April 1,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 18

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to formally advise the

members of the hon. House, that government has reviewed its recent budgetary

decision related to Daybreak Parent Child Centre and based upon that review, a

decision has been taken on today's date to reinstate the centre's funding -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: - at the level approved for 1992-1993. This

funding level may require the Board of Directors of Daybreak to undertake

certain budgetary measures to meet its 1993-1994 operating commitments, but I am

confident that today's decision preserves intact the programs and services of

Daybreak.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate that has taken place with

regard to this agency, this government has reiterated the position that these

types of services, which are preventative in nature, play a very important role

in the provision of comprehensive social services to the people of this

Province. Our previous decision not to fund Daybreak was one that was made very

reluctantly because of the extremely serious fiscal situation confronting this

Province. However, upon further analysis, government has concluded that the

particular needs of these children and their families cannot be fully met by

other services and we are confident that the need is such that we have

reinstated funding. Government will also immediately initiate through the Social

Policy Committee of Cabinet, a further study of all programs related to similar

services which are preventative in nature.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be in a position to convey

government's decision to reinstate the Daybreak funding and to express our

support for this agency's achievements and our admiration for the efforts of

Daybreak's families in striving to overcome serious personal and economic

difficulties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that I

am somewhat disappointed the minister didn't see fit to give me a copy of his

statement.

MR. GULLAGE: It just came up.

MR. TOBIN: Well, when you brought it to the House, I am

sure you brought two copies. Mr. Speaker, that is not strange for a minister who

has admitted that he gave his colleagues bad advice and the government bungled

the Budget. How can a minister come back into this Legislature two to three

weeks after a Budget is brought in and say, Mr. Speaker, we made a major

mistake. We have reviewed our mistake and we are changing our minds. Mr.

Speaker, this minister changed his mind and this government changed their minds

because it is a government that operates under pressure. Their decision is made

by pressure, and I want to commend the group of people who got involved in

fighting the cause of Daybreak in this Province, and who convinced this

government that they must change their minds. They did a tremendous job, I say

to the members opposite, and they are to be commended.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) four years.

MR. TOBIN: For seventeen years, we did not do that to

Daybreak, I say to the Minister of Tourism and Culture. This minister gave bad

advice to his colleagues in Cabinet. He has not been there, Mr. Speaker. He had

to say yes, to that cut, and that is what he did. He gave his colleagues bad

advice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope he will look at the other issues

that are falling out from his Budget, such as the slashing of the VRDP program

for disabled students in university, whom this minister and this government are

now keeping out of university. I hope he will look at that and make public the

list of all the other groups that are under attack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is a good decision, it is the

right decision and I commend those people who put pressure on the minister and

government to have their minds changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

asking for leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say, first of all, that I am delighted to learn

that the Daybreak Parent Child Centre will be able to continue, and I have to

give credit to the government for changing their minds

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Because sometimes it is very difficult to

change your mind when you have the level of confidence in your own decisions

that seems to come from this government. But, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that

they had the courage to change their minds on this and I am glad that they have

learned through the process that these kinds of services are very, very, very

important not only to the people who are directly served by them, but also to

society. I also want to congratulate all those who worked so hard - I have

another batch of petitions today, Mr. Speaker, to present on this issue, who

have worked so hard to convince this government that the people of Newfoundland

all over the Province, not just in St. John's, are behind this agency. I also

look forward to the government reviewing their decisions to take so much money

out of so many other social agencies; we do not know how much and we do not know

which agencies yet, Mr. Speaker, because the government has failed, to date, to

reveal that, so I look forward to them revealing that information and then

listening to what the story is from all those organizations as well, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House,

Sir, that I have received the results of the Judicial Inquiry into the causes

and circumstances surrounding the death of Perry Dale Tremblett on July 21,

1992, at the Salmonier Correctional Institute.

The inquiry was done by Judge Woodrow of the provincial

court. I have copies here, Your Honour. Judge Woodrow concluded, based on

testimony from Dr. Charles Hutton, the Province's Forensic Pathologist, that Mr.

Tremblett died from asphyxiation by hanging and that there was no evidence or

injuries to reveal a struggle. Judge Woodrow was satisfied that the injury was

self-inflicted and that Mr. Tremblett had committed suicide. Judge Woodrow said,

and this, Sir, is a quotation from the report: "Perry Dale Tremblett was a

person who kept his problems to himself and there were no overt signs or signals

that he was depressed or contemplated taking his own life. Under such

circumstances, the judge said, it was almost impossible for correctional

officers to detect Mr. Tremblett's suicide and to take preventive action."

Judge Woodrow also expressed concern that at the time of Mr.

Tremblett's death there was no comprehensive policy in place for inmate suicide

prevention. In fact, the judge noted in his reports that this was the first time

in the more than 100 years that there have been correctional institutions in

this Province that an inmate had committed suicide. He went on to say that

staff, in his opinion, were not trained in suicide detection and prevention.

Judge Woodrow recommended that Her Majesty's Penitentiary, and by extension the

entire correctional institutions, should develop a comprehensive policy and

strategy with respect to suicide detection and prevention.

Mr. Speaker, corrections officials had already reviewed and

revised their policy in this area before getting the report, as Judge Woodrow

notes. The new policy became effective on November 9, 1992 and, of course, is

available to members of the general public, as are all policies in the

institutions which we run. Judge Woodrow concluded his report, and again this is

a quotation: "In my opinion, this policy" - referring to the one adopted in

November - "more than adequately deals with my recommendation that Her Majesty's

Penitentiary develop a comprehensive policy and strategy for suicide

prevention."

Mr. Speaker, I have provided a copy of the report of Judge

Woodrow, the complete report, to my friend from Humber East and my friend from

St. John's East. There are three copies here which I will ask to lay on the

table of the House. If anybody would like a copy of it, please get in touch with

my office and copies will be made available.

May I say that we have, as is our practice, before the

statement was made, a day or two ago, provided Mr. Tremblett's family with a

copy of the report so they would be aware in advance of what was to be said in

the House today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the minister indicated, he did give me a copy of the

Judicial Inquiry Report a few minutes ago, and I will be reading it later today.

I am glad to hear the minister say that he ensured that the

family of the deceased inmate was given a copy of the report before today.

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge this is the second inmate

suicide in the last year or two. Mr. Michael Simon Jr., from Deer Lake, took his

own life at Her Majesty's Penitentiary in St. John's a year or two ago, and I

understand that was the subject of another judicial inquiry on which we will get

a report very shortly. I'm pleased to hear the minister's announcement that

there is now in place in the provincial corrections service an inmate suicide

prevention policy.

In addition to a policy though there have to be adequate

resources, proper physical facilities and sufficient staff, both numbers and

trained personnel. Also I believe there has to be a greater involvement of the

community in our provincial correctional centres. The provincial inmate

population has increased quite significantly over the past few years. I recall

only four or five years ago the population was at a level which prompted some

consideration to actually closing one or more of our provincial correctional

facilities. But I understand in the last couple of years all the correctional

facilities, right across the Province, have been filled to capacity and in some

instances to over-capacity.

With that kind of pressure on our resources I would think

that there is an added risk of inmates harming themselves or committing suicide

so I am glad to hear that there is an inmate suicide prevention policy in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the changes

that have taken place, unfortunately as a result of Mr. Tremblett's death, in

that Her Majesty's Penitentiary in St. John's, at Salmonier and other places now

have a comprehensive policy and strategy regarding inmate suicide detection and

prevention.

It is very unfortunate this was not put into effect until

four months after the death of Mr. Tremblett. Even though he had been seen by

psychiatric staff and forensic psychiatrists at that time, the staff at the

Salmonier Correctional Institution did not know of Mr. Tremblett's previous

threats to commit suicide. I think that, although as the report says the history

of suicide in Her Majesty's Penitentiary in Newfoundland was unblemished, if you

want to put it that way, until about a year previous to Mr. Tremblett's death,

it is unfortunate that such a policy was not put in place in fact after the

previous death and before Mr. Tremblett's circumstances came about. I am not

prepared to say, or not able to say certainly whether it would have prevented

the death but certainly the correctional staff would have know of Mr.

Tremblett's previous threats and would have been able to watch him more

carefully than they were able to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on this anniversary, I suppose,

the 44th anniversary, or unless it was just before midnight, depending on which

historian you believe, I want to ask the Premier some questions about the

fishery, a very appropriate topic. It is particulary related to the document

government released yesterday, Changing Tides, I believe it was. The issue is

the fishery and one on which the Premier has quite frequently spoken out about.

I heard one commentator unkindly describe the document, I guess, or comparing it

to the Sears Christmas catalogue that used to be called the Wish Book. His

reason for that was because little of it has very much to do with any of the

areas of the fishery that are within the control of the Province. I would like

to ask the Premier about the processing sector, the sector of the fishery for

which the Province does have responsibility. In the document you say you are

going to set up an independent fish processing licensing board. Now, the

licensing board could do very little without policy so I would like to ask where

is the policy?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the document released yesterday

is a discussion paper, a discussion document in which we have outlined certain

options with respect to the future development of our Province's fishing

industry. We are suggesting that in the absence, and until joint management

becomes a reality, that the Province will consider establishing a licensing

board at arm's length from government, an independent board, and that board will

issue licenses or renew licenses on the basis of certain criteria. That

criteria, Mr. Speaker, will be established. We are now going to have a series of

meetings around the Province consulting with the industry, the union, and the

people. Then we will be releasing a White Paper outlining the government's

policy on fisheries development, including, of course, the criteria that will be

established for the licensing board referred to.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has

confirmed there is no policy and there is no criteria on that particular point,

let me ask him this question: The Province has jurisdictional responsibility

over the processing sector in the fishery, but it appears to everybody in this

Province that you've totally ignored it. Nobody knows what the future is with

respect to that, what the future holds. Nobody has any idea what the

government's plans are. We've been in limbo in this Province for two years with

respect to the processing sector of the fishery. Why doesn't this document lay

out for discussion some clear policy proposals dealing with the processing

sector or the processing side of the fishery? That's what the people want to

know. That's what they've been asking questions about. Why are you avoiding that

particular issue?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we're not avoiding any issue. In

the document there are thirty-nine recommendations. We deal at length with all

aspects of the fishery: harvesting, processing, to some extent marketing,

secondary processing. These things will unfold. But first we're going to consult

with the people who count, the stakeholders in the industry, principally the

fishermen, and that process will be starting almost right away.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, so the minister is now admitting

they have no policies with respect to the processing sector, which is what they

have responsibility for; they have no policies or criteria dealing with this

proposed fish licensing board.

