with the Minister's approval. Whereas prospects for employment at the Marystown Shipyard appear bleak in 1991; whereas all employment opportunities including the immediate start-up of the Fogo Island Ferry to help bridge the gap before the start of the Hibernia project; whereas this would stop the exodus of the skilled workforce from the Burin Peninsula to mainland Canada; whereas all of these workers and more will be needed when the Hibernia project starts, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Burin Peninsula request the Provincial Government to immediately start construction of the Fogo Island ferry and set up a local preference hiring procedure for all work associated with the expansion of the Cow Head facility, and furthermore, all new employment initiatives for Marystown Shipyard be pursued vigorously by the Provincial Government with the intent being to keep our skilled workforce in Newfoundland. As I said, Mr. Speaker, that petition has been signed by 5,514 people who are extremely concerned about their future and about the future of their families.

At present, in the Marystown Shipyard there are approximately 300 people on lay off. Three hundred workers of the Marystown Shipyard, Mr. Speaker, will be forced this year to leave and to move to mainland Canada to secure employment. I sincerely hope that concern would cause the Minister and the Government at least a conscious renewal.

Mr. Speaker, there have been more people who left Marystown and the Burin Peninsula in the past couple of years than probably left in the last 20. This year Marystown is planning her come home year. I spoke to one of the fellows the other night, a former employee who was in Toronto and there are so many. I spoke to the mother of this young man, and there are so many of them from Marystown working in the same industry that they cannot all get off at the same time for come home year. That is the type of exodus that has taken place in this Province.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Government has a responsibility to the work force in the Marystown Shipyard to do something in order to keep these people home. There are lots of opportunities, lots of avenues. This Government has not made a conscious effort to do things for the Marystown Shipyard. It is all great, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier or the Minister of Development to stand in this House and talk about the Cow Head expansion. I can talk about the Cow Head expansion, we can all, Mr. Speaker. We can talk about the Cow Head facility that was put there years ago, Mr. Speaker, but what is going to happen in the Hibernia development for the Marystown Shipyard in a years time does not put bread on the table of the work force in the Burin Peninsula who depend on the Marystown Shipyard today, does not put bread on the table, Mr. Speaker. And all the debt charges and the loans and what this previous terrible government did, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said to tax the people of this Province to build vessels at Marystown. We did it because it was the right thing to do. That is why it was done, because it was the right thing to do. I see my colleague for Mount Pearl, one of the strongest supporters the Marystown Shipyard ever had, and he spoke in the debate the other day and made the same pleas to Governments. Why this Government cannot start the immediate construction of barges, for example, for Bull Arm; why they cannot bring in some sort of a local preference policy where Newfoundlanders will get the opportunity to work on the Hibernia project such as construction of barges instead of having them towed from overseas. That is what has to stop in this Province. The Government can do it, Mr. Speaker, if they want to do it. If the Government wants to do it, it can be done. It is as simple as like the Premier said about the teachers pension, as simple as the stroke of a pen. If the Government wants to bring in that legislation to have them built in Newfoundland, and I can assure him of immediate passage, we on this side of the House, and I am sure my friend from St. John's South will not hang up that type of legislation or any other type of policy.

And in terms of a ferry for Fogo I want to say that when we left Government there were two sets of plans, because I happened to be the Minister of Transportation, for the construction of two ferries. I challenge anyone to say otherwise, and, Mr. Speaker, it would have been signed after the defeat of this Government because it was prepared, except that the Premier asked, and I am sure the Premier will acknowledge, that he asked to have no new plans, tenders, or agreements signed, and that there were two sets of plans.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to clue up?

There were two sets of plans, Mr. Speaker, for the ferries. It was announced in last year's Budget, and I would ask the Government if they would bring it in because this is how important it is. I want everybody to listen. There are 300 people who are going to be forced to the Mainland this year. Three hundred employees of the Marystown Shipyard will move with their families, Mr. Speaker, or they will leave their wives and children back home while they go away to try and secure enough work to qualify for UIC. It is serious, it is the closedown basically of a main industry, and the Government can solve it. In the past year had it not been for the Federal Government contracts that they won by tender, they were not given to them, that they won by tender, the Marystown Shipyard would have been closed. And they won it by tender. And there is a man now, Mr. Speaker, and I spoke to him, who worked twenty-four and a half years in the Marystown and is now home laid off. That is how serious the shipbuilding industry has gotten in Marystown, and this Government who owns the Marystown Shipyard has the responsibility for the Marystown Shipyard and if they so desire they can solve the problems at the Shipyard.

In conclusion let me say I want to ask the Minister of Development to consider the plight of these 300 people and their families who will be forced to Mainland Canada. Mr. Speaker, let us keep the Newfoundlanders that we have home. It is great to make promises to bring every mother's son home but it is another thing to drive every mother's son away, so I ask the Premier or the Minister of Development, who I am sure will stand and speak to the petition, if they will do what needs to be done, start the immediate construction of the ferry for Fogo Island, initiate a new program for the construction of barges, and thirdly, and more importantly at present, bring in a local preference policy for the area where the construction of the Cow Head facility is taking place. People are desperate for employment and if this Government tells the companies to have a local preference policy for people from the area then at least the gap will be bridged to some extent.

I thank my colleagues for giving me leave to present this petition and I sincerely hope that the three issues that I mentioned will be addressed immediately, namely, local preference for the area of the Cow Head expansion, a ferry for Fogo, and the immediate start of barges on speculation.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise in support of the petition so ably presented by my colleague, the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. I support the petition of the hon. Member because I am fully aware of the importance of the shipbuilding industry to the Province of Newfoundland, and particularly to the Burin Peninsula area. We have managed, with a great struggle, Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years to build and maintain a shipyard with a skilled and dedicated workforce in Marystown and we are in danger of that workforce being seeped away, lost, skills being lost and going to other provinces. We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that these skills are kept in this Province and that the shipyard is built and maintained as a viable operation.

Shipbuilding, Mr. Speaker, is a very complex business and involves all levels of Government required to support that industry. There are a number of shipyards in this country which always seem to be in certain economic trouble and difficulty, and that I suppose, Mr. Speaker, is partly because the shipbuilding industry worldwide is an industry which governments recognize as one that requires Government support and requires a co-ordinated effort. In other countries of the world, Mr. Speaker, governments institute policies that ensure that they have a viable shipbuilding industry, whether it be in Korea, in Norway, In Japan, or in the United States, by adopting policies that ensure that much of the shipping in their countries is build within their countries. The United States has very strong policies in that regard but the Canadian Government has very little. There is, Mr. Speaker, a co-ordinated effort by a council of shipbuilding unions which has a number of policy proposals for various levels of government to adopt which would support the shipbuilding industry. It is not enough for this Government to say that we are spending $7 million a year, we have spent $40 million, or any particular amount, as being an excuse to say that we can now abandon our obligations to Marystown Shipyard and that we can forget about the possibility of adopting a co-ordinated effort, not only within this Provinces, but with other provinces and with the Federal Government, and insist that the Federal Government do what it can do to adopt international treaties. For example, there is an internationl treaty concerning the carriage of goods by sea from importing and exporting nations that is known as the 40/20 policy of the carriage of goods for international trade. That is something that the Federal Government would have to adopt and this Province should be there insisting that they do it to protect the shipbuilding industry in this part of Newfoundland. There needs to be a co-ordinated effort, Mr. Speaker. I am not suggesting that the approach suggested here is one that should be kept. We should not have an ad hoc approach, we should have a co-ordinated long-term approach but the need in this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, is right now, and this shipyard ought to be helped by this Government and to maintain this workforce until these other programs can be put in place.

I want to speak briefly about the Cow Head matter that my colleague has spoken of. That is something that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, when we have contractors bringing in non-union labour, not just individuals from other provinces like Nova Scotia, but bringing in non-union labour to this Province and putting our people out of work who would otherwise receive that work. Mr. Speaker, something ought to be done to curtail that and ensure that our people have preference for these jobs if there are people here to undertake this work. That could be done, Mr. Speaker, not necessarily by having a Newfoundland preference policy, but by adopting a policy that would ensure that the contracts that were undertaken in Cow Head were done by union labour at union rates, the unions could then see to the matter of hiring halls or whatever had to be done. This can be done, Mr. Speaker, despite other agreements that might be placed and despite mobility requirements of the Canadian Constitution. But it requires some action by this Government, Mr. Speaker, and I urge this Government to take that action to preserve work in the Burin Peninsula for employees of the Marystown Shipyard and also for the workers who would work on the Cow Head project. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Development and Tourism.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for bringing this petition forward to the House today. And I too, Mr. Speaker, as the Minister charged with the responsibility for managing the daily day to day affairs of the Marystown Shipyard, can tell the hon. Member that I too am quite concerned, deeply concerned about what is happening at that yard.

MR. TOBIN: Tell the truth.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is and everybody should be very clear on this, that if this yard were in the private sector, had to operate in the competitive environment of the real private sector, nine chances to ten that yard would have been closed a long time ago. So let us be very clear about that. Let us be very clear about what we are talking about, and I agree -

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I agree with my hon. friend for St. John's East who perhaps has made the most valuable point in this debate because what my friend for Burin - Placentia West has said basically was really rhetorical and he has not, in the two years that I have been here with responsibility for Marystown Shipyard, he has only asked one question before in that two years. So I can understand where he is coming from.