Let me ask the minister this question, switching to another

area in this document, the area of fisheries development. The government repeats

- the minister indeed just repeated - the ideas that have been contained and

outlined in other reports: the House report, the employment and unemployment

report done by Dr. House, and their own Strategic Economic Plan, these old ideas

that we've talked about for years. Under-utilized species, aquaculture,

marketing, as he just mentioned himself.

I want to ask the minister: when are they going to stop

talking? When are you going to start doing something? That's the question that

people want answered in this Province.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite,

particularly the hon. Member for Grand Bank, keeps talking about the need for

secondary processing. Let me remind the hon. gentleman opposite that in an area

a gunshot from his own district there's an ultramodern secondary processing

plant owned by one of the best companies of its kind in North America, FPI. A

company that has probably the best marketing capability of any province in

eastern Canada. That great plant, that modern plant dedicated solely for the

purpose of doing secondary processing, has never operated more than about 40 per

cent of its operating capacity.

Now that I think says it all. Of course there's need for

secondary processing, and of course as the tariffs become lower into the U.S.

there will be more secondary processing. But to get up in the House or go public

and to try to convey the impression that secondary processing is the end-all,

it's the panacea, it's going to be the answer for all of our unemployment

problems, that, Mr. Speaker, is misleading and they know it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he's not

avoiding the question. He certainly is avoiding the question. The point is, what

have you been doing about it? You've been the government for four years. You've

been talking about all these ideas for each of the last four years. Things need

to be done now. That's the question I asked the minister. When are you going to

stop talking about it and when are you going to start doing something about it?

That was the question.

Now I want to ask him this. How does he expect the people to

seriously believe that the government is serious at all about the development of

the fisheries in any of those areas that he's mentioned or that's talked about

in his document? Most people think that it's really just a lot of talk. It's a

big yawn, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, and that opinion has been expressed

by an awful lot of people.

I want to ask the minister this: if you are so serious about

doing these things as you say you are, or you try to give the impression you

are, why did you cut the budget in the Fisheries department under aquaculture

development by nearly 40 per cent, over $2 million, from $6.8 million last year

to $4.5 million this year? Why should people think you're serious about it at

all?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, if it wasn't so serious it would

be laughable, the way the hon. gentleman gets on. He talks about 'the big yawn'

and the fact that our document is meaningless. I believe it was not too many

days ago they were criticising government for not taking a position, for not

having such a policy paper out.

I don't know where he's getting his information. Maybe he's

talking to the wrong people. I suspect that is what is happening.

With respect to the reduction he is talking about, in our

Budget, there was some reduction, but I should remind him that the funding under

the NIFDA federal/provincial funding arrangement has expired. Hopefully there

will be a new agreement, but there has been a considerable decrease in the

Budget this year, one by virtue of the expiration of the NIFDA arrangement, and

secondly, of course, this year there is considerably less for the salmon buy

back program that was initiated last year, and that explains the reduction in

the Budget.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some

questions for the Minister of Finance.

This is the first day of our forty-fourth year in

Confederation. It is also the first day of the fiscal year. The minister, of

course, got his Interim Supply Bill yesterday, so he has some money to spend. We

all know that Interim Supply is one-third of a budget which contains $120

million deficit until this government finds $70 million. The clock is ticking at

the rate of $200,000 a day. We now have $70,200,000 to find. How long is the

minister going to allow this problem to grow before we are going to deal with

this $70 million problem?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a budgeted deficit on current account of $51 million,

as the hon. member very well knows. Mr. Speaker, my advice to him is to not get

too worried about this government's resolve to carry out the plans in this

Budget. I suggest he not get too worried. He was in the position himself and

that is when he should have started worrying about the budgetary position of

this Province. This is a tremendous conversion we are seeing here now, so I

advise the hon. gentleman to stop worrying. Things are in hand and will be dealt

with in due course.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister, I have to worry. The Premier has

terrorized the people of this Province into believing that we are destitute,

that the Province is bankrupt, and he has done a pretty good job of convincing

the credit rating agencies of that as well, Mr. Speaker.

One hundred and twenty million dollar deficit is what we have

on the books. We do not believe the minister when he says: well we will find $70

million at the end of the day.

People are concerned about it, and I remind the minister that

we passed him a surplus in 1989 and they quickly turned it into a $130 million

deficit - very, very quickly - so we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this: It appears that the

minister is still determined to find $70 million in wages and other benefits of

the public service sector. Is the minister still determined to do that? Can he

tell us how he proposes to do that, in view of recent statements by the public

sector union executives that they are not prepared to negotiate the things the

minister proposed?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if it were not so serious it

would be really funny. The hon. gentleman keeps talking about the surplus he

passed over to us. They were in office and waited until after the time when a

budget would normally be brought in to call an election without a budget. They

were afraid to put together a budget. They presented us with no budget, and we

took over a month into the fiscal year with no budget in place - no nothing in

place. So it is kind of laughable about this surplus they passed over to us. Mr.

Speaker, if it were not such a serious situation it would be laughable.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again for the hon. gentleman that

our Budget is firm. The financial community recognizes that our Budget is firm.

They recognize that this Province is now seeing proper fiscal management. They

recognize that and they understand that they will see that in the future, so the

hon. gentleman need not have too many fears.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be persuaded

that easily not to worry, but I remind the minister that in 1989 the former

minister predicted a $5.3 million surplus in his first Budget - a $5.3 million

surplus. He ended up with a $38 million one.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Since the public sector

unions have said they are not prepared to negotiate the kinds of rollbacks that

the government has asked for, is the government now looking at unilateral

action? Are they now going to come out and legislate these rollbacks, or is the

minister and the government going to wait until after the election to do that?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, discussions are ongoing with

public sector unions. There have been some things happen in the last couple of

days that we are now in the process of sorting out and we will have them sorted

out very, very shortly, Mr. Speaker. So we will soon have decisions in place

that will account for the $70 million or commitments to achieve that $70-million

reduction on the part of the public sector unions, so, Mr. Speaker, we are still

working on it and I still have confidence that we can find a way out of this.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister is

right, I hope he does find his way out of it, but how long is he going to wait?

How long does he expect the people of the Province to wait, how long are we

going to play this charade in running this Province on the strength of a Budget

that is not worth the paper it is written on, how long does the minister expect

the credit rating agencies to take him at his word when his record has been

dismal?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. gentleman to

call around to the financial community in Canada and the United States and to

ask them who they have more confidence in, the government that is in place now

or the previous government, and he will get a resounding answer to that

question. Mr. Speaker, they have confidence that they now have a government in

place that is thinking in the best interest of all the people in the Province,

and in the best interest of the future of this Province in terms of its credit

worthiness, so, Mr. Speaker, that is the reality of the situation. I cannot

answer a question that is based on some kind of foggy

interpretation in the hon.

gentleman's head.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation. I know the minister is aware of the question and I

imagine he has good answers today because I mentioned to him in the lobby that I

was going to ask them.

Mr. Speaker, under the dark of night last night, there was

furniture delivered to this Confederation Building by way of the back loading

door, and the government scurried this morning to try to have it hidden away

before the workers came in, but somebody did see them hide away some of the

furniture. Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us what this new furniture is to

be used for, and which departments in government the furniture is destined for,

which offices?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the furniture to which the hon. member refers,

to my understanding was not delivered in the dead of night, it was delivered

yesterday afternoon. The furniture was ordered by the Cabinet Secretariat and is

to be used by the Cabinet Secretariat. It is furniture for six offices and the

people involved, four analysts, one document control officer and one senior

clerk.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, Executive Council moved, I

guess from the sixth or seventh floor to the tenth or eleventh, is that - they

went up to the tenth I believe. Mr. Speaker, all of the floor that they moved

from had furniture; those offices were all furnished before they left. There has

been a hiring freeze, people have been asked to give up their pensions and roll

back their wages, what happened to the furniture that the Executive Council had

before they moved to the new offices they have on the tenth floor I believe it

is, what happened to that furniture, and will the minister permit me and maybe

come along with me to go and visit the warehouse at Torbay Airport to see what

furniture is stored there and the condition of that furniture, so that we could

determine whether we needed new furniture or whether we did not need it?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member is aware,

the Executive Council now is, I believe moved to the ninth and tenth floors of

this particular building from the space that they formerly occupied, and as a

result of that move, Mr. Speaker, the offices were compressed and they were

substantially smaller and this necessitated a change in furnishings and the

purchase of modular furniture to allow for adequate workspace and storage space

in the newly reconfigured ninth and tenth floor. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact of

life that the hard working public servants of this Province need adequate

furnishings and equipment to discharge their duties. It is not the government's

intention to shut down the operations of the government for a lack of material

to complete their work.

With respect to what happened to the old furniture, Mr.

Speaker, it is standard policy that furniture, as it is replaced, is then moved

down the line and continued to be used in the complex or elsewhere in the

government until such time it reaches a state of complete deterioration, at

which time it is auctioned off. To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, furniture that is

in storage now would be furniture which has probably reached the end of its

useful life. Any other furniture that is in storage is only in storage

temporarily until it can be reassigned to an area which it can be productively

used in.

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

Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister went on a

bit but I assume he is checking the cost of that new furniture, I think that is

what he told me, he is going to get me the cost of the new furniture that is

hidden away now down in the old carpenter shop in the basement of this building.