But just to respond -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TOBIN: If the Minister of Development is going to make a statement in this House it should be factual. That is not true what the Minister said. There have been many questions asked. Now the Minister is never here, he is gallivanting around. For example, he said, I asked two questions. Let me tell the Minister that today I asked three questions. He was not here again, Mr. Speaker. As usual he is late or not here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Marystown Shipyard is (inaudible) gone.

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

Let me point out to both hon. Members that there is no point of order. And secondly, hon. Members know -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am asking hon. Members to listen to the ruling because I do not want to make the same ruling five minutes hence or two minutes hence. Every hon. Member knows that when they are speaking to a petition they have to speak to the signatures, to the material allegations in the petition, and not engage in extraneous matters but keep themselves to the material allegations of the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. Member. He says he asked three questions plus the two that I said, so he has asked five questions. I apologize, it is five questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Now there were three particular -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - three particular -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I ask the hon. Minister to please abide by the ruling and to speak to the petition.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again! Wrong again!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, there were three issues that were raised and the hon. Member for St. John's East perhaps raised the most pertinent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Canadian - you do not want to hear from the Minister responsible for the Shipyard?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Thank you. The hon. Member for St. John's East makes the most pertinent point, and the most pertinent point is, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ship building policy in this country. It is kind of a perverted policy because it really goes against any incentive or inducement to create work in our yards in this nation. The hon. Member knows that full well, and the Member for St. John's East perhaps articulated it best. He will know that vessels over 100 feet for example can come in completed into Canadian waters, completely duty free and tariff free and no additional taxes.

But the components that we bring in from Europe and other places are heavily burdened with taxes. These components go into the construction of these ships and cause increased costs. So the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West perhaps should be on his feet attacking the current Federal Conservative Government which allowed this policy to remain in place against the wishes of this province and other provinces in the country. So I commend the Member for St. John's East who raises perhaps the most important point, that in this very competitive industry it is very difficult to compete against our own Government that has a kind of perverted policy in place which goes against inducing that kind of work.

Now the Member for Burin - Placentia West asked specific questions. One was dealing with local preference which I would like to examine with him for a minute, and the other one deals with building barges on speculation. Let me take the latter one first.

MR. TOBIN: And the ferry, and the ferry!

MR. FUREY: And the Fogo Island ferry. Let me take the ferry first. I deeply regret that we had to defer that ferry because I recognized the importance of the employment that it would have put in place down there. And I saw it as a bridge toward the Hibernia development, while Cow Head is being constructed and while that employment is under way. Currently at the Yard there are 331 people working. Some people will argue that the core work force is 600. I would not. I would argue that the core work force is 400 to 450. It peaks up at 600, and we can all play games with numbers but let's get to the facts of the matter.

The Fogo Island ferry is deferred for a year. I regret that deeply. But we cannot have everything. We have to defer certain things. Now, if I built the ferry you would be up saying: well, you could have had another fifty hospital beds, or another twenty nurses, or another sixty social workers, or whatever the case is. Government has to look at the bigger picture, has to examine what money is on the table -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Minister's time is up.

MR. FUREY: By leave, Mr. Speaker? So I can address your issues?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. FUREY: Government has to deal with that, Mr. Speaker, and I -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I gave the Member a couple of minutes -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I gave the Member a couple of minutes. So, Mr. Speaker, Government regrets that. We wish that we did have that money, we wish that we could construct that ferry, we recognize the benefits that it would have on the channel to Fogo, and we certainly recognize the economic and employment benefits for the Yard.

The Member asked about barges. Mr. Speaker, our history at the Yard on speculation has not been a good one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, it has not been a good one, Mr. Speaker, and just look at the record of the six mid-distance fleets. We built those on speculation and look at them tied up now, look at the costs and the interest that we are paying on that. And the capital cost to construct it and the debt that was piled up on that. Along with the offshore supply vessels which were converted to Canadian Coast Guard vessels. These things all cost money to build. They were built on speculation. Then we go out into the marketplace and try to sell or divest ourselves of these. We are currently in the midst of a major divestiture programme through the Department of Fisheries to try to off-load the debt of the mid-distance fleet.

So I am not one who likes to engage in speculation and that is what they are asking us to do, to speculate that we can build and put them out there for sale and stack up the debt.

The hon. Member knows that the debt currently is well over $36 million, our interest payments alone are $4 million a year; we have to pick up the additional operating costs, it was $ 3 million last year plus the $4 million in interest for a total of $7.6 million, that is a lot of debt to add to the cumulative debt of the yard. I am not in the business of adding to that debt and I am certainly not going to speculate to add to that debt.

The final thing he asked was local preference policy - with Members' indulgence - He said: In local preference policy, why do we not use the fund from the offshore development fund which is currently constructing the Cow Head facility which will put us in a position to compete for the hundreds of millions of dollars of work at the Hibernia site.

He asks, why do we not apply that local preference policy; I would tell him that whenever we set about building something where we have total control of the capital dollars for the Province, and that yard builds, that yard is given significant opportunities to build these vessels for the Province. When we are tied into a Federal-Provincial arrangement, as we are through the Offshore Development Fund, where Ottawa is paying 75 per cent and Newfoundland is paying 25 per cent, I would love, dearly love to apply a Provincial policy but under those rules and regulations, because the nation is putting up 75 per cent of the cost of the $40 million, we cannot tie into the local preference policy. I regret that, I wish that we could, it is my deepest wish that we could tie into a local preference where Ottawa would waive all of the rules and regulations tied into the Offshore Development Fund, turn it into a hundred per cent provincial fund and let us deal with the tenders and contracts. I would dearly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Well, it depends on how much interruption there is.

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

MR. FUREY: So, Mr. Speaker -

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

The Chair cannot entertain the kind of interruptions that are going on. I will ask the Minister please, to clue up.

MR. FUREY: I can tell the hon. Member that the way the regulations are, under the previous Government which he supported and under the Government which we lead, those regulations are the same. When it is a joint Federal-Provincial arrangement as this is, 75 per cent of the nation's taxes are put into it in the form of the money and 25 per cent from the Province; that 100 per cent component arranged in that agreement ties our hands on local preference. I wish there was some way around it but there is no way around it.

With respect to the Member for St. John's East, he asked about local contracts on the Cow Head facility. We are doing everything in our power to ensure - I met with the Municipal Council on it, I have met with the unions on it, the unions have met with the Premier on it; I have talked to the people at the Shipyard and local people, wherever we can we are doing our best to induce local employment. We cannot dictate, we can only do our best to induce it and to tell them that it would be this Government's priority to have local people in the Burin Peninsula area, unionized and non-unionized, get the work on those projects and I think most people would agree with that.

So far, to date, if you want a quick review of what is happening at Cow Head, I can give you a quick update. The site development contract for $1.7 is called and that is well underway; the foundation concrete is called for $1.1 million, that is underway; the main complex envelope for $5.7 million is underway, the five crane supply for $1.6 million is underway; the paint-haul equipment is now being reviewed and should be awarded very, very soon.

So, what is happening down there, we are very happy with. The fact that it is a Federal-Provincial agreement, Mr. Speaker, ties our hands on the local preference, so that answers the local preference. On barges; we are not prepared to speculate with taxpayers money because of our experience and the previous Government's experience in the past with offshore supply vessels and the middle distance fleet and others.

The Fogo Island ferry, we regret that, that is deferred, it is my fond hope that we can do that as soon as money becomes available, but I tell the hon. Member to be careful. This yard is carrying heavy debts, it is very difficult in the competitive environment that the Member for St. John's East so rightly points out, it is a very competitive environment. Ship building across this country, as he knows, is in trouble basically, and it stems back to the Federal Government of which he is a Member, their policy on ship building. It really, really does pervert the system when it costs us a lot of money to do that. I think, Mr. Speaker, that basically deals with those three or four issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: A good half hour speech there, Chuck.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if Members opposite will give me leave to speak to the petition since the Member for St. John's East -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. SIMMS: A point of order.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we just let the Minister of Development, who started speaking to a petition -

AN HON. MEMBER: We know that.

MR. SIMMS: Just a second now. The Member for Burin got two extra minutes. The Minister started at 3:08 and finished at 3:20, he spoke for twelve minutes. Now the Member for Grand Bank, who is one of the Members who represents the Burin Peninsula, would like to have a few minutes to say a few words on behalf of the petition.

Now I say to the Government House Leader there are other ways to do it. If he does not want to be co-operative, that is fine, but surely he could reconsider that, an extra few minutes.

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

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Our rules say that there is a presenter, a supporting speaker and a speaker from the opposite side, and that has been complied with so far. Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we said no leave. I would also suggest to Members opposite perhaps the Member for Fogo would also like to speak on this petition seeing that it involves the Fogo Island ferry and so on, and this can go on and on and on. Mr. Speaker, we feel that there has been enough discussion.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to address the point of order. I want to point out to hon. Members on both sides of the House that because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Many times when some Member is speaking somebody will point out and say, `Time, time, Mr. Speaker.' I do not think that does anything to enhance the quality of debate whether it is Question Period or presenting petitions. The Chair is following the time. When the Chair recognizes, one, that the time is up in a petition, the Chair will call the time on both sides equally. I have a stop clock there and when the time is called I will call it equally on both sides as I am supposed to do. What is very important though is when an hon. Member is given leave on either side, the hon. Member should not abuse that leave. That is done with the courtesy of the House. And hon. Members must realize that when leave is given, it is given with the courtesy of the House and hon. Members should exercise that right with great care and not carry on and on and on. Again, hon. Members ought to know that when consent is given hon. Members should not be shouting out, `Time, Mr. Speaker.' It is not in the hands of Mr. Speaker then. The House has given the time. Now hon. Members can withdraw that consent, but please do not look at the Chair and say,`Time', because the Chair does not have the authority then to give the time. We are not on time then, we are then counting on the courtesy of hon. Members.

After having said that, obviously there is no point of order. It was a point of inquiry and the inquiry was not granted.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of twenty-five people; twenty-four from the town of Garnish and one from the town of Frenchman's Cove in the district of Grand Bank. I want to read the prayer of the petition: Whereas prospects for employment at Marystown Shipyard Limited appear bleak for 1991 and whereas all employment opportunities including the immediate start up of the Fogo Island ferry would help bridge the gap until the start of the Hibernia project, whereas this would stop the exodus of the skilled work force from Burin Peninsula to the Mainland, and whereas all these workers and more will be needed when the Hibernia project starts; we the undersigned petition the Provincial Government to immediately start construction of the Fogo Island ferry and set up a local preference hiring procedure for all work associated with the expansion of the Cow Head facility; and furthermore, all new employment initiatives for Marystown Shipyard be pursued vigorously by the Provincial Government with the intent being to keep our skilled work force in Newfoundland.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to be able to present this petition on behalf of those people from my district. And in looking at the names of those who signed it, Mr. Speaker, I believe that just about all of them - the greatest number of them - are or were employed at the Marystown Shipyard, and I begin in support of the petition by saying that the Marystown Shipyard employs people from all over the Burin Peninsula. It employs people from the district of Burin - Placentia West, from the district of Grand Bank, and from the district of Fortune - Hermitage, so there are three districts really that we see people employed from. It is very, very, sad to see what has happened to the Marystown Shipyard during the past two years in particular, Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Burin - Placentia West has alluded to. It is too bad the Premier has left because when he responded to questions by the Member for Burin - Placentia West earlier today he said that his Government was not going to continue with the errors made by the previous administration. I want to go on record as saying if they were errors that the Government which I was a Member of made in dealing with the Marystown Shipyard then I only hope that I can be back in Government again after the next election so that I can make a few more errors, because the Government of this Province has a responsibility to use taxpayer's money, on occassions and on times to create employment. Do you know of any Government in the Western World today that does not have employment generation programs? I know the Government that has the smallest and the least employment generation programs, Mr. Speaker, and that is the one opposite. Every Government that I know of has employment generation programs. Now, the Marystown Shipyard has a long-term - I do not know when it was build, I am not sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Back in the 60s.

MR. MATTHEWS: I know it was the 60s but I was wondering what year specifically.

AN HON. MEMBER: 1967.

MR. MATTHEWS: Back in 1967, built by a Liberal administration, and supported by two different PC administrations, well by three basically, and now it looks like the Administration that is supporting it least, and is probably quite willing to let it go, is the now Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is very, very regretable, particularly when you have a project such as the Hibernia project which everyone has looked forward to for years. I know in our area of the Province, Mr. Speaker, we have looked forward to it for years. We could not wait to reap the benefits of the Hibernia project and now we have a Government who is willing to let the skilled workforce leave our Province to go to the Mainland when they could have build the Fogo ferry. As I said before, it was a matter of Government priority. They could have build the Fogo ferry.

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible)

MR. MATTHEWS: Listen to the wizard over there, Mr. Speaker, the financial wizard. Two Liberal administrations have had financial wizards. One was Valdmanis and the other I do not need to mention, Mr. Speaker. He makes himself quite noticeable. They have had two financial wizards, Valdmanis and the present Minister of Finance. Now, I want to say to the Minister that they could have built the Fogo ferry. They could have created employment at the Marystown Shipyard while providing a much needed improved service for Fogo Island. They were not doing something that is not needed in this Province. They would have done two things by building the Fogo ferry, created employment opportunities and kept the workforce in this Province, and they would have provided a ferry which is badly needed for the Fogo Island run, so they were not doing something that was unnecessary. They talk about building boats on spec and other things but this was not on spec. The Fogo Island ferry is a much needed service for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who deserve a better service. They could have taken the money to build that. They could have given less to the Economic Recovery Commission, I say to the Minister of Finance, and they would have employed people who are skilled, they would have kept them in an industry that is going to hopefully get better, but instead of that they gave it to the Economic Recovery Commission, and if the Economic Recovery Commission can create the same number of jobs, with the same amount of money, I say to the Minister of Finance, I will be the most pleased person in Newfoundland and Labrador. I hope it happens but I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. MATTHEWS: I want to go on record, Mr. Speaker, of supporting the petition and call upon the Government to reconsider. There is still a lot of money that is unused that has been given to the Economic Recovery Commission, reconsider taking back a sufficient amount of money from the Economic Recovery Commission, and go forward and build the Fogo Island ferry and create jobs at the Marystown Shipyard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the petition presented by my colleague on behalf of the twenty-five members from his constituency of Frenchman's Cove and Garnish. It is too bad the Minister of Development is not here, Mr. Speaker, because what we saw this afternoon from the Minister of Development was nothing short of a charade. The Minister does not know where the shipyard is. He has only been there on one occasion. We might as well talk about it. What has taken place since Government changed is a Government with a lack of conscience for Newfoundland and Labrador, particularly rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The first thing that happened when they took office, Mr. Speaker, was they cancelled the signing of the two ferries. That was the first thing they did. The second thing they did was with the shrimp trawler. The shrimp trawler that FPI wanted build in Marystown with a subsidy for $21 million in place, with $10 million left, of which the Federal Government said yes to for their portion, and this Premier and this Government would not give them the contract, Mr. Speaker, unless they were prepared to tear up their collective agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

MR. HOGAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Member for Placentia that my friends from the Shipyard union take strong exceptions to that comment, they are men enough to make their own decisions and did not need any advice or guidance from me on what to do nor did they request it, Mr. Speaker, nor did I give it. I can tell the Minister, and the Shipyard union knows that. And I do not want any buffoonery, Mr. Speaker, from the Member for Placentia. We want the truth in this debate. This Government asked the union to destroy, to tear up their collective agreement. That is what they did to the union at the time they were negotiating a contract, if they wanted to get a ferry service, if they wanted to get a shrimp trawler. But I venture to bet and everyone else that this Government never had any intentions of constructing the shrimp trawler in Marystown, never, never, never, Mr. Speaker, because they have no commitment to the Marystown Shipyard. That is the truth of what took place. They wanted union workers and their families and everyone else, now they are throwing them into another wage freeze for the next year, and giving them nothing to work with besides. And they were not finished then, they cancelled everything that was there. They came out and they announced one ferry instead of the two ferries that were to be constructed. And did they stop then? No, Mr. Speaker, they drove another 200 to the Mainland.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Member for St. John's South he will never get into the Cabinet that way. There are more people from Marystown Shipyard employed on the Mainland today than ever there were before in our history. We negotiated $21 million, a subsidy program, myself and the Member for Grand Bank who were in B.C. at the time, when the former Minister of Fisheries, now the Leader of the Opposition, put in place the funding in Ottawa, cost shared 50/50, $21 million. This Government, Mr. Speaker, robbed $10 million and put it into another agreement with Ottawa and put it all over the Province in areas where they do not know what salt water looks like. That is what happened to the $10 million. That was not negotiated for an ocean industries agreement throughout the Province. It was negotiated for one reason and one reason only, and that was to subsidize the construction of vessels at the Marystown Shipyard, and this crowd over here, Mr. Speaker, stole the money belonging to the work force at the Marystown Shipyard and put it in other areas of the Province. That is what happened. And the truth has to be told.

And I will tell you something else that it is not right, it is wrong and there is nobody, Mr. Speaker, with common decency would let it happen except this crowd. The money was for the workers of the Marystown Shipyard. It was their money, negotiated, signed, sealed and delivered between the previous Administration and the Government of Canada as we did with the Cow Head expansion. Where is the money? Where is the $10 million? $5 million of which was Provincial money for to construct vessels. Where is it? Let the President of Treasury Board get up and tell me where it is. And it is not in the Marystown Shipyard vote. Mr. Speaker, if it was there there would be no problem with the ferry for Fogo Island, because the money was in place if they wanted to divert it from trawlers and put it into vessel construction. The money was in place. But they were not satisfied with that.

MR. MURPHY: There should be more than that. (Inaudible) wasted in Mount Pearl.

MR. TOBIN: Oh, listen now! Listen to the buffoon from St. John's South. Well let us talk about the Economic Recovery Commission, and Doug House that got $44 million this year to do what? Nothing. Except to look after the crowd who campaigned for the Liberals in the last election, like Fraser Lush and a bunch of them. What about the king on the 8th floor, Mr. Speaker, $100,000? What about that, money for the political patronage.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and what do they have up there now? They got security guards in the front entrance. They got them inside, every time you look out through the window nothing but mounties and policemen looking after the Premier paid for by the tax dollars, -

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

MR. TOBIN: - while the people from Marystown and the Burin Peninsula have to go to the Mainland. That is what is taking place in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Policemen everywhere and the people from Marystown going to the Mainland for work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Motion 3, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to again have the opportunity to speak on Bill 14, which is an Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

MR. EFFORD: Talking about that again?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, we are going to talk about that again, that bill that is going to collect an additional $8.5 million -

MR. EFFORD: What is wrong with that?

MR. A. SNOW: - from the people of this Province. Now I can understand why this administration or any administration needs a revenue to operate and deliver services in this Province. And while previous times I have been on my feet speaking about this bill I have talked about the need for an education fund of some sort to educate people who are smoking, being a former smoker I feel that people should be educated about the dangers of smoking. But anyway, that is not the reason why I am speaking today.