He is going to get me the cost of that. Mr. Speaker, while he is at it, there

are some photographs, I have some photographs of the furniture as it was being

brought into the building. If the minister wants to find out where it is, Mr.

Speaker, I can show him. While he is checking the cost of that new furniture,

that replaced perfectly good furniture that was there when we left anyway, I do

not know if it deteriorated that much in four years, will he also check on the

renovations of the Executive Council offices? An office that, one person did not

like the colour of the carpet, so they had the new carpet taken up and a

different colour carpet put down at a cost of some $4200-$4500 to the taxpayers,

Mr. Speaker, because someone did not want to have the same colour carpet as the

rest of the offices.

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the cost of the furnishings

that were delivered yesterday for the Cabinet Secretariat, for these six offices

which I understand are occupied by, as I said, public servants not ministers,

not politicians. The cost of that furnishing, Mr. Speaker, for six offices to

allow those six public servants to do their job is $5,862. Mr. Speaker, I will

have to check on the carpeting for the executive council. I am not sure what the

situation is on that, I will check into that matter and provide the information.

I hope that information though, Mr. Speaker, is more accurate than the

allegation that there are furnishings stored in Building 907 because, as far as

I am concerned, the only furnishings stored in Building 907 is a fine investment

by the former government, namely the "Red Trench".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised

if the minister pulls down those boards and all he finds in that building is the

"Red Trench" I have a funny feeling he may have to eat those words.

MR. MATTHEWS: As long as he dosen't eat the "Red Trench".

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Premier. Some time ago in fact, I do not have the documents in front of me but I

believe he might recall it, February 18th I believe it was, I wrote him a letter

under the Freedom of Information Act, asking for detailed expense information on

travel and so on, of him, his ministers, MHA's and staff that participated last

fall, September-October, in the constitutional debates and discussions. Now,

under the act, thirty days expired, I believe it is the 18th of March, some

twelve or thirteen days ago. I have not bothered to raise it until now because I

had anticipated that it was on the way. I wonder could the Premier tell me, is

the information coming forth, is it on the way, where is it, what is the penalty

for breaking the law, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I chose not to provide it

under the Freedom of Information Act, it is prepared to be tabled and I saw it

about a week or ten days ago. You catch me unawares. Your second letter came in

and I traced it down again. It is all prepared and ready but I do not know where

it is. I saw it at least last week sometime. So perhaps I will be able, by

permission, to table it later this afternoon. I chose not to deliver it under

the Freedom of Information Act because, if I did, there was so much work

involved in digging it all out, I would have had to ask the hon. member to pay a

substantial sum of money to get it, so I chose to treat it as notice in the

House and to table it. It is ready and it will be tabled, probably this

afternoon.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs knows, organizers for the upcoming Winter Games in Clarenville are

concerned that facilities, particularly a gymnasium facility, may not be able to

be completed in time for the Committee to host the games. I ask the minister: In

light of government's announcement now with the cutbacks to capital funding for

schools, as this was sort of a joint arrangement between schools and the

Committee, will construction of that new proposed gymnasium now be completed in

time for them to host the upcoming Newfoundland Winter Games in Clarenville?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the group

organizing the Winter Games has run into a fiscal problem. The negotiations with

respect to the monies agreed to between the Games Committee and the

Bonavista-Trinity school board have run into a problem, but the monies that

government would formerly put forward under their agreement with such a

committee has been forthcoming. I guess, the department officials are now

awaiting a proposal of some sort from the committee or from the Town. I

understand there has been dialogue between the two to see how this problem can

be resolved.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary to the minister. Hasn't the

committee notified the minister's department that if this matter is not resolved

in a matter of days, they may have to make a decision not to host the games,

because the facility will not be completed in time to do so. They can't go for

redesign work and they have to get on with it soon to get this facility tendered

for, or else it won't be finished in time to host the games. So, hasn't the

committee informed the minister's department that, indeed, they are working

under a very short deadline and that they really have to have an answer within

the next couple of days?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The committee, in a letter to my office, wrote

us to that effect, that if they didn't have a decision by yesterday, they would

have to withdraw from holding the games but, by the same token, we have had

communication from the Town of Clarenville, with whom the department does

business, to the effect, 'Don't panic, we will work on a resolution to this and

try to resolve it with the officials and in discussions. I understand another

proposal is forthcoming.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the minister is aware that the total budget amount

this year for recreation facilities and so on is about $2.5 million less than

was spent last year - not what was budgeted last year, but what was actually

spent, $2.5 million. Now, we have upcoming Canada Games scheduled for Kamloops,

B.C., this summer, where there will be a Newfoundland contingent. We have other

communities in Newfoundland preparing to host upcoming Summer Games, and then

there are the Corner Brook proposed committed Canada Winter Games. So, what are

the implications of this cutback, now, in the minister's recreation department,

for future Newfoundland and Labrador Winter and Summer Games, and for Canada

Winter and Summer Games?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: There has been no impact whatsoever on any of

the games per se. The only impact, if one wants to call it an impact, is that we

have established a level of investment, or a level of commitment, to each of the

games as each year passes. We will have a consistent amount there. In the past,

the practice was to approve the site, with probably a good guesstimate of the

funds that would be needed, and the proponent of the Games would come into the

department afterwards, and prepare a budget after the fact.

Now, the message that government is sending to proponents of

games is saying that there is an established amount there. For example, this

particular set of games that you refer to is the Clarenville Games. I think the

established amount was $700,000 or $800,000. I am not sure of the exact figure

at the moment. Say, it was $800,000. Well, forever-and-a-day, that is going to

be the established amount unless the government of the day chooses to change it

from $800,000. Anytime a proponent of games, whether it is in Burin or out on

the West Coast, anywhere, if they want to establish games they apply, and they

know the set amount is there for them.

With regard to the commitment at Corner Brook, there has been

no financial commitment made to the Corner Brook region on the Canada games,

because there has been no dollar figure set to it at the moment. As I understand

it, there is a committee in place in Corner Brook that is doing very preliminary

and exploratory discussions with the department to establish that figure, and,

in fact, to see if the Games are affordable to the region, to the Province, and

to the Federal Government.

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

West.

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

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. I don't know if the minister is

aware or not that today in Rock Harbour, on the Burin Peninsula, parents had to

keep their children from school because the roads were in such a desperate state

that they feared for the safety of their children and would not permit them to

travel on the bus. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister can tell me what plans

he has to ensure the safety of these children? Will he today commit to deal with

that 2.5 kilometres of road and, hopefully, put paving on it this year?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was advised before I came to the House today that there was

a demonstration in that particular area with respect to the road. My

understanding was that the purpose of the demonstration was to have the road

upgraded and paved. As the hon. member is well aware, the government took that

gravel road into consideration, along with all the other gravel roads in the

Province. Based upon the budgetary allocation of $25.5 million that was

allocated to my department to look after roads in the Province, unfortunately,

this road, as is the case with many other gravel roads, did not make the

priority list within that $25.5 million allocation, although I assure the hon.

member, that particular road was given every consideration, along with every

other gravel road in every other district in the Province.

For the first time - since this administration has taken

power the residents of the Burin Peninsula, in particular, the residents of

Burin - Placentia West, need not fear that because their member is an Opposition

member, the road was not given consideration. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you emphasize that?

MR. GOVER: The reason I emphasize that is to contrast the

way it was done in the past to the way it is done now, so that the people will

know a real change has taken place. The point is, Mr. Speaker, the program has

been approved and unfortunately, that road did not make the list this year. It

will be given every consideration for next year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Election

Act And The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act". (Bill No. 21).

My friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that is the one that

I have discussed behind the Chair with members on the other side.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have some answers. I have been asked

some questions the last couple of days. The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation answered in part.

We checked Building 907, and I understand it is a stockroom,

carpentry shop and district offices for the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation. There is nothing stored in the building other than, as the

minister said, 'the red trench' - I am told. I did not go down and inspect it

myself. I have no reason to believe that this is inaccurate.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible) your love seats.

PREMIER WELLS: The member who just opened his mouth and

made some noise also referred to boarded-up windows in this building to prevent

people from looking in to see the building's contents. Well, if I had been in

the Cabinet and purchased 'the red trench', I would want to board up the

building, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the only

windows that were boarded up - last summer the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation boarded up some windows of this building as a result of

vandalism. Recently, the Department of Works, Services and Transportation

boarded up more windows, also as a result of vandalism and to conserve energy.

The building - I am sorry, this is Building 910, now. We went and looked at -

the only building where windows were boarded up, I believe, is Building 910, so

I had them check that out in case the number was wrong.

Recently, the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation also boarded up some windows because of vandalism. This building

houses modular partitions, and I think the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation just gave the explanation for that furniture.

I have another question. It was asked, I believe, by the

Leader of the Opposition, yesterday, when he raised questions about the

Strategic Economic Plan, and expenditures on the Strategic Economic Plan. I

believe his assertion was that a little over $1 million was sent on personnel

and administration, and $530,000 was spent on grants and subsidies. What was

this all about?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I had them check the answers for me. The

amount spent on salaries, $235,000; $120,000 to hire twenty business and

engineering co-op students to help various departments with implementing actions

under the Strategic Economic Plan - a very sound expenditure; $10,000 for two

preventative mediation officers in the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations - the purpose is to carry out a specific objective in the plan;

$30,000 for two officers in Environment and Lands to help streamline and make

more efficient the environmental assessment process; $65,000 to cover salary

costs associated with extending parks opening season to October 31st and one

month extension - this falls within the responsibility of Tourism and Culture;

$10,000 hiring and training for the meat inspection program with the Department

of Forestry and Agriculture. There was $95,000 spent on furniture and equipment.

That, as hon. members know, was spent there because carrying out one of the

Strategic Economic Plan objectives, the new Department of Tourism and Culture

was established and it was in connection with that.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know. I assume it was tendered in

the usual course.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know, but I can try to find out.