Again I am rising to discuss taxation in border communities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The taxation in border communities -

AN HON. MEMBER: Northern border communities.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, northern border communities. Because of the different tax systems in place in the different provinces, specifically I mentioned the Provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. As you are very well aware there is a recognized difference in the tax structure in gasoline. We discussed that last week. And today we are discussing a bill that is going to change the tobacco tax. There is also a recognition in the tobacco tax of the border situation in Western Labrador. There is a rebate system in place of rebating the retailers a certain amount per carton, per cigarette.

The Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister responsible for Treasury Board suggested, I believe, that they are going to review all the tax structures in the White Paper on Taxation and it is going to be resolved, and the complete tax structure in this Province is being looked at. I would specifically ask the Minister of Finance - if he could just pay attention for one minute, so he could listen to my question - what I am suggesting to him is that prior to the implementation of this new tax system in this Province, I would ask - and stress - that he would put in place from the border communities representation on some sort of a task force from the border communities themselves. The Newfoundland - Labrador, specifically - border communities.

Now I say that because I do not want to get bogged down with the bureaucrats from St. John's who happen to live in St. John's Centre and are only going to use that example. I want them to have input from Western and Southern Labrador. That is all I specifically ask, is that when the tax regulations of this Province are being reviewed that they have input from Western and Southern Labrador. Because those two communities - and I use the word "communities" in the sense that it is more global, not just one or two towns - those districts, Menihek and Eagle River, are directly affected by the tax structure in the other province.

And the business community is affected and so is the employment factor. And of course, not to completely disregard the individuals living there. We should attempt to make a level playing field for the business community and also for the residents of the community so that they can support the local businesses without having to pay extra money. That is what I want this Government to do. But I specifically ask that they have input, because there are several things affected: one, tobacco tax; two, gasoline tax; three, RST.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liquor tax?

MR. A. SNOW: The liquor tax is not too much out of whack. But the RST and hotel accommodations are big factors in Western Labrador. I do not have any personal holdings in hotels although I wish I did sometimes with the amount of business they are doing in Western Labrador. But they are specifically affected by the fact that the Province of Quebec does not charge any sales tax on lodgings. So you can see right away that that would give a hotel operator in Quebec, in the border town of Fermont, a 12 per cent advantage. That is a significant advantage.

What I want specifically - and I know the President of Treasury Board is listening intently to what I am saying. I can see he is writing it all down and listening to it, and he wants to get all the points that I am making. He is going to ensure that there is input from the local communities in Western and Southern Labrador. Because these people are the ones affected and I would specifically ask that before they impose the new taxes that they are talking about and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now I knew he was listening, I knew I would wake him up - I mean, I knew he would pay closer attention to what I am saying. And I would hope that they would appoint people to some sort of a task force with representation from the business community and consumers in Western and Southern Labrador. Because these are the people who are affected.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

On motion, resolution carried.

A Bill, "An Act To Amend The Tobacco Tax Act, 1986," (Bill No. 14).

On motion, Clauses 1 and 2, carried.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Order 3, Committee of Supply, the estimates of the Executive Council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 3? Motion 3?

MR. BAKER: Order 2, sorry, Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order 2.

MR. BAKER: Estimates of the Executive Council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Estimates of the Executive Council.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I am just waiting for the Opposition House Leader. Are you ready?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was waiting to make sure that the Opposition House Leader knew exactly what we were doing, and I am glad that he does.

These are the estimates of the Executive Council, and as President of the Council I will attempt to answer all questions that the Opposition may put. The total expenditure here is slightly over $14 million. Your Honour will be pleased to note that that is down from a revised expenditure last year of a little over $15 million. So it represents about $1 million less than was budgeted (Inaudible) or than was spent last year.

The Executive Council includes Lieutenant-Governor's establishment, which normally does not take a great deal of time. In terms of the Executive Council: the Executive Council is responsible for the provision of all support services to Cabinet and the various committees. For instance, we have the Resource Policy Committee and the Social Policy Committee. These two committees in particular rely heavily upon the services of the Executive Council. Obviously the control on distribution and dispersement of Cabinet papers and keeping track of developing the papers and making sure there is a right place in the system at the right time is an extremely important function.

They are also responsible for Newfoundland Information Services, and also for Treasury Board. Treasury Board is a committee of Cabinet that is different from the other committees and has a much enlarged function responsible for essentially the control of spending, that is what Treasury Board is responsible for in addition to government personnel matters, and in addition to the collective bargaining process. So, Treasury Board is normally considered as a separate entity, but in fact, it is part of the office of Executive Council.

Intergovernmental Affairs Secretariat also comes under Executive Council, and even though the IGA reports directly to the Premier and is directly responsible to the Premier, it is still considered under the estimates of the Executive Council, and is still considered to be part of Executive Council.

The Women's Policy Office is another section of the Executive Council, a very important section, and has been very, very active during the last year and, indeed, during the last two years that I have been associated with the Women's Policy Office, and Minister responsible for the Status of Women. And the advisory council on the Status of Women also is provided with funding through Executive Council.

The Hibernia Monitoring Committee is responsible for monitoring and developing action plans for all aspects of the impact of the Hibernia Project on the Province, and that also comes under Executive Council.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am quite pleased to answer any questions that Members opposite might have. I should also point out that I think it is normal that the Consolidated Funds Services also are dealt with in the Committee of Supply and the Whole House, and that at this point in time we will be dealing with these as well. So, Mr. Chairman, I eagerly await questions from Members opposite.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Minister for his brief and cordial introduction into the Estimates, and for telling us what the Estimates cover, what department, what divisions of the department and the government is covered under the Estimates and so on. I suspect as we get along with, I think, around eleven or eleven and a half hours remaining out of the seventy-five, something like that, which we can use in Estimates debates such as this or concurrence, I guess we will have to judge as an Opposition which is the best available option for us. My suspicion is, without having thoroughly discussed it with my colleagues here, that the best process for debate, not only from our perspective as an Opposition, but from the perspective of Members opposite, particularly private Members like we are, backbenchers, not privileged to be Members of the Executive Council. The best possibility for debate, I think, is the Estimates because you can get up for ten minutes at a time and I think it is a lot easier. Most people get up with the feeling that if they have thirty minutes to speak in the debate, as our rules allow, they have to speak for thirty minutes. That is not absolutely necessary, unless if you are on the Opposition side, as some Members opposite, the Government House Leader, would know, from time to time Opposition Members feel compelled to speak for the thirty minutes for other reasons, filling out time or whatever the case might be. Generally speaking, the best debates I find are the Estimates in the House or anything in Supply, any time we are in Committee of Supply because Members can get up for ten minutes at a time and they can talk about anything under the sun, anything goes when you are talking about financial bills, anything goes, well, within the realm of good taste and decorum and parliamentary rules, but you do not have to stick to for example, the last bill we just passed, Tobacco tax. You can talk about anything of the nature of what the Government does and all the rest of it, so, the Government House Leader has kindly introduced his Estimates now in five or six minutes, in a fairly innocuous way, he has not given us much detail, he just said: Now the Estimates of the Executive Council cover Treasury Board, and in Treasury Board you have this division and that division and this division and that division. Then he says: and it covers Executive Council and Executive Council covers this division and that division and this division and that division, and he says it covers the Premier's Office, and it covers this division and that division and this division and that division. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He has introduced his Estimates in a very general sort of way let me say, but -

AN HON. MEMBER: Ambiguous.

MR. SIMMS: - but knowing - ambiguous is another good word, I thank the Member for Placentia, who is obviously fully aware - I thank the Member for Placentia who knows how the Government House Leader acts better than I do, even better than I.

AN HON. MEMBER: He might even get up for ten minutes.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, he might even get up for ten minutes and I would encourage him to do so; I am sure he has lots on his mind. Anyway, as I said, we have eleven or eleven and a half hours to go, so how many days is that, six, seven or eight days more and we will have lots of time and I know the Government House Leader will be - If he does not intend to get up on his own free will and accord, we will have to provoke him, because we will ask penetrating questions, questions from previous Hansards that we have researched, asked by Members over there when they were in Opposition, we have been doing a bit of that and it is rather interesting, Mr. Chairman, when you do some research like that, really interesting.