Sixty-five thousand dollars was spent on printing for the

Strategic Economic Plan; $70,000 for transportation and communications, and

there are various subheads - I am going to table it so I don't have to read out

all of this.

There was $560,000 in professional services, which seemed to

get a lot of attention. I tell hon. members, that was development of a

promotional package for business development by the ERC and the Department of

Industry, Trade and Technology, also pursuant to the plan; development of a

marketing strategy for our centres of excellence -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know, but I will find out.

Development of our marketing strategy for our centres of

excellence program for the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology;

$274,000 for the development of the income security -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Do hon. members want the answers? -

development of the income security project by the ERC; development of short-term

job creation strategy through the ERC and the Department of Employment and

Labour Relations; $60,000 for the establishment of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Conservation Core, through the ERC. That ERC has done some very, very good work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: The results will soon become obvious, I

think, to the horror of the members opposite.

There are a number of other things, Mr. Speaker, including

grants to Memorial University: a $250,000 grant to Memorial University to

initiate a fisheries research program; $80,000 grant to Memorial University to

assist in the fisheries symposium held just recently, March 23 to 25. Those are

the kinds of things that are there. So I am happy to table this information, Mr.

Speaker. Now let's see if there is anything else here. No, I think that pretty

well covers everything.

MS. VERGE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel discriminated

against, because I have asked the Premier several times in the two weeks since

the Budget for the list of third-party organizations the government is cutting.

It was one of the top five major Budget decisions announced. He still hasn't

provided the list. He has promised it several times but it still hasn't been

provided.

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

The hon. member knows that is not a point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would like just to comment on, you know,

the attitude that is out there now.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Are you on a point of order?

PREMIER WELLS: I am responding to the point of order that

has been raised by the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. the Premier have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, who is there, has been doing it. He is the person

to ask. Now, I don't know why - maybe the hon. member has a fixation about me. I

can understand that. I know my irresistible nature and I can understand that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: But, really, she would come closer to

achieving her objective if she stopped whining to me all the time and simply

asked the minister responsible to provide the information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. the

Member for Kilbride, a.k.a. 'The Shadow,' I went back to my office yesterday,

and the wall is still gone. I checked with the accountants in the department and

there was no charge to me by whoever took the wall. Apparently, whoever got it,

he got it while I was away and there is no charge in the books, anyway. I

checked for the new wallpaper and there is no new wallpaper. The wallpaper is

just as dirty as it was when he left it. There are vertical blinds, I think they

call them, or venetian blinds upside down, one or the other.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: There was no charge anywhere in the accounting

department for the blinds. I am pleased to advise the House, or sorry to advise

the House, I still didn't get the soap and water from the minister to wash down

my wall.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

asked me a few moments ago about the information on the Constitution clause. As

I told him, the information had been prepared and I am now happy to table it.

MS. VERGE: What about my list?

PREMIER WELLS: Ask the President of Treasury Board. All

the member has to do is ask the proper minister and I am sure it will be

provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify a point there

with respect to the alleged renovations to the suite in Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, there may very well be no charge in Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I

am checking my own accounts to determine what the information is and when we

have acquired the information, Mr. Speaker, I will be presenting that to the

House.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition similar to those presented by

many of my colleagues on both sides of the House concerning the protection of

our school system. The petition requests that we support our Roman Catholic

schools, that people want to keep them, but in so doing, they also recognize the

rights of others to have their own school systems, and so on.

Mr. Speaker, even though a number of these petitions have

been presented and even though government has responded to the petitions, they

still keep coming, and sometimes we wonder why, because usually, when an issue

is dealt with, people say, well, you know, that has been brought up and

commitments have been made. I think what it shows is that there is a complete

lack of trust in the government, that they don't believe commitments even though

they are made in the hon. House.

I raised that with some people and I said, 'Well, you know,

commitments have been made by government that they will not tamper with the

denominational system,' and the reaction was, 'Well, certainly, you don't trust

the government any more than we do, and we want the petition presented to make

sure that people understand a large number of constituents around the Province

do feel strongly about the system,' and when the crunch comes and they realize

what all the facts are, the facts and figures I should say, then, they want to

stand up for the system that has been there for a number of years, that has

served them well and that they will like to keep for a number of more years.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, in saying that, when you talk

to people, they are also very much aware that we must co-operate, we must use

the dollars we have prudently, but the bottom line to it all is, the integrity

of the denominational educational system must be protected and the people who

have some influence within that system must be allowed to carry on their duties

to make sure that they are not there in name only, which is probably what the

government would like to see, but they also have a very important part to play

in the educational system of our Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. NOEL: Mr. Speaker, I have a new petition, I am not

speaking on that one, my -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I have recognized the hon. member. He

says he has a new petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon? The Chair cannot assume that people

want to speak to petitions. So, if hon. members want to rise -

Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not have any

difficulty with that, if that is Your Honour's ruling, but I was standing up to

speak in support of the petition and I saw the Member for Pleasantville standing

up and I guess I just automatically assumed -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The Chair is just simply asking

hon. members to cooperate. When we have these petitions coming from all over the

place the Chair does not know whether an hon. member is rising to support the

petition or whether the hon. member is presenting a new petition. When the hon.

member says that he is presenting a new petition, than the right thing for an

hon. member to do is to rise on a point of order and say that they would like to

speak to the petition and the matter will be taken care of.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that was precisely what my hon.

friend for Pleasantville was doing. My understanding is, if the hon. gentleman

for Burin - Placentia West would like to speak in support of the petition

presented by the gentleman for St. Mary's - The Capes, we would be delighted to

hear from him. A speech from the gentleman for Burin - Placentia West is always

a treat.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the

Government House Leader for coming to my rescue and ensuring that my rights as a

member were not trampled on. I really, deeply and sincerely appreciate the House

Leader for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the petition as presented by

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes, as have basically every member in this

House on both sides who presented these petitions in the last couple of weeks.

It is a very important issue obviously to people right throughout this Province,

not just the people from St. Mary's - The Capes riding but people from all

throughout the Province. I believe that the church groups that have gone out and

solicited support from their parishioners, and indeed from the constituents of

several towns and communities throughout this Province, have done so as a result

of a statement by the Minister of Education. I think that statement was the one

that caused the people of this Province to become very concerned. Yes, the

Minister of Education, when he stated that he would like his grandchildren to

remember their grandfather as the person who destroyed the denominational

educational system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the statement that the Minister of

Education made and it is that statement which has caused a tremendous amount of

mistrust in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anxiety.

MR. TOBIN: Anxiety. I would suspect that the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs would know a lot about anxiety.

AN HON. MEMBER: New World Fitness.

MR. TOBIN: Well, he would know more about it if he joins

that.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think the petitions that have

been presented are extremely important. There is one thing that probably should

be done, that has not been done as it relates to the circulation of these

petitions and that is, I would like to congratulate the Member for St. John's

North. I see him over there now soliciting funds again but the Member for St.

John's North deserves to be commended because when the Premier sent out for a

minister to rescue this piece of business a few weeks ago, because the churches

and other groups lost confidence in the present Minister of Education, the

Member for St. John's North was readily available, as I understand it, to accept

the Premier's invitation, he stepped in and he did a good job. I commend the

Member for St. John's North for having to come to the rescue of the government,

to give advice on educational matters and again, it makes it very clear to the

people of this Province, that not only have they lost the confidence of the

present Minister of Education, but indeed the Premier lost his confidence, in

order to have to bring in the Member for St. John's North.

I believe the petitions are extremely important, I believe

they're useful, and I believe that government today, tomorrow and next week,

next month and next year must indeed insist upon the constitutional rights of

all of these groups being protected and remaining protected. It is not enough to

do it, Mr. Speaker, to say we're going to do it, because we're going into an

election campaign, and then hopefully, on their part, they would like to see it

changed afterwards. That is not something that we can tolerate; that is not

something the people of this Province should tolerate.

Unfortunately, it may be disappointing to the Minister of

Education that his grandchildren may not be able to remember him as the person

who destroyed the denominational education system, but remember him as the

person who was basically trod over by the Premier and the Member for St. John's

North, who gave sound advice and the constitutional rights of the denominational

system remained intact.

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

MR. NOEL: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here that I

wish to present on behalf of the parishioners of Mary Queen of Peace parish,

which is located in my district. It's a large parish, and they've also provided

copies of the petition for the Members for St. John's Centre, St. John's East,

and St. John's East Extern, since many of their parishioners also reside in

those districts.

The prayer of the petition reads: we the undersigned are

committed to the highest-quality education for the children of our Province. We

support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we

support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support

cooperation between the churches in education, especially shared-service schools

where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people

in our Province taken away, and we ask you, as our representatives, not to

tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns of these parishioners have been

reiterated many times in this House over the past few weeks, and most recently

by my friend for St. Mary's - The Capes. I've met with the representatives of

three parishes so far that I've presented petitions for. I must say, it's not my

impression that they are continuing to present these petitions, or to have them

presented, because of a lack of trust in the government and what the government

is planning.

I've been told that the petitions were inaugurated prior to

the statement made by the Premier in this House on March 12, at which time he

said: "...church leaders and government have agreed to immediately begin

discussions on a proposed model developed collectively by the churches. We are

confident that through this process we will be able to address the need for

major reforms to the administration and delivery of educational services in

Newfoundland and Labrador. The ultimate goal of both government and churches is

to enhance the quality of educational opportunities for our children and achieve

greater efficiency in the educational system."

My understanding is that most of the petitioners in this case

at least, and in the case of the other petitions that I've presented, are

satisfied with the position taken by the government and by the leaders of the

church. They simply started these petitions before that position was stated.

Since they had them in hand they wanted to make sure - and indeed, they want to

make sure - that we are aware that they want to retain the opportunity to have

religious education in our schools.