Actually, I remember a couple of years ago, the Minister of Social Services will recall this one a year and a half ago or so, one day when we were up in the old Chamber, I got up and I asked the Minister of Social Services three questions about what was he going to do to help the people on low income because of the high electricity cost and all these kinds of added pressures and the Minister got up and gave rather interesting answers, but the irony of it all was that the three questions I asked were precisely the same questions that he asked two or three years before that, to Charlie Brett, when he was Minister I think of Social Services, and the answers, the biggest irony of all, was that the answers that the Minister gave were almost the same as those that Charlie gave about three years ago.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No, that is right, that is right. I must confess, we are new at that and most of us over on this side have not the dramatic flair that the Member for Port de Grave had when he was in opposition. He had a flair for it there is no doubt about it, but we are working on it and we are coming along, mind you, we only have to worry about it for another couple of years anyway -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: - so I hope the Member for Port de Grave and his other colleagues over there do not lose the flair, do not lose the flair because they may need it; they may need it sooner than they realize, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, Executive Council - I had the privilege of serving in that portfolio myself for close to a couple years I guess, and, Executive Council is perhaps the unsung hero; the unsung hero the Executive Council is, the unsung hero of the Government's bureaucracy, because the Executive Council, as we all know runs the Government bureaucracy, it runs the Cabinet, it runs the Government and the people employed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, yes, it runs the Cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: Well, I do not mean it runs the Cabinet in terms of decisions we know who does that, it is the Premier; it is certainly not the Minister of Finance, and the Member for Placentia even agrees with me, he is over there jumping up and down! The point I am trying to make is that the Executive Council - they are the real cogs, there is no question about that in the running of the Government and everything else; they are the people who act as Secretary, they provide the Secretariats to the various Cabinet Committees in the entire Cabinet and all the rest of it. And you require people I think of tremendous talents, it requires people of -

AN HON. MEMBER: When I asked him these questions he was so embarrassed by (inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder could you control the Member for Exploits who has a way of letting words flood out of his mouth -

AN HON. MEMBER: Verbal barrage.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, and speaking out of turn, usually his favourite interruption is not so! Not so! Not so! Today we hear something different which is rather unique after two years of sitting there.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, you need people of extraordinary talent I think in the Executive Council of the Government. Extraordinary talent. You have the Clerk of the Cabinet, the Senior Bureaucrat of the Province, and you have secretariats who secretary the Cabinet Committees and they should be extraordinary people, particularly when dealing with a Government of this nature, a Government that lacks competence for the most part, I say with all due respect to the people as individuals and personalities, I like them all. There is none of them over there that I dislike. None of them. I like them all. But I have to confess from a political perspective there are Ministers over there who are not competent. They really are not competent in their portfolios. Perhaps they would be competent in some other portfolio. And I know those with the lean and hungry look, -

AN HON. MEMBER: Young (Inaudible) over there.

MR. SIMMS: - in the back benches are over there secretly pounding their desks as I speak, as I talk about the incompetence of Ministers. They are in the back benches there, they are like flies, I suppose, they are like hawks, they are like crows. They are over there rubbing their hands, -

MR. WINSOR: In glee.

MR. SIMMS: Chomping at the bit. And so they should be. If they are worth their salt at all they should be. Ambitious and interested in serving in the Cabinet of a Government, not necessarily this Government, but of a Government. So the Executive Council plays an extremely important role.

Then you have Treasury Board. Now Treasury Board is another interesting portfolio as well, one which I was privileged to hold for a period of time. Not as long as the Minister as a matter of fact, he served in that portfolio longer than I did. I was there nearly two years, a year and a half to two years. Anyway, but I enjoyed it immensely. But it is the arm of Government that has the most difficult task of all, of any Government Department over there, Treasury Board is the least appreciated, is the least understood arm of Government.

MR. MURPHY: Why?

MR. SIMMS: I am glad the hon. the Member for St. John's South asked that question. Because, Mr. Chairman, on the one hand, the Treasury Board Minister has to deal with his colleagues who share the front benches with him day after day, after day who are looking for -

AN HON. MEMBER: He is fighting with them.

MR. SIMMS: Yes, that is right, always fighting with them. Looking for more money for this, more money for that. I assume they are. They should be, for programs in their Departments in particular. And the President of Treasury Board has to hold the line. He has to say no, no, as he said to me the other day in answer to a question. No, no, no. Mr. Chairman, that is what the President of Treasury Board has to say. So that is what is on the one hand. You have to deal with your own colleagues and the other Government Members in trying to control expenditures, trying to keep the Budget under control. That is a difficult enough job in itself. You see it is not the Minister of Finance. Everybody thinks the Minister of Finance does the Budget. Well in reality it is the Minister of Treasury Board that does the Budget, in reality, the Minister of Finance basically looks at revenue options, what taxes we might impose, this, that and the other thing. But the Budget, the Departmental expenditures and all the rest of it is done by the President of Treasury Board. But the Minister of Finance gets the chance to stand up in the House and gets his face on television in front of thousands and thousands of Newfoundlanders on Budget Day, and somehow the perception is the Minister of Finance is responsible for all of this.

MR. WINSOR: Is that the reason why he never knows the answer to anything?

MR. SIMMS: And that is why the Minister of Finance honestly and I say it with great respect to him -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I wonder would the hon. Member permit me to put the questions for the Late Show.

MR. SIMMS: Sure, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first question: I would like to debate the answer given to me regarding the dumping of septic waste at Robin Hood Bay - The hon. Member for St. John's East.

AN HON. MEMBER: To whom is that directed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I assume it is to the Minister of Environment and Lands.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is the Member for St. John's East Extern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, the Member for St. John's East Extern, yes.

Question number two: I am not satisfied with the Premier's response to my question about the impact of the Government's decision to raise the minimum wage for domestics and the need for complimentary measures to assist employers of domestics to have affordable child care and housekeeping, and I would like to deal with the issues at greater length on the Late Show - the hon. Member for Humber East.

Question number three: I am not satisfied with the answers to my question to the Minister of Mines and Energy on the subject of negotiations with Quebec - the hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I was saying the impression is that it is all the Minister of Finance's Budget but it really is not, it is the President of Treasury Board's Budget, and as I was saying earlier the Treasury Board President has the most thankless job in the Province today. He has the financial question on the one hand, and then, of course, he has the problem of negotiating. The Member sitting there opposite, the Member for Gander, is the Province's chief negotiator, for the entire Government, all the people, the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador in it's dealings with it's public sector unions. He is the Provinces chief negotiator. Now, if you want to look at an area of the public service and a job in Cabinet that probably is one that most people would shy away from, I suspect that is probably one. Not too many would like to have that job. There are some. I liked it. In fact I enjoyed it, frankly. It depends, I guess, on how you deal with it, and most importantly it depends, not only on your own philosophy and what you want to do in negotiations with public sector unions, but you have to have the support of your colleagues. You have to have the support of your Cabinet colleagues and that is not always easy to get. I suspect, in the era and the age we live in these days, over the last two years, the President of Treasury Board, who is a born socialist, he is a left-winger, everybody knows it, would have preferred that things in the last year or year and a hald in terms of negotiations with the public sector, were handled a little bit differently. I know how he would have liked to have done it. I am sure of it. I feel it in my guts. Now, he is going to have to get up and deny it because obviously he has to spout the words of the Cabinet, more particularly his seatmate but not his soulmate, the Premier. He has to espouse the views of the Leader of the Government and so does the Cabinet. We all know that.

MR. WINSOR: Leaning to the left is no good, defence is what he is going to have to learn. (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is another item. I will not get into that just yet. My friend here Sam Slick, or Sam Spade as he is known in some circles, old Sam in some other circles, Sam Snitch, Sam Boney, Sam Surley. The only individual that might be able to usurp the great reputation this Member has gained now is my friend for Kilbride who is coming on strong. It is no good to be a leftwinger out in Gander, you have to learn how to play defence. That is what Sam Bowly tells me. That is what the Member for Gander needs to do.

Anyway, I am trying to sing their praises.

MR. WINSOR: Tomorrow morning, boy. Tomorrow morning.

MR. SIMMS: Shut up. Shut up.

If my friend to my left here, not philosophically but figurative could whisper a tiny bit it would be appreciated.

If Members opposite are paying attention, and some are, I am trying to sing the praises of the Government House Leader, and even my friend here does not understand why I am doing that, but believe me behind everything there is a motive, and for those who did not hear me at the beginning these are really just preliminary comments, just preliminary comments. What I am trying to see is if there is going to be a debate and discussion on the Estimates of Executive Council, Treasury Board, and the Premier's office.

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

Time is up. We are debating under rules 15, 15 and 10. Is that the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: 15, 10 and 10 -

MR. SIMMS: 15, 15 at the beginning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At the beginning, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Okay, so 15 is up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fifteen minutes is up, yes.

MR. SIMMS: Let's see if anyone else wants to get up. May I get up again?

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, the Executive Council Estimates include the offices of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women as well as the Women's Policy Office. Those are two divisions of Executive Council that I would like to make some comments about.

These offices - I should clarify, the Women's Policy office is appropriately called an Office, it is a division of Executive Council, it is part of the regular public service. Its function is to give the Government advice on how policy proposals affect women as well as to initiate within Government ideas for improving policies, programs and services so that the women of the Province will be served by the government better than they are now.

The Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, of course, is an agency established by provincial legislation which really operates at arms length from the Cabinet. It is made up of Members appointed by the Cabinet and has a staff although the funding is provided through a block amount.

Now, both these groups have an extremely important function. One is an in house function and one is an external function involving both advising government privately but also serving as an outspoken advocate for women's rights. Disappointingly, the government decreased the budgets of both these agencies. The Women's Policy Office has been cut by 12 per cent from what was spent last year, and the Provincial Advisory Council was reduced by 4 per cent from the actual expenditure last year. Now it so happens that on the same pages of the Estimates as the Women's Policy Office are the Newfoundland Information Services, the propaganda office of the Government which got a whopping increase and protocol, which everyone now knows got a huge increase. These discrepancies are impossible for most of us to justify, why now with the recession, hurting women disproportionately with government's other budget policies hurting women disproportionately would the government reduce its support for the Women's Policy Office and the Provincial Advisory Council when it can find the means to boost the coffers of the Propaganda Office and provide funding for wining and dining visiting dignitaries through the protocol vote?

Now, Chairperson, it seems to most of us that the government's priorities are screwed up. Just take Newfoundland Information Services; Newfoundland Information Services functioned over the years primarily as a small office employing two or three people who co-ordinated the release of information by the government which organized Ministers new conferences and which sent out to the news rooms of the Province the text of news releases of Ministers.

Now since the government changed two years ago, the fax machine has been introduced to most departments of the government. I suppose by now all departments, perhaps the President of Treasury Board will tell us how many fax machines there are owned and operated by the Provincial Government. Now we might be quite surprised to learn, but now that fax machines have proliferated and it is so easy for Ministers and government officials to disseminate information to the news media and the public, why do we need to spend even as much as what was spent two years ago on Newfoundland Information Services? Now instead of the government decreasing that vote to recognize how technology has superseded staff, we see the government increasing the Newfoundland Information Services budget, what is it, five fold, six fold over the last couple of years.

No matter what the Minister or anyone opposite says about what the previous government did, no matter what mistakes the previous government made, the fact of the matter is that the Members opposite now form the government, the Members opposite are in the process of eliminating 3,500 Provincial Government funded jobs in the province. The Members opposite are in the process of drastically reducing and downgrading essential public services such as health care, education and social services. So no matter what criticism may be levelled justifiably at previous administrations, there is no excuse for the Members opposite at the same time as they are laying off massive numbers of public servants and downgrading essential public services, boosting spending on PR, on propaganda, on the Newfoundland Information Service and on protocol, there is no excuse.

These developments, the cut in essential services, the increases in discretionary partisan political and entertainment categories are not acceptable. Now, Chairperson, I have just been handed a list here, it says, selected salary increase figures according to the salary details for 1990-91 and 1991-92 for Executive Council. Now we see in the Premier's Office - Executive, fourteen staff, both years, last year the average salary was $37,881. We see an increase of 9.5 per cent, up over $41,000. Then moving right along we see Resource Policy, Director and Planning Officers, -

MR. BAKER: Say that again.

MS. VERGE: Okay, I will go over it again for the President of Treasury Board, and the President of the Executive Council who of course is responsible for all of this along with the Premier. The Premier's Office - Executive, the number of staff in each year, fourteen, the same number. The average salary last year $37,900, rounded off to the nearest hundred; the average salary in the new Budget year $41,500 for a percentage increase of 9.5.

The next category Resource Policy, Director and Planning Officers -the number of staff last year, six; in the new year four, a reduction of two staff. The average salary last year was $47,600, this year $56,500, for a percentage increase of 18.7.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that?

MS. VERGE: That was the Resource Policy Office of Executive Council. This is all Executive Council. Resource Policy, the Director and Planning Officers, the average salary has increased from last year to this year by 18.7 per cent.

The next category the Social Policy Analyst, there is one position, and the salary has gone up by 17.3 per cent from $41,300 to $48,400, 17.3 per cent for the Social Policy Analyst. Well what about the cleaning woman in the hospital who all along has been paid less than men doing work of equal value and who had the negotiated pay equity and wage and benefits increases for this year wiped out?

Okay next in Executive Council we have the Budgetary Analyst, of course, these people have more responsibilities that ever. Now they have to camouflage what the Government is doing, and they have to hide the regressive measures, they have to bury the inequities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this (Inaudible) or Executive Council?

MS. VERGE: This is Executive Council Budgetary Analyst. Treasury Board, of course, is a part of it. Budgetary Analyst: Well we see three positions, and guess what happened to the average salary of the Budgetary Analysts, a 27.9 per cent increase. The Minister of Social Services is nodding his head, for his social assistance recipients a freeze. Let the social assistance recipients eat cake, I suppose. The social assistance recipients get a freeze while the three budgetary analysts -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Too bad.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to deal with some of the issues raised by the Member for Humber East. I suspect it would take me quite some time to deal with them all. She did this in the sense that she has not asked me any questions so I assume that there are implied questions in what she said. This is suppose to be an examination of the Estimates so Members are suppose to try and get information from the Ministers and so on. She did not ask one single question but I understand that obviously there were implied question in what she asked. She has made some very specific comments about some of the salary figures in the Salary Estimates which I would like to deal with very quickly because probably all they deserve is a very quick treatment. There is not really very much to what she says, to be quite honest, Mr. Chairman. I suppose you could go through the 35,000 or 40,000 employees that Government has, either directly or indirectly, and I suppose you will find job descriptions or job positions that have changed considerably during the last year, changed considerably during the last year for a variety of reasons, and out of the 40,000 you may be able to pick out 8000 or 10,000, I guess, that would look as if, if you looked at a particular position, would look as if there was a tremendous increase when in fact there was not. There are a number of reasons for this and I am sure that, for instance, in some cases workers in one year would only worked part of the year, perhaps had some maternity leave, or whatever else there may be there, so the amount that is projected and spent in that year is one amount and the next year because it is a full year, it is a full amount. Or a person moves into a job halfway through a year and then the next year the cost is analyzed so it would look like a 50 per cent increase, or a 100 per cent increase in salary. There are all kinds of these things. The Member is simply picking out a few positions and saying, well, this looks like a 9.5 per cent increase, heavens, and this looks like a 27.9 per cent increase. What I can guarantee the hon. Member is that there is nobody in the public service that got a salary increase last year that was anymore than - well, in the case of the nurses, nurses last year got a little over 10 per cent and that was the highest salary increase in the public service. Nurses got five and five, but annualized one on top of the other becomes more than 10 per cent. Other than that everybody else got three and three. So I can assure hon. Members that except for either normal step progression or salary increases there is nobody who got more than the step progression plus those salary increases that everybody knows about.

Now, Members opposite can scrounge around all they want and try to pick out all kinds of things and try to create false impressions - surely they do not believe it themselves, they must be simply trying to create false impressions with the media - that somehow some skulduggery has gone on with all these positions. I say to Members opposite, if they were to go and check for instance the amount paid to the student assistants last year and this year they would find a big increase. If they were to go and look at the amounts paid to the nursing assistants last year and this year they would find a big increase. Because there were other things that happened there. In one instance they negotiated their first contract. In another instance there was a complete reclassification of a group.

So there are all kinds of reasons. And the Members opposite need not try to disseminate false information around the Province. Because if that is - I have to say to them, that if all they have going for them is trying to spread false information around the Province then they will be sitting on that side forever. If that is all they have going for them. Because there has to be an awful lot more to it than that, than spreading false information.

And it is typical. The Member for Humber East in her example - an obvious falsehood that she knows the difference of - about an increase in here, and then talking about this year, other people getting their amounts frozen. Now, she knows that there is no comparison. There is no connection between - everybody got raises last year, everybody was treated the same. Nurses got five and five, approximately everybody else got three and three. And that is the way things were, you know? Everybody got that. Management got it, workers got it, everybody got it. Also amongst management and workers there were reclassifications. You know. That is a normal part of everyday activity, reclassifications. There were people whose job numbers were annualized, job figures are annualized, both in the unionized and non-unionized work force. There were people, in all areas, who worked for part of a year one year, the year before the last, and last year a full year; or last year a full year, this year part of a year. There are changes because of that. There are all kinds of these normal things that have happened.

But one thing that has not happened - and the impression the Member for Humber East is trying to give is that all of a sudden - she is trying to create the false impression that somehow next year we are giving increases in salary to executives and no increase to anybody else. She is trying to spread that false information around the Province. And I just cannot understand how anybody who has any amount of self-respect, knowing the difference, can deliberately do that. I just do not understand it. The Opposition Leader talks about people having the face of a robber's horse, whatever that means. It is a common expression of his, and he loves the expression, I believe.

I do not know what it means, but I must say that I cannot see -

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Hobnailed boots.

MR. BAKER: Hobnailed boots is another good one. I do not see how anybody who has any respect of self can get up and deliberately say something that is not true. I cannot do it. I cannot understand it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: And when hon. Members opposite create the impression -

AN HON. MEMBER: They never said anything about lying.

MR. BAKER: It is close.

If Members opposite would just listen for a second -

MR. SIMMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: A Member over there he is saying a Member over here is saying something, how could somebody -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Wait now! Let's see if we can get it straight. How could somebody , how could the Member say something that was deliberately not true. Now, Mr. Chairman, the point of order is, of course, that turning that around would mean that he is accusing somebody of not telling the truth.

MR. RIDEOUT: Or deliberately misleading the House.

MR. SIMMS: Or deliberately misleading the House and so on.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is unparliamentary.

MR. SIMMS: And that is unparliamentary. And all we are saying on the point of order is that what he is doing he is trying to do in a roundabout way, exactly the same thing he tried to accuse the Member for Harbour Main yesterday of doing when he was quoting from some of the union people who said, Clyde lied and stuff. Remember that argument you used yesterday? Now you are using the same argument to your own advantage. So he is twisting his words, but dangerously threading towards unparliamentary language, and I think Your Honour might wish to adjourn the House to consider this serious matter, to give a major ruling on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of Treasury Board to that point of order.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to deal with it. I really am. Maybe in dealing with it we can get something straightened out here. I said that if Members opposite are saying and trying to create the impression, a totally false impression, if they are in fact trying to say to the people of this Province that what we have done is we have frozen the salaries of the unionized workers whereas next year we are giving increases to executives. If they are saying that then it must be a deliberate falsehood, because they know the difference. Now will the hon. Member opposite tell me, once and for all, let us get this straightened out, are you saying that we are raising for next year, not freezing the executive salaries, raising their salaries and freezing everybody else's? Are you saying that or are you not saying that? Because if you are saying it, it is a deliberate falsehood.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you very much. Just very quickly to the point of order, because I do not want to take up the Member's time. But I mean, again he is trying to bring the argument into the point of order. What he is arguing he can argue with the Member for Humber East and the Leader or whoever has spoken. I am not arguing that at all. I am arguing -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: I am not saying you are using unparliamentary language, because you cannot say - what are the words? I forget the words.