They have all made clear to me that they want to have the

most efficient, the least expensive, the best quality school system we can

afford. They are prepared to share to the maximum extent possible, and they

encourage all other Newfoundlanders to do likewise. They believe that the

denominational system has instilled some values in Newfoundlanders over the

years that have more than justified the system. More than justified, in fact,

any cost that it has resulted in in the past.

They realize now that we have to do everything we can in

order to ensure that we have the best possible system in the future. They are

prepared to support whatever government is able to do as long as government

makes sure that there is room for the churches, to ensure that their believers

have an opportunity to be brought up in accordance with their values and

principles, and those of their parents.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a

petition on behalf of 3118 residents of the district of Port au Port. The prayer

of the petition is similar to others that have come into this House: We the

undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for children of our

Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them in the same

way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also

support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared

service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights

of people in our Province taken away. We ask you as our representatives not to

tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the petition was taken up throughout five

parishes in the district. They were the parish of Our Lady of the Cape, Our Lady

of Lourdes, Maria Regina, Our Lady of Mercy, and Our Lady of Fatima. This is the

largest petition that I have delivered to this House of Assembly in the eighteen

years I have been here. I think that shows something about the way the people of

the area feel about their church/school system. Taking into account as well, I

suppose this shows, that with all the hardships in the district, the

unemployment, the closure of the fish plant, the poor fishery, the bad roads,

and all the other things, people are concerned about spiritual things as well

and feel that these things are most important to them.

It is my feeling that we should not always try to be like

someone else. Institutions, no doubt, must change and evolve but I think it is a

mistake to throw out the whole institution when all that is needed is reform. I

think the churches are being very fair about this and I do hope that this

government is not putting the issue aside until after an election, and that they

do not have a hidden agenda which we will see after a provincial election, if

they were to be elected. I would hope that would not be the case. In this

Province we have achieved great things under very adverse circumstances.

Students who were educated in Newfoundland in our church school system have gone

and excelled throughout the whole world, and we have nothing to be ashamed of

when you consider our history.

There is no doubt that we should continue to strive to

improve the quality of education that certainly can be enhanced. I believe we

must build on what we have, and I believe we have a firm foundation. There is no

doubt that efficiency can be achieved, costs can be lowered, and there is no

doubt that sharing can be accomplished and it can be done within the

denominational system. I do hope that government is not marking time. I hope

they are not concealing their agenda, as I said, in hope they will win the next

election, and I hope they will not carry out those brutal reforms.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Verde.

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

I rise today to present a petition.

MR. SPEAKER: I see again there were two members standing.

I assume the hon. Member for Trinity -Bay de Verde was presenting a new

petition.

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

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

I present a petition today on behalf of 480 constituents from

the communities of Grates Cove, Bay de Verde and Red Head Cove. This petition is

similar in nature to the ones presented by my hon. colleagues here today. The

prayer of the petition though is somewhat a little different: We the undersigned

are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province.

We support denominational education and we support the joint service schools in

our area, with the right to have our children taught the religion programs of

our respective denominations. In the same way we respect the rights of other

denominations to have the schools they desire, we do not want our rights and the

rights of other people in our Province taken away, and we ask you as our

representatives not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution

of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I met with the group and when they presented

this petition they pointed out to me there were some changes to the original

petition that had been circulating in the area. They added the part where we

support the joint services in our schools and the reason for that, Mr. Speaker,

is that, these communities came together some years ago. Some fifteen years ago,

the Roman Catholic school board in the area and the Integrated school board in

that area, formed joint service schools for the area. Prior to that, there was

something like, in those three communities seven small schools, one and two-room

schools, now there is just one primary and elementary school and one high

school, and the people in that area really have seen the value of, and the

quality of education improve by having joint services, so they certainly do not

want to see any changes in that. They do not want to go back to the system that

they had before and at the same time they want to respect the rights of the

churches and the individuals around this Province to have a denominational-based

education.

This is the system, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. colleague from

St. John's North, the former Minister of Education, has referred to on many

occasions as the type of system that we should work and move towards in this

Province, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the committee and the group who are

looking at a model for the future education in this Province should have a look

at the system that is already in place in the Bay de Verde area. Mr. Speaker, I

support this petition and I present it on behalf of my constituents.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is an hon. member who is speaking

in support of a petition, they could let me know.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, just a word. I was not going to

speak but after hearing the latest presentation I should rise to support my

colleague. The Trinity Bay experiment or the Bay de Verde/Old Perlican Accord,

which was signed some years ago is, I think, a model that can be looked at, I am

sure the Minister of Education will look at it as one of the models for the

future restructuring of our school system.

Mr. Speaker, in my visits to the schools I have met with

parents and students and I mentioned last week that I have visited a lot of

schools over the last three or four years, and I found total support among the

parents, the school boards and the students for what has happened in Trinity -

Bay de Verde, and if I might give just one little indication of what can happen

when people do work together and trust each other, they have one high school

that serves as my friend said, all the students in the area, it is operated by

the Roman Catholic board.

What they did, Mr. Speaker, in religious education was, they

used one year for all students, they used the religious education program

developed by the Roman Catholic school system for all students and the next year

they used the religious education program developed by the Integrated board for

all students. That is how they have shared, they are even sharing the religious

education program and I think this is a good example of how, with a spirit of

goodwill and co-operation we can move forward, and I am pleased to support the

petition presented by the member, and say again how proud I am of the

government's agreements with the churches to move forward in this very important

area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. GREENING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present to this hon. House a petition on

behalf of 1,129 residents of the communities of Lethbridge, Bunyan's Cove,

Cannings Cove, Winter Brook, Brooklyn, Portland, Port Blandford and Jamestown.

The prayer of the petition reads: 'To the hon. House of

Assembly: In the interest of tradition and preserving our forests and wildlife

for our continued use and enjoyment we, the undersigned, are opposed to

clear-cutting within a five-mile, eight-kilometre radius of our communities.'

The forest industry has been a traditional way of living for

the domestic cutters and the commercial operators, and I believe it can continue

in the same or a similar manner if the hon. Minister of Forestry would agree to

meet with both groups and let the residents have an input into the management of

the forest industry.

I do understand that the minister did meet with the

commercial operators, but the members of the Save Our Forest group and the

petitioners are wondering if and when the minister will agree to meet with these

people and discuss the future of the forestry as it pertains to a five-mile

buffer zone, where applicable, and I do believe there is room for negotiations

there if the minister would agree to meet with the Save Our Forest group and

with the petitioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Kilbride, on behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public

galleries, today, Councillor Bernice Walker from the Norris Arm council in the

district of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am pleased today to rise in my place to support the

petition so ably presented by the Member for Terra Nova. It is the second time I

remember a petition on such an issue being presented in this House of Assembly.

There was at least one other that I remember speaking on at the time, and the

Member for Green Bay from this side spoke on one - similar petitions. The

petitions only express the people of the area - some of the people of that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) some.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, some, yes. I don't disagree with

that. They express what these people feel about the forest management that is

taking place on the Bonavista Peninsula. That is legitimate for those people,

and quite a few of them actually, with three petitions.

What they are asking is for the minister to go out there,

look at the site, look at the area, have a meeting with them, and then let us

see if we can find a compromise to save the jobs that are being created out

there in the forest industry, the sawmilling industry. It is tough going out

there.

I remember when I was Minister of Forestry. There are quite a

few mills out there, and there is a diminishing supply of wood. Now, there is no

doubt about that - we know that. But what the people of the area are asking the

minister to do is - they are telling you first that they have some concerns

about what is happening, the clear-cutting that is happening around the

Bonavista Peninsula. Then they want you to come out and have a look at it,

because it does have a drastic effect on you when you go and look at the areas

that are being cut - I won't say being devastated because it is a forest

management practice. Clear-cutting is a forest management practice and I am not

a trained forester so I cannot comment on whether it is good or bad. I don't

think it is the perfect way to go. I know, in the Scandinavian countries they

are changing from what they used to have as complete clear-cutting to some

clear-cutting, some non-cutting, some clear-cutting. That is what is happening

in Scandinavian countries now.

Mr. Speaker, what upsets me even more than this, about the

minister refusing to go and meet with these people - a simple request. That is

what our job was. When I was Minister of Forestry, or Minister of Agriculture,

or Municipal Affairs, if people asked me for meetings and I could possibly get

there I would go. I didn't have to bring a pocketful of money with me, I didn't

have to promise them the sky. I didn't mind the controversy. I went out to that

same area, actually, right in the middle of the Sprung controversy, and I took a

lot of heat, but I wouldn't refuse to go out and speak to those people, and that

is what the minister should do - go out and see what the problem is.

Now, maybe you can convince them that you are right; that you

are going to refuse their request. But what is even more sad than the minister

not going out is the Member for Trinity North, who has been given petitions on

behalf of his constituents to present in this House of Assembly, and he won't do

it; that is even worse.

The Member for Bonavista South, the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, has been asked to present petitions in this House

concerning that issue and he won't do it. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Terra Nova

has been pleading with the minister to go out and meet his constituent. These

are the two people who are direct colleagues of the minister. It is they, who

should be persuading the minister to go out and meet with them.

I wasn't too fussy about going out to the Member for Terra

Nova's district and getting into the middle of a Sprung controversy with all the

people who were out there. I don't know but that we had a couple of hundred

people from all the development associations that night. But I did it as a

courtesy to my colleague, because he asked me to do it, and as a courtesy to the

people who had the concerns in that area, Mr. Speaker. I went out there, and

certainly, I wasn't considered to be any hero when I left the meeting that

night, but I stood up to it because that was my job at the time. I had to do it.

The Member for Trinity North should remember that it is his

job to try to get you out there to meet with his constituents, and the Member

for Bonavista South should remember it is his job to try to get the minister out

to meet his constituents. You do not have to go out and promise them the sky.

You can go out and tell them you are not changing your mind - that was what I

did with Sprung.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, I didn't smile too much that night.

I did more sweating than smiling that night. But, Mr. Speaker, I told them I

believed in it. I wasn't going to hide away because I was a politician. I wasn't

going to hide away by saying the Premier forced me to do it, or some foolishness

like that. I supported it at the time - I thought it was a good project. So,

that is what the minister should do - go out and take the heat, go out to that

area and meet with the people, meet both sides of the issue and see if you, or

someone on your staff, can come up with a reasonable compromise. You might be

able to address the issues of both sides.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just to finish up, Mr. Speaker, I plead

once again with the minister to go out with his own colleagues, if he won't go

out with the Member for Terra Nova, meet with those people and see if there is

some kind of a compromise that can be reached.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as is the wont in presenting

petitions, I had intended to stand up here and probably be flippant and to deal

with the member with regard to this issue. It is difficult because really, Mr.

Speaker, the two speakers made sense. I agree by-and-large with what they are

saying, and I want to tell the hon. member this, that shortly after the Save our

Forest group came to St. John's, I received an invitation on their behalf to

meet with them. I immediately instructed my officials to respond to the letter

and indicate to them that I was prepared to meet with them in Clarenville, which

I thought was the right place to meet, but that it would have to be - we were

into the Budget process and we were all pretty busy, so it would have to be at a

time when it would be convenient to me under the circumstances. I asked the

officials to identify a time when we could go to Clarenville and meet with them.

I might say something else, Mr. Speaker - in the invitation I received there

seemed to be maybe a softening as they indicated the Save the Forest group had

some concerns for my concerns, and they recognized that there was, indeed, some

legitimacy, I think - and these are my words, not theirs - some legitimacy in

the fact that the other group who were concerned about the people who make their

living harvesting, the local contractors and so on, they indicated in the letter

that they wanted me to come to the meeting with an open mind and they would come

with an open mind. They were prepared to consider the various things that I

thought were very important with regard to forest management on the Bonavista

Peninsula, and to the best of my knowledge - I cannot say with certainty, but to

the best of my knowledge, my desire to meet with them and my intentions to meet

with them has been relayed to them. Now, I cannot say that with certainty

because that would have been done at the Assistant Deputy Minister's level. But

the meeting has been arranged and will be held in the very near future, I would

hope. We will then deal with all the issues.

I might say, so the member will know and so there will be no

confusion in the mind of the Member for Terra Nova, that there is just as much

concern on the part of the people who make their living in the forestry, the

twenty-eight or thirty commercial contractors, commercial operators - they are

just as much concerned about any decision I would make as it would affect their

way of life, as it would affect their incomes, as it would affect their standard

of living. The member had better be careful and not box himself into a corner

here where he appears to be supporting one group or the other because he will

lose either way.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a

petition from 1,287 residents of the Province of Newfoundland. This is, I

suppose, the last of a series of petitions that concern the Daybreak Parent

Child Centre. I know we heard the announcement today from the Minister of Social

Services concerning the change in government policy; nevertheless, these

petitioners have the right to have their petition presented to the House. I take

this opportunity to congratulate them and those who are active in trying to

convince and to knock some sense into this government with respect to Daybreak.

By my calculations, which aren't directly accurate - I think

the statistics aren't necessarily directly accurate, but I suspect that there

were almost 6,000 individual petitioners who had their petitions presented to

this House over the last number of days since the Budget came down in March.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a considerable number. We are

talking about 6,000 people expressing their concern about a service that is

provided, at the moment, directly provided, to about fifty children but involves

indirectly about 200 and some-odd individuals who benefit from the service.

Nevertheless, there are 6,000 petitioners, not just from St. John's but all over

the Province, who took action to support the efforts of those trying to save the

Daybreak Centre, to try to convince this government that they had made a

terrific blunder.

I think it is to their credit that they got involved and

organized. They were committed. They expressed their intention of sitting in

this House every day until the government changed its mind on this issue, and

change it they have. I think that they deserve full credit for the way in which

they went about it. They had a very fine public meeting held at Mary Queen of

Peace hall. It was very well attended by both parents and users of the

facilities, by professionals, and, in fact, by five members of this House of

Assembly. I think that the members of the House of Assembly who were there were

certainly moved by what was said, particularly by the parents, in reflection of

their children who had received help from the Centre.

The Members for Port de Grave, Pleasantville, Humber East,

and Burin - Placentia West were there, as well as myself, representing St.

John's East, where this centre is located. So I want to thank all those on both

sides of the House who played any

part in supporting the continuation of

Daybreak, and those who perhaps provided their support behind the scenes within

the Liberal caucus to convince the Cabinet to change this arbitrary, unthinking

and stupid decision by the Budget process. I think, as I said in my remarks

earlier today, the government is to be congratulated after a fashion for having

the courage to change its mind. I think that is commendable, but it should never

have been necessary, because this kind of decision should never ever have been

made.

It obviously shows the lack of awareness by this government

of the kind of people who are dependent upon the government's provision of

funds, not just directly through the government, but these third-party services.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we still have a big question mark hanging over the heads of

hundreds of organizations in this Province - because they don't know, this

government hasn't told them, whether they are going to cut the legs out from

under them or not, and to what extent they are. We do know that the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation has kicked fifteen agencies out of

accommodation in King George V Institute as a result of the Harvey Road fire. We

know that. We know they are cutting the legs out from underneath them from

rental subsidies over the next three years, phasing it out entirely. We know

that. But we don't yet know how much money they are taking out of their direct

grants and budgets, because the government has yet to tell them and yet to table

in this House the information in that regard.

Perhaps we will have another series of fights by people to

try to maintain services that are so desperately needed. It is too bad that is

necessary, too bad this government doesn't know better.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

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

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

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

like to have a couple of words on the petition just presented by the Member for

St. John's East, just to say that I am delighted. I am very proud of the people

who sent in the letters of support to all the MHAs, who did the lobbying, and

worked very hard to change the mind of the Provincial Government on abolishing

the Daybreak program.

I do congratulate the minister for doing it but, Mr. Speaker,

I do not think that the minister would have even considered reinstating this, or

the Premier would have considered reinstating this, if it was not for the effort

that was put in by the people who use the service of Daybreak and the people who

operate it and all the supporters they have around.

Mr. Speaker, this shows to me once again that if you put

enough pressure on this government, they will change their mind, they will cave

in. We seen it in the fisheries issue when a group of fishermen from Grand Bank

came in and pinned the Premier up against the elevator and the Premier's famous

words at that time were: I would if I could but I can't. But, Mr. Speaker, the

next day $14 million appeared from out of nowhere to deal for a short time with

two or three fish plants that were closing. We also had the same type of an

issue with the student aides in our classrooms and the student aide budget was

cut quite a bit last year, and quite a few of the student aides got the Premier

in Corner Brook after a meeting that he was attending and pressured him into

giving them a commitment that he would continue with their funding. Now it never

did get completely straightened out but it was not abolished. I suggest to the

people who are involved with education, I forget what the initials are now but

the - what is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: VRDP.

MR. R. AYLWARD: VRDP, yes exactly. The people who are

involved with that VRDP program, if they want to get that changed they have to

go public, they have to get their supporter's to go public, they have to lobby

the MHA's in this building, they have to get as many people as they can to point

out the value of it. That is what the people from Daybreak did, they pointed out

the value of keeping the program in place. We all know that it is cheaper to

keep the program, most reasonable people who considered it, say it is cheaper to

keep it place than to abolish it in the long term and that is what we are

supposed to be looking out for, the long term benefit of our Province. I do not

understand why the minister and the Premier, when they were doing their Budget,

could not see that in the long term it would save the Province money to continue

the program.

Also, the same thing with the program for university funding

for people with different disadvantages so that they can - it certainly is a

benefit to the Province in the long term to see as many people as possible get

as much education as they can. If you look at our unemployment statistic's, when

you compare education levels across Canada, people with degrees in Newfoundland,

with a Bachelor's Degree, a Doctorate or a Master's Degree, are at about the

same unemployment level as they are in the rest of the province's of Canada, a

statistic which Doug House, when he was doing that unemployment commission

found, which I found surprising at the time but I should not have. If the

education level - the reason we have such a high unemployment level in our

Province is mainly because of the education level that most of us have acquired

over our lifetimes. Mr. Speaker, if we increase the education of the people

going through the system, all of them, we will then and only then attack the

unemployment problem that we have.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the people who worked

to have the government change their mind and keep the Daybreak program in

existence because we all know in this House of Assembly that it is a good

program and it is a benefit.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHORT: Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on

behalf of 433 residents of the Codroy Valley, with regards to the educational

petitions that have been presented in this House. The last day that I presented

petitions there were over 1700 from St. George's and Stephenville Crossing and

today another 433 from the Codroy Valley. I did not have these the other day, so

it is the third set of petitions and considering, I guess, a district has about

60-100 voters, to have over 2000 petitioners is quite a number in the district.

As I said the other day, having taught for eighteen years in the school system,

I can certainly appreciate the concerns of parents, students and teachers and so

on over the quality of education and what is happening in education.

However, I believe I mentioned this the other day as well, I

believe the report that was done last year, the Williams' Report,

is an excellent document, and over the course of time I feel

that we are certainly going to see the benefits of the recommendations in that

report. It is going to be a slow process and maybe not all of the

recommendations are going to be implemented at one time but hopefully, with the

churches and the Department of Education and PTA's and school systems and so on,

we will see changes brought about in education that are going to be to the

benefit of everyone, and more particularly to students.

We certainly have limited dollars at this particular time,

but the Budget is certainly still putting a fair amount of that into education,

where it should go, because the young people in our Province are our future. So

I am very pleased to present to the House another 433 names from the Codroy

Valley area.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition today on behalf of some nearly

1,500 constituents and the members of St. Peter's Parish.

The petition reads: We, the undersigned, are committed to the

highest quality education for the children of our Province. We support Roman

Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the same way we support the rights of

others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the

churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in

our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper

with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, a covering letter goes on to state: The parish

supports the position taken by the Roman Catholic church in Newfoundland and by

our own parish council in affirming that our rights to educating our children

according to the principles of our faith be retained. We oppose any changes to

our educational system which would eliminate those rights.