MS. VERGE: Indirectly -

MR. SIMMS: Indirectly what you would normally say directly, that is unparliamentary and I am accusing the Government House Leader of doing just that. I am asking the Chairman if he would consider this particular matter because that is not allowed. It is not acceptable. It is unparliamentary and that is my point of order. Not whether or not the argument is right. I mean you will make your arguments in debate. Stick to the point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite pleased to deal with it on that basis, I really would. But what I said was if this is what they are saying then it is a deliberate falsehood. If this is what they are saying. Now what I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is that what you are saying or is it not? Because then we can determine whether in fact I am unparliamentary or not? That is all. And if I were unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman, you know exactly what I would do. In order to determine whether I am unparliamentary or not, we have to get straightened out what Members opposite are saying. I would really like a definitive statement from them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Humber East, on the point of order.

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, are we still on the point of order.

MR. SIMMS: On the point of order, yes.

MS. VERGE: I do not even know what the point of order is. But, Chairperson, obviously the President of Treasury Board was trying to accuse me of deliberately stating a falsehood.

MR. SIMMS: That is right.

MS. VERGE: I suppose he has to resort to that kind of tactic because he feels uncomfortable hearing the truth that I am presenting to him. I am giving him statistics straight out of his own Budget document showing that the Budget Analyst working with Treasury Board got a 27.9 per cent increase from last year to this year.

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

MS. VERGE: Obviously what the Government has done is allowed the Managers and privileged people to beat the freeze.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

It is now 4:30, and the Committee has to rise. We will reserve the ruling for a later date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! A good job.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 14.

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report that it has adopted a certain resolution and ask that a bill be introduced to give effect to the same, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, resolution ordered read a first time.

MR. SIMMS: What are we voting on? What is this, the House adjourns without (inaudible) or what?

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the resolution be now read a second time.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not ready.

MR. SIMMS: Can we do all of that tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: It will be deferred until tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, just the reading. Carry on.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on the 25 of April, I asked some questions of the Minister of Environment and Lands concerning the disposal of septic waste at Robin Hood Bay. Mr. Speaker, the concerns of council and residents have been well known on this issue. I mean septic effluent, septic waste, is carted from as far away as Harbour Grace. The problem with the waste, it is now -

AN HON. MEMBER: What waste?

MR. PARSONS: Septic waste.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: As far away as Harbour Grace. Mr. Speaker, the problem is now there is no secretion effect. The septic waste is just not going out through the ground and it is forming like a quicksand or a shaky bog that we are all well used to, it is the same thing and it is just not dissolving. The government is going to have to take the bull by the horns and do something about it. I checked with City Council today and they said that there is nothing forthcoming from the government. There has been no - perhaps they did have means, but the person that I spoke with said that the last they heard from the Minister was that he was looking into it and that it would take some considerable period of time to get anything on the road. But what I am saying to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. I mean it just cannot continue. The people in St. John's East Extern in particular, in my district, have been overtrodden, overridden, overrode with rats and everything else over the longest period of time. They tried to get something done as far as Robin Hood Bay is concerned, and now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, I agree. I agree that when our government was there that the problem was great then, but it is getting greater by the month, by the week, by the day, and the Minister of Social Services can say what he likes, but it is a problem for the people in the district.

Now, apart from that the City Council is having a problem that you just cannot get in over where this waste is being dumped. In other words, the city dump, the Robin Hood Bay Dump is filled to capacity.

Old effluent is just not disappearing, it is there now and something is going to have to be done about it, because, apart from everything else, apart from the dump being filled as it is and we all know and I think we will all agree that the dump is not situated in the right place geographically, as it pertains to the landfill there, and more importantly because there are liviers there very close to that dump.

I remember a few years ago, Mr. Speaker, when there was an agreement I think, to move the dump to some area out in the western part, to the west of Mount Pearl and that met with vigourous opposition from the people who said, no, it should not go there. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is wrong to say that no one wants a dump in their back yard or, no one wants a dump in their city, no one wants a dump anywhere close to them, but the point remains that there has to be a dump, but at least, Mr. Speaker, while the present Robin Hood Bay is acting to capacity, is receiving whatever waste that comes in from the general area and is doing a fairly good job of it, they are having to haul a lot of fill in there now to cover over the dump, but there is no way that the fill can do anything to absorb this waste material that is going in there and I say to the Minister, that something has to be done and done as soon as possible.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a deadline for the last day of June; the St. John's deadline, I read that the Minister said: it is a long and slow process and that there is nothing definite on it at this particular time. I am not sure if the Minister is going to do it legally or not and say to the City Council when it comes up the last day of June, that this has to continue. I suppose it is within your right, as Minister of the Environment, but the point remains that the City Fathers or City Mothers now, are, mothers and fathers, they are adamant in saying that they are not going to accept any more of this waste, septic waste, from outlying areas as of June 30.

Now, I think that we had sufficient time and I say to the Minister, I think that he had sufficient time and his Department had sufficient time to look into this matter and come up with a solution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MR. KELLAND: I do not disagree with anything really that the hon. Member said. I know he has a great concern as I do and I am sure every Member of the House does. I think what you are referring to as 'site' there, an alternate site for Robin Hood Bay - it is a study I believe I checked that and I think it was in 1974, Mr. Speaker, and it was out around the Ruby Line area. There was such, I guess public outcry at that time, that the Government of the day decided that it was not wise to do it, for whatever reasons, I did not read that into it, but at least, there was a great public concern and that is one of the problems we do have and I can think of a number of other locations in the Province, the Burin Peninsula for example, where we had to do something about landfill sites.

I have had several meetings with the Member and some of his constituents and so on from Burin - Placentia West, and what happens is that in areas where all available land is encompassed somewhere within someone's municipal boundary, everybody recognizes the need to have something done or an alternate site found, but most communities find from their citizens that they have pretty strong objections, so unfortunately the NIMBY syndrome does apply especially to septic waste and other types of waste material, however, I do not disagree with a thing the hon. Member said.

In recent times, I do not know when he asked me the question, if I had an opportunity to say about a couple of recent meetings or not, because I think we ran out of time in Question Period that day, at the last minute or something - I did have two recent meetings with the Mayor of the City of St. John's, which did not specifically, or only deal with the problems in Robin Hood Bay and the septic waste there, but it did deal with that to some degree and we talked about it at length. You may know that our Department has corresponded with a lot of the communities that are in this particular area that have been, with the permission of St. John's, by the way, that have been dumping their septic waste, and the city has now told them that as of the 30 June they can no longer do that, and that they will not accept septic waste from other areas. They have told us that as well. The Member is quite right, Mr. Speaker, in saying that we do have the legal authority to make the city continue but I personally do not want to get into a confrontational position with the City of St. John's. I would much rather do it by some form of consent, or through consultation to reach some kind of a solution. It is not a simple one, and I may have said at some time that it will take a little while, but in one of the most recent meetings, the last of the two meetings with the Mayor and representatives from the City of St. John's, my hon. colleague the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was also in attendance. We talked about the funding, which is a matter of concerned, to do the proper study and to locate another site, an alternate site somewhere in the Northeast Avalon area. The cost of that study, I was told, is somewhere in the range of $150,000 which at the time my hon. colleague was not able to get in a Budget allocation, but he did make the commitment at that particular meeting that he would revisit the question with respect to trying to find some ways and means of funding the study that is quite necessary to locate a new site, to set it up, to engineer it properly, and alleviate the problem in Robin Hood Bay. He was not able to give a time frame that I recall, but I can tell the hon. Member that the terms of reference, and we have a representative on that particular committee, the terms of reference have been drawn up as to how the study will go. I have not heard anything since that meeting with respect to the possibility of funding coming from Municipal and Provincial Affairs but he did make the commitment, I can tell you that. He knows I am about to say that here in the House, that he did make the commitment to revisit that situation. We will continue to meet with the communities involved and try to find some way of solving it. I do not want a big confrontation with the City of St. John's any more than I want a big confrontation with anybody. Also, by the way, and I should mention this, I would be happy to welcome at these meetings, with the agreement of the people from the municipalities, any Member in this general area who would like to sit in, providing we all, me included, leave our political agendas at the door and go into the meeting to consult and to collectively try to find a solution to the problem. I would be happy to keep the hon. Member fully advised as to what happens, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, I raised in Question Period in questions to the Premier concerns of many people in the Province about Government's failure to accompany the equalization of the minimum wage and the increase of the rates for domestics, a positive move, with compensatory measures to cancel the negative outfall for child care and for employment. It has to be acknowledged that many of the employers of domestics, working mothers and working fathers, themselves earn only the minimum wage, or slightly more than the minimum wage. Many of these people employ domestics to look after their children while they are out of the home in the workplace. If they have to pay the new minimum wage they simply will not be able to continue that arrangement. Now, there are alternatives. A prime alternative is licenced Government supported group day care, however the Government still has not even legalized group care for children under two. That has been a deficiency which the Premier acknowledged when he was campaigning for election two years ago and which he promised in writing to correct promptly. He wrote a letter to the Corner Brook Citizens Action Child Care Committee on the subject of child care policy in which he outlined his short-term goals and his long-term goals. Under the heading short-term goals he pledged to bring in a legal framework for enfant care, for the care of children under two years of age. He also promised to provide a regulatory arrangement for family care which is care for small groups of children in private residences, an arrangement that is quite practical in our Province. The point I am making, that a number of working mothers have been speaking out about, is that while it was good and just for Government to equalize the minimum wage and raise the rate for domestics, that is a matter of human rights, it is a matter of the Government complying with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet there are practical problems resulting from that just adjustment in the minimum wage. The practical problems have to do with employers not being able to afford to pay the new minimum wage and having to look for alternatives for child care and housekeeping. And the best type of alternative the Government has failed to provide - namely, licenced, publicly supported quality group care. Of course, when children are cared for in groups the unit cost, the cost per family, is much lower than it is when children are cared for in their own home by a domestic employed by just that one family.