It is signed by nearly 1,500 constituents of Mount Pearl who

are very serious and very sincere in their desire to retain the right of the

Catholic church to participate, and all churches to participate, in the

educational system. It is a right which I think many Newfoundlanders feel is a

basic traditional right entrenched in the Constitution, and which they do not

desire to lose.

I might say that St. Peter's Parish is a prime example of

co-operation, not necessarily co-operation between religions and different

schools, although that does take place, but is a prime example of shared service

between the church and the school - very unique. When that building was being

constructed, when the original design was produced, the denominational

educational committee did not have the funds allocated for the cost that the

school was estimated to carry, so the architects were told to go back to the

drawing board. It was a very, very active PTA and school and church construction

committee there, and what they did is that they combined, basically, the church

and the school gymnasium. It is quite unique and I would recommend it to other

parishes and other schools and churches.

What you have is, at one end of a gymnasium you have a

separate area where the altar is located and it forms, in fact, its own chapel,

fully self-contained. Folding partitions separate the chapel from the gymnasium,

so during the school week, during any time of the week, the chapel remains

intact for anybody who would care to go into the chapel and worship, and indeed

services are held there. On Sundays and on other days of the week when services

are being held, when mass is being held, the partitions are simply folded back.

The gymnasium becomes the body of the church. The altar, of course, remains as

it was, so you have a very functional building.

At the other end of the gymnasium there is a stage which

similarly can be blocked off or can be opened up, and on the back of the stage

at the other end there is the cafeteria, so it is a multipurpose thing. All in a

row you have the altar, the gymnasium, the stage, and the cafeteria. Each can be

separated and used individually, or they can be combined, and there are many

occasions when we have seen the altar section, or the chapel, the gymnasium, the

stage and cafeteria all opened to make one larger building.

A very practical, useful and efficient utilization, Mr.

Speaker, of space, of resources and of funds. I would certainly commend it. It

has worked well. The parish would obviously like to have their own church per

se. What they have there now is very functional, has served them well, and the

cost is far less than it would cost to operate a school with a chapel and a

separate church.

The prayer of the petition is to retain the denominational

education system and the rights of the church to participate. It simply asks

that although the parish recognizes the need to streamline and to gain

efficiencies in the educational system that the rights of the churches to

participate in the educational system be retained. Mr. Speaker, I have great

pleasure in presenting this petition and I support the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the

petition so ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Mount Pearl. When we

talk about preserving our Christian schools and the drive that's on now by all

denominations to support the system of education which we have, recognizing the

fact that there are weaknesses, and improvements can occur. Or perhaps, should I

say, pointing out the fact that over the last few years changes are taking place

and people are becoming much more conscious of the need to promote quality

education within financial restraints. In so doing they cooperate and use to the

fullest the facilities and the overall system that we have.

However, it's only when you're threatened I suppose that

people really sit back and take a hard look at the values that we have achieved

through the system of education which has been here in the Province for so long.

Schools are much more than institutions which turn out children with the three

Rs. They also have to prepare our young people to go out into society and fit in

as good-living men and women who will do whatever they can to help each other so

that we can exist together in this great society of ours.

In our Christian schools a lot more takes place than just

offering a religion class for a short period of the day. We have throughout the

school day and school year numerous occasions where the opportunity is there for

the teachers and for others involved in the system of education which we have to

come in and instill in our young people the necessity to look within themselves,

to take a hard look at living in society, that it takes a lot more than just

education. We must know how to cooperate with our fellow men, we must know how

to set examples, we must know how to look after each other, we must have this

Christian feeling that is emphasized in Christian schools.

That goes down to such basics as manners and how we treat

others, how we treat older people, like the Minister of Justice and people such

as that. We have instilled in the young people a respect for society in general.

That transcends perhaps dealing with just people. We can talk about the

environment, whatever else.

So there are values to our school system, values upon which

we cannot place a dollar value. So consequently, Mr. Speaker, I stand once again

only too gladly to support the petition and request that we leave well enough

alone. If it's not broke, don't fix it. Our system has worked well. I think with

a little more consciousness it can work even better than it has in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

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

MR. HEARN: I won't elaborate to any extent at all on this

one, except to say it's from several hundred more people in the Mount Carmel -

St. Joseph's parishes, requesting also that: we support our Roman Catholic

schools and that we want to keep them. In asking this, that we also recognize

the rights of others to have their schools, et cetera. We don't want to tamper

with anybody else's rights but we don't want anybody else to tamper with ours,

and we ask government not to tamper with the Constitution, to make sure that our

rights to preserve our denominational education system exists. We add to that

that not only, in name only, to say: yes, you have the system, it's not going to

be disrupted, but that the church leaders who play such an important role in the

denominational education system should continue to play such a role.

There is no sense in saying, no, your system is there if the

people who have played such an important part and contributed so much to the

system over the years, their powers and involvement are taken away from them. I

think in school construction in particular, the church has played and continues

to play important roles, that it not become a political issue. The worst thing

we could have is during election time, members knowing they could run to the

Minister of Education and get funds to go out around and build schools. That

would be extremely dangerous because that is one area where politicians

basically have withdrawn their hands and that is the way we should keep it.

The building of schools has never been a political issue

simply because it has been controlled by an independent committee, so the

churches should continue to be involved in our system, Mr. Speaker, and we ask

once again, that as the people from St. Bride's said earlier today in the

petition I presented, St. Bride's parish, that once again we leave the system of

education as is and we continue to grow and prosper within the denominational

system in this Province.

Orders of the Day

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

Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, two or three matters I would

like to deal with under Orders of the Day, if I may. The first is, I wonder if I

might have leave of the House to give first reading to the bill of which I gave

notice today, and that is the bill to amend the Election Act which is the old

act I may hasten to add, and part of the bill also amends the Collective

Bargaining Act. May I have leave to give that first reading? The bill is at the

printers, it will be distributed as soon as we do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend from Mount Pearl, I have

consulted with his House Leader who has a draft of it, what's in it is very

straightforward - or if the House wishes - it adopts three provisions that are

found in the New Elections Act but they are not in the present Election Act. One

is the provision that the names of the parties will be on the ballots, the

second is, that non-affiliated candidates, i.e persons who are not party

candidates, may describe themselves at their own choice as either non-affiliated

or just nothing, you know, no description. The other is one that was adopted at

the suggestion of, I think, my friends opposite and we quite concur, the

provision that paid advertising cannot begin until twenty-one days before

polling day.

The amendment to the public service Collective Bargaining Act

as I recollect it, exempts from the ambit of that act the employees of the

Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, and there is one particular employee

there, the assistant chief electoral officer, whom, it is our feeling and we

hope the House will concur, should not be a member of a bargaining unit.

Apparently that person is at present a member, and that is what the bill does as

I recollect because I do not have it in front of me, but what I would like to do

is give it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, yes. I am sorry, I thank my friend.

Also, any advertising medium that wishes to adopt a special rate card, higher

than anything else, is prohibited from doing it. In other words, you can charge

the parties the normal but no more. I say to my friend from Mount Pearl, these

positions are word for word from the new act, and since the new act may not be

in effect if the disillusion comes as quickly as we hope, then we want to bring

them into play. So my question is, may I have first reading?...if so, the bill

could be distributed as quickly as it is available.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave for first

reading?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice shall have leave to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act And The Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act", carried. (Bill No.21).

On motion, Bill No. 21 read a first time, ordered read a

second time presently, by leave.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me try my luck again. There

is on the Order Paper, it is Order No. 10, "An Act To Amend The Internal Economy

Commission Act". (Bill No. 17), which was distributed a day or so past, that is

the bill that reduces the salaries of members of the House and elected officers

of the House by 4.5 per cent. I would propose to call it if members would be

prepared to put it through very quickly and I only put it that way not to

restrict debate, but because I have undertaken and we shall in fact be calling

the Budget Speech so that my friend from Mount Pearl can make his address in

reply -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry, I can only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: We do and we will honour it, there is no

problem about that. I am just wondering whether we could put this through, if

members are so minded, I will call it but if we wish to debate it, we will call

it another time, that is what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Another time, alright. You cannot say I did

not try. Mr. Speaker, before I call the Budget debate, let me note that it's

3:55 p.m. This is the Late Show day. I want to make sure that my hon. friend for

Mount Pearl is not in any way constrained on his Address in Reply. He has

unlimited time, according to the rules. We will gladly listen to whatever he

wants to say. But in order to make sure that he's not rushed today I move the

House do not adjourn at 10:00 p.m. tonight.

MR. WINDSOR: What was that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a point of order,

or...?

MR. WINDSOR: On a point of order relating to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, okay.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I simply point out that the

motion is not in order. Our Standing Orders are very clear. Standing Order 8

states very clearly: "At 10 of the clock p.m., unless the closure rule be then

in operation, the proceedings of any business under consideration shall be

interrupted and Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without question put...." So

there is no question to be put at 10:00 p.m. tonight. The Standing Orders are

clear. The House shall adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Standing Orders can only be changed

by unanimous consent, or can be changed by a vote of two-thirds with motion

beforehand, but leave can only be given by unanimous consent. Unanimous consent

will not be given. The motion is not in order.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That

motion, in my submission, has been made and accepted in this House on numerous

occasions. In my understanding it is in order and that is why I make it. I would

ask Your Honour to rule.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a brief recess to take a

look at the matter.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the matter of the motion that the hon. the Government

House Leader made, although it appears to be against our Standing Orders, that

has been a matter of precedent in this House. We've had several occasions when

it was done - 1979, 1985, and December, or at another time, in this particular

administration. Just on a quick perusal we found at least three occasions -

1979, 1985, and in this year. So obviously it's been a matter of precedent of

this House to allow that kind of motion.

All those in favour of the motion, please say 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!

MR. WINDSOR: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of privilege.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I just give notice that I will

be raising a point of privilege dealing with the issue that was just dealt with

at the earliest possible moment when I've had an opportunity to research.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we then proceed into the

Budget debate? That's motion number 1. Let me say, we propose that the House - I

mean, this happens automatically - it's our understanding the House will rise at

5:00 p.m. for a supper break and come back at 7:00 p.m., and then carry on until

the House is minded to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not certain. Are we having a

Late Show? Are we just going on?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: I think it is up to the House, Your Honour,

to decide if we forgo the Late Show. We on this side will if hon. gentlemen

opposite wish. But that's up to them. I don't know whether any notices have been

given in, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I'll advise hon. members what the

matters are. The matters are: the Member for Kilbride is not satisfied with an

answer from the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture concerning agricultural

zone on the northeast Avalon; the member not satisfied with the Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs concerning findings to the cutback to the

division of community recreation, so on, so sport, recreation. The member is

the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Grand Bank.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Grand Bank.

Motion 1.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I have to say that the motion that was just

passed by the House, moved by the Government House Leader, is clearly designed

to be an infringement upon my rights as one member. I will make these points

later on in the motion that I have given notice of. It is clearly an

infringement. It is tradition. In fact it is clearly protected by our Standing

Orders that the Opposition Finance Critic, or whoever the Opposition Leader

choses to designate as the first speaker in a Budget debate in response to the

Budget, that speaker has unlimited time. Now, clearly the move that was made by

the Government House Leader is designed to keep us here well into the wee hours

of the morning, to keep me on my feet until I collapse. That is his whole game

and I guess we are going to find out now how long I can go without a break. I

will see how strong my bladder is later on this evening, Mr. Speaker. I will see

how long I can go without sustenance, without sleep. It has to be the most

cowardly act of any government.

This is April Fool's Day and the government are the fools if

they think this is going to shut us up. It has been two weeks now since this

Budget was brought down and this government has not had the courage to bring it

before this House for debate. In fact we had a strong suspicion yesterday,

strong evidence that the Premier might go to Government House this morning and

call an election but he does not have the courage to do that either, Mr.

Speaker. We figured he was not going to call the Budget Debate at all, they were

so scared of calling the reply to the Budget Debate. We heard a strong rumour

the Premier was going to go to Government House this morning and call an

election. He has not done that yet but the day is not over, tomorrow is nigh. He

might do it the next day. He might do it next week. He may not go until next

spring. Who knows?

But I suspect, Mr. Speaker, with the blood that is on that

side of the House of Assembly as a result of the last two weeks he is going to

lick his wounds and get out of here pretty soon. He is feeling the heat now.

Clearly this government is feeling the heat when they do everything possible to

stop the Opposition from having their constitutional right, and their rights

under the Standing Orders of all parliamentary traditions to respond to the

Budget Debate. Now, they have brought in a cowardly motion which I have

submitted, Mr. Speaker, and I am not questioning Your Honour's ruling, but I am

submitting is totally contrary to the Standing Orders. If it were done before I

would submit that it was done in error and that there was an error at the time.

Perhaps it was not questioned. Perhaps it was done by consent. I do not know.

Standing Orders are very clear. There is no question to be put at 10 o'clock

tonight. There is no question to be voted on and the motion that was just made

by the Government House Leader, in my view, was totally out of order. I realize

I am straying very close to challenging Your Honour's ruling and I do not wish

to do that. I have great respect for the Chair, and Your Honour has made the

ruling based on the best advice that is available.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the Government House Leader

has now manipulated the rules of the House. He has manipulated the Standing

Orders. He has manipulated traditional rulings, be they correct or otherwise. On

whatever basis, it is clearly a manipulation aimed at cutting off my

traditional, my constitutional, right to unlimited time, and we are going to

limit the time now to whatever I can physically stand up to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a long

night. I tell the hon. members opposite that I am physically fit. I am in great

shape. I am in great form - great frame of mind. I have been waiting for this

for two weeks, and we are going to be here awhile tonight. I can assure hon.

members that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not know if I can go all night, but I

will find out. If I could have other than water in my glass I suspect I would

have a good crack at it, but I cannot, but we will be here a long night.

Mr. Speaker, what a cowardly act from the Government House

Leader. It does not surprise me. It is totally in keeping with his character,

but what a cowardly act to try to stifle debate in this hon. House. I have never

seen it before, a government so scared of what is coming at them from this side

of the House that they have to use those kinds of devious tactics to cut off

debate in this House - never before.

It took two weeks before they had the courage to come forward

with the Budget Debate, under the guise that: Well, we had to have Interim

Supply by the end of the month, by today. This being the first day of the fiscal

year, this government had to have fiscal supply. They did not need it today.

Tomorrow would have been plenty of time. There were no bills so urgent - I do

not know if there are any payments to social assistance recipients due today, or

whether it is Friday. Perhaps tomorrow they were due a payment. Certainly payday

for government personnel is not until next Wednesday, so we did not have that

problem, and I am sure none of their bills are so urgent they had to be paid

today.

Nevertheless, the Opposition had no intention of holding up

Supplementary Supply, not to our advantage. An opposition would only debate

Supplementary Supply at length under a circumstance such as this where a

government refused to call the Budget Debate. There are so many hours allocated

- seventy-five hours, as the House Leader pointed out correctly a few days ago -

with so many hours, some forty-eight hours, I think, allocated for the

committees, at three hours apiece, and so many hours allocated then for debate

in the House of Assembly for those three subheads, I believe it is, that are not

debated - not sent to committee. So that leaves a total, I believe, of eighteen

hours for debate on the estimates, on the concurrence debates, and on Interim

Supply. That all comes out of it, so we were going to have that many hours at

any rate, so it really does not make any difference, and it is not to the

Opposition's advantage to debate Interim Supply ad nauseam, because the time is

simply coming off your time for the Budget Debate anyway. So we would have much

preferred to get on with the Budget Debate, and traditionally the Budget Debate

begins with a response, on behalf of the Opposition, to the minister's Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I say once again, it was a cowardly act not to

call the Budget Debate, but it is even more cowardly, now that they have finally

called it, to play these parliamentary tricks - very low level parliamentary

tricks, in my view against the rules, but it has been judged otherwise -

parliamentary tricks to limit the amount of time that is available to me.

I may well want to sit down in half-an-hour, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology should look in his new briefcase and find some other

argument. This is April Fool's Day, but you are not going to fool the people by

saying: Oh, the member has unlimited time. He could go all night and all day

tomorrow if he wanted to. Who are you fooling? Do not lower yourself. I have too

much respect for the minister, as an individual, to allow him to lower himself

to that level. He is not going to fool the people. He is really not.

So, it will be very clear to anybody who is observing - I

don't know if there is anybody alive up in the press gallery but they normally

are very diligent in paying attention from the back room in listening to -

AN HON. MEMBER: Every two hours I will ask if you will

take a question - a question at least five minutes long to give you a break.

MR. WINDSOR: I would appreciate that, if the hon. member

will give me a five-minute break every two hours; that will keep me going for a

long period of time. I can go take a wakey-wakey pill, run to the men's room and

perhaps even get a sandwich in the meantime. If I could bring a cup of coffee

and a sandwich in here I could stay on for a long period of time. I could last a

long while, Mr. Speaker. I can go into hibernation for quite a period of time. I

am not about to fade off the face of the earth between now and Easter Sunday,

you may rest assured. I can assure hon. gentlemen they will be having breakfast

here tomorrow, they may rest assured of that. If this is the game they want to

play, I can play the game. If it were permitted for me to take off my coat, I

would take off my coat and if I could bring in slippers to wear, I would make

myself comfortable, loosen my tie and settle in for a long winter's night of

debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: We will ask you some questions.

MR. WINDSOR: We will have a few questions. We will have

plenty of time to debate the Budget. But this is April Fool's Day and what a

foolish attitude for a government to take. The only fools around here are the

government if they think they are fooling the people of this Province into

believing that this document, this Budget, is of any consequence whatsoever.

This is a charade, Mr. Speaker, let me make that very clear.

This whole thing is a charade so that they can go forward and say: 'We gave the

Member for Mount Pearl his opportunity to respond, we gave him unlimited time.

Unfortunately, he fell asleep at 10:00 o'clock in the morning, but we did give

him his unlimited time.' That is only a charade to cover up the fact that this

Budget is a meaningless, worthless document. I wondered why, over the past

couple of months I was hearing from public servants, 'There is no great push on

doing a Budget. There is no great rush. Maybe we are not going to have a

Budget.' Then I began to wonder, maybe we are not going to have a Budget, maybe

the Premier is going to go to the polls before he brings down a Budget. I

wondered, indeed, if we were going to, in fact, come back after Christmas at

all. I had some thought on my mind that he might pull the plug sometime before

we came back. When did we come back, late February, early March? I had thought

perhaps that was the plan, because people have been around awhile. I know a lot

of public servants, particularly those involved in the Budget process. I had a

total of five years, I guess, or four years, either in Treasury Board or

Finance. So, I am very knowledgeable of the budgetary process and the people who

are involved. Mr. Speaker, I was told there was no great rush, no great amount

of overtime, no great delving into the Budget, not a great deal taking place.

Well, then I found out what was happening, they weren't doing

anything. They basically came back with slight adjustments for this year based

on the normal projections but there was no effort this year to go through the

Budget and scrutinize each heading, item by item. There was no axe to cut item

after item. How come, I asked myself? Why are we not going through the process

that has been gone through every year of examining every sub-head in every

department? Well, then I found out on Budget day. In came the Budget, Mr.

Speaker, that basically contained nothingness. He said we have a problem - now

the Premier was telling us that. But he said, We have a problem - we have a $121

million deficit. That is the best we can do.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, government didn't make an effort to

look at the sub-heads to see what programs could be cut, what programs could be

eliminated if they have outlived their usefulness. Maybe there are three or four

programs in a department that could be eliminated and a new program instituted

to replace it, a much more effective program for to