While the Federal Government has a grave responsibility which so far it has failed to live up to in funding a national day-care programme, still the Province has a responsibility. And we see in this year's estimates that the Government is actually decreasing funding for day-care. I am happy to see that the bulk of the decrease - all of the decreases in administration - while there is a slight increase in allowances and assistance grants and subsidies, however with administration cut, the matter of the long-needed new act and regulations will probably be left to fester even longer. So I will sit down now, thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long it is going to take or in what manner of way I should do it, to beat some common sense into that hon. Member's head about the situation of day-care in this Province. I have even thought about using what they used to use out caulking the boats in Port de Grave, we call it a caulking mallet. Probably in that way we can do it.

But seriously, let's go back. First of all, she made one point about the Tory Government in Ottawa and about the need for more day-care services in the Province of Newfoundland. And I cannot believe that after seventeen years it is only now, since she got on the Opposition, the hon. Member is interested in improving the day-care services in this Province. And if she did anything when she was Minister of Justice or Education, would she bring into the House - and if she cannot table as a private Member - but at least prove that at one time while she was in government that she wrote a letter to the Minister of Health and Welfare in Ottawa asking for more day-care service in this Province? Show us one letter that you wrote when you were Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: You see? Silent on that issue alone. All of a sudden now - I lost my flashlight that I had when I was on the Opposition, I believe the hon. Member must have picked it up. Because all I can find now over the last two or three months is hear the qualms about what is happening in the Province. Do you know the only complaint that I have known so far about the increased payments to domestic services was from three people who, one of my colleagues told me, the three salaries' income for those people would be around the range between $80,000 AND $100,000? That is the only complaint that I have heard talk of since this new legislation was brought in. In the income bracket between $80,000 and $100,000.

Thirdly, people who require day-care services, it is not a fact that they must pay $4.75 an hour. There are other alternatives. First of all, if they take their child out to a neighbour they do not have to pay $4.75 an hour. If they take their child to a day-care service they do not have to pay $4.75 an hour. They pay the regular weekly cost.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is a fact. The next point is that the day-care legislation, under two, after hours. Seventeen years the former administration never touched it, since 1972. When I became Minister, the act was never touched. We have now got it just about ready to introduce into the House of Assembly, hopefully by this fall. After the Legislative Review Committee.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: It is on - well, that is the plan. I am not going to commit myself and then have to withdraw like the hon. Members opposite had to do so many times when they were in government. But, two short years compared to seventeen years it was never touched. And the hon. Member has the face to stand up in the House of Assembly and criticize us. It has been under total review. A complete new act.

Now look. The hon. Member is not going to make any political points because the people in the Province and the one or two people who she calls every night to get complaints are wise to what she is trying to accomplish.

How embarrassing it is. I had an association group, a single mother's association call me at dinner time today to tell me what the hon. Member is up to yesterday about the committee is in place. What did they tell her? 'Don't call me anymore. We are sick and tired of listening to your complaints.' We are getting some positive reaction from the Department of Social Services from child care initiatives. Never before did you see an increase of what you saw this year. Reduce the salary of administration and increase the amount of money.

A positive thing is happening in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Member for Humber East, no matter how much she complains, no matter how much she stands up, things are going to go ahead in full advance. The people of the Province are first and uppermost on our mind, children will be looked after and this new legislation is going to benefit people because the single mothers and some of the people she is talking about who cannot get work will now be able to get work taking care of children for people who can afford to pay. So it is going to be an increase and a positive step in jobs in that area.

So, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Humber East is beating her face against the wind again.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing in view of the clock that the next Minister who will be having a question directed to him is a Minister who normally gets up without any fanfare or political foofaraw and tries to give a sensible, reasonable answer. So therefore it will not take - we do not have five minutes left each, as a matter of fact, before five o'clock, and I do not think we will need it because with this Minister I will be very brief in my comments and I know that he will be brief, succinct and to the point in his reply. There will be no political foolishness or anything of that nature in this Minister's response.

Mr. Speaker, I was surprise -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, it is not the Minister of Development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve minutes to answer one little question.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised in a question that I directed to the Minister of Mines and Energy this week, that he tried to walk away somewhat from statements that he and the government had made on many, many occasions regarding the development of the Lower Churchill Hydro Project. The Minister and the government had been saying consistently since they took office, and rightly so in my view, that there would have to be an agreement in principle by 1991 if we were to get to the construction phase in 1994-95. That has been a consistent position by government, a right and proper position as far as I can tell, but once that was brought to light in a different matter just a few days ago by the Investment Dealers of Canada having had extensive discussions with Hydro Quebec, once it was brought to light that Hydro Quebec had a different plan, that the plan of Hydro Quebec was to apparently, according to the Investment Dealers of Canada, to wait until the Great Whale Project was completed in 1998 before they agreed to move on to begin actual construction of the Lower Churchill. Then, we did not know this, Mr. Speaker, the people of this Province did not know that Hydro Quebec was thinking in a different manner. When I asked this question to the Minister after it was written up in an editorial in the Evening Telegram, the Minister, unlike the Minister normally, tried to draw a very fine distinction between construction and the actual commencing of power coming on stream. That was not my question at all. My questions to the Minister were clear both him and the Government have said time upon top of time, that in order for construction to begin on the Lower Churchill project by 1994-95 there must be an agreement in principle by the end of 1991. That is now being contradicted, allegedly by Hydro Quebec, who are saying we have no intentions of participating in the beginning of the Lower Churchill development until after we finish the development of the Great Whale project, and that, of course, as everybody knows will not happen until around the end of 1998. So that is the succinct question. It has no political web around it. It is just short, succinct and to the point. I know the Minister will be the same in his answer, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on this subject our position has not changed, nor has Hydro Quebec, as far as I know. And the report that is being referred to is a report of the Investment Dealers Association quoting something, and I do believe they got the words wrong. We have had twenty meetings in the past year and a half, and we have another meeting in the very near future, and we are still working on that same schedule. We would really like, if we can do it, get an agreement in principle this year, 1991, and we would like to have first power by the year 2000. And that is the schedule we are trying to negotiate. We can never be sure that we will get an agreement. This is a big project. But I do hope that we do because it will be a huge project for Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe it will have equivalent benefits to the Province, that Hibernia is going to have to the Province, if not more. Certainly more in the construction phase because the estimate of employment that was put in the registration document for the Department of the Environment said about 16,000 person years of employment for the construction phase and Hibernia in this Province has only about 10,000 person years of employment in the construction phase.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I have said I believe that we are still on the schedule that we have talked about in the past, 1991 is the year when we would like to have an agreement in principle if we can get it. If we cannot reach a satisfactory agreement, there will be no agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

DR. GIBBONS: And if we can reach it then first construction around 1995, and the first power by the year 2000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs on a point of order.

MR. GULLAGE: If I might be given leave of the House to advise the House of something that has occurred just recently and I would think of some importance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If it goes over 5:00 we will agree to stop the clock.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: It will be very quick, Mr. Speaker.

I think the House will be very pleased to know that St. John's has just been awarded the American Hockey League franchise of the Toronto Maple Leaves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, in offering my congratulations to the City of St. John's for the tremendous lobbying that they did to bring an AHL hockey team to Newfoundland and Labrador, with no involvement of the Minister, the Department, or the Government, as far as I know. I would like to take the opportunity to tell the Minister that Canada and the Soviet Union tied, I believe, and thirdly, I want to say for the first time in the last fifteen or sixteen years, I suppose, one is allowed to say that they might cheer for the Leafs.

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

MR. HARRIS: The only stadium at which this team will play is in St. John's East and we would like to welcome the franchise to St. John's East and I hope that the presence of this team here will improve the prospects of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn. Is the House ready to adopt the said motion?

Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: The Minister seems to be reluctant to advise the public, the press, and the Members in advance. He used to do that before the last two years and did a wonderful job. So tonight at 7:00 o'clock, Education Estimates are being debated here in the House of Assembly and Monday morning, Works, Services and Transportation are being debated here in the House, Health will be debated in the Colonial Building at 9:30, and at night Finance will be debated, Monday night, correct? May I ask the Minister to confirm that?

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

MR. SIMMS: Because I do know there already has been a change and a cancellation of Municipal Affairs Estimates, he knows that.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee Chairman will keep in close contact with the press and all Members of the Committee. The Committee Members know when the Estimates are being handled and when they are not and what will happen on Monday - there is nothing on Friday - what will happen on Monday I will hopefully announce tomorrow, whenever the House adjourns tomorrow, so -

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: - Education is tonight, yes, whatever.

MR. SIMMS: Municipal Affairs is cancelled tonight.

MR. BAKER: Oh I am sure the press has been notified of that already.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well, I did not realize the gallery is still open to the public, but anyway - So, Mr. Speaker, the list of Committees has been published and the Committee Chairmen are quite competent in terms of making sure that everybody involved knows what is going on with the Committees, so, Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say about it right now.

MR. SPEAKER: I had already put the motion before the House, and, I, out of courtesy, acknowledged the Opposition House Leader, that could get us in trouble in the future, but anyway -

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 3, 1991, at 9:00 a.m.