March 22,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 10

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members today we would like to welcome to

the Speaker's gallery six of the finalists for the 1992 Youth of the Year. We

have Colin Barker, Open Hall, Bonavista Bay; Jennifer King, Gander; Michelle

MacWhirter, Stephenville; Christopher Patey, St. Anthony; Laurie Potter, Bay de

Verde; and Gelene Slaney of St. Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

winner for 1992.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, I would like to welcome to the

galleries today fifty-nine students from MacDonald Drive Junior High School in

the district of Pleasantville. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Doug

Gosse and Mr. Scott Hewitt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members of the House

of Assembly and residents of this Province of my department's plans to call

tenders for highway improvement and construction projects. This year's

Provincial Capital Roads Program, totalling $25.5 million, includes the

upgrading and paving of gravel roads, resurfacing of existing paved roads, and

repairs to existing bridges and causeways throughout the Province. As well, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to advise this hon. House that my department will continue

with our ongoing highway dust and right-of-way growth control programs. As this

is our Provincial Highways Program, projects are 100 per cent provincially

funded.

Mr. Speaker, the projects to be carried out under this

Provincial Capital Highways Program reflect the priorities established by my

department to improve the overall transportation infrastructure of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The government realizes that the projects I am announcing today

will not meet all the requirements for highway improvements throughout the

Province. However, given the restraint that the government must adopt, the

amount of funds approved for this purpose is significant and will boost

employment throughout the Provincial highway construction industry.

Mr. Speaker, tenders for the work will be called as soon as

possible, and it is anticipated that all projects will be tendered by early

July. For the information of my Honourable Colleagues and the general public I

have listed each project separately. I might add, on Friday past, letters should

have went out to all members of the House of Assembly advising them of the

projects in their particular districts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the

minister as well for a copy of his release before the House opened.

Mr. Speaker, when the minister rose today and said there was

$25.5 million allocated for roads in this Province, this shows that your

Government does not have roads as a priority because when the government

previous to the Government that is sitting today, the last year that they were

in power, there was $40 plus million spent on roads, on provincial roads. So,

there is no big deal with your $25.5 million.

The other point I would like to make to the minister, is that

this should be tendered by now, not announcing it today, the tender should be

out there to start the roads when the snow leaves the ground and there are a lot

of areas now that some of the work could be done. I had a call from Brittany the

other day, complaining about the road situation down there. Why was it not

tendered already? What is the delay on this, what kept it? I know it had to be

in the Budget but my goodness there should be tenders called for this. This is

essential to our road network in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is late and there were some areas which

were completely forgotten because in my district of St. John's East Extern, we

did not get one plugged nickel, not a halfpenny and we have as much problems

with our roads as anyone else. We did not get a nickel and let me say this to

the minister: if he wanted to do something to compliment this entire area, St.

John's and its environment, he should be already off his feet. He should not

have to be waiting to make an announcement, the Outer Ring Road should be now in

progress.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker:

It is with profound dismay that I inform this House of a

reprehensible action taken by the Federal Government that callously disregards

the best interests of people of one of our oldest fishing communities, by

effectively erasing their rightful share to half a fish quota for their local

plant. I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the announcement made on March 19 by my federal

counterpart, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who disclosed certain actions

being taken with respect to the federal agreement with Seafreeze Foods

Incorporated for the operation of the company's fish plants at Burgeo and at

Canso, Nova Scotia.

I point out to hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement

in question is one that was never made public, and one that the Province had

grave reservations about right from the outset because it was our fear that

there was no guarantee that fish landed for the company would be processed at

Burgeo. We objected, for one thing, to the fact that the 1990 sale price of the

National Sea plant to Seafreeze reflected the sale of fish quotas rather than

other assets and equity. We asked the federal government on numerous occasions

to provide us with details of its agreement with Seafreeze, and we asked that an

investigation be done to determine whether the company was complying with the

terms of the agreement, in particular with respect to commitments to process

fish at Burgeo. On February 22, 1992, Mr. Speaker, the federal minister did

inform me in writing that under the 1990 federal agreement with Seafreeze, the

company undertook to process at Burgeo 50 per cent of the groundfish quotas

transferred from National Sea, 40 per cent of underutilized species allocated

under the Groundfish Developmental Program, as well as 40 per cent of any fish

bartered with the former USSR in exchange for silver hake and caplin.

It is important to remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of

the transfer of 19,000 tonnes of various species of groundfish from National Sea

Products to Seafreeze in 1990 that Burgeo was entitled to 50 per cent of that

amount. With quota reductions since then, this amount is now 10,900 tons. This

means, that under the terms of the agreement referred to, Burgeo would be

entitled to 5,450 tons.

Mr. Speaker, with the federal minister's announcement of

Friday past, Burgeo is not likely to see one ounce of that fish. The

announcement has effectively tossed Burgeo's fate to the wind. Incredibly, the

federal minister has given SeaFreez full licence to transfer the full 10,900

tons to Canso, Nova Scotia, for processing. It is a licence to wipe out Burgeo's

50 per cent share of the SeaFreez groundfish allocation. It is a licence to deny

Burgeo access to fish which has been traditionally processed there. It is an

action that would seal the fate of Burgeo as a fishing community.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot fathom why the federal minister would

even contemplate such action, much less agree to it and then pour salt in the

bleeding economic wounds of Burgeo by communicating his decision to SeaFreez

with the message that, "an important objective of the remedies is to ensure

adequate allocations for the operation of Canso."

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, one can only conclude that the same

concern for the operation and future of the Burgeo plant is missing.

The people and community of Burgeo deserve better treatment

from their Federal Government. The decision with respect to the transfer of fish

from Burgeo to Canso should be resolved immediately by the federal minister.

I point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that this callous action is

yet another prime example of the ever growing need for joint fisheries

management for Newfoundland and Labrador. Not once was the Province consulted on

the special concessions awarded to Canso at the expense of Burgeo. Instead, the

Federal Government squirms around its responsibility to Burgeo by making false

accusations that the Province turned down a proposal for a salt water system for

the Burgeo plant. Mr. Speaker, I want this red herring discarded once and for

all: a formal proposal for such a system was never - I repeat, never - submitted

to the Province.

As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the unconscionable

treatment of Burgeo by the Federal Government must be addressed. The people of

Burgeo deserve the support of everyone. The federal action should serve notice

that if Burgeo can be treated with such contempt, other communities may not be

far behind. The federal decision must be reversed. I call upon all members of

this House to support this position, and use whatever influence they might have

to convince the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to show the same

concern for Burgeo that he has shown for Canso, Nova Scotia, by reversing his

unjustifiable decision -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: - by reversing his unjustifiable decision

that allows the transfer of thousands of tonnes of groundfish from Burgeo to

another province. I am tabling for members' information, Mr. Speaker, a copy of

my letter of March 18 to the federal minister with respect to this urgent

situation. In this letter I told the federal minister that his decision that

impacts so harshly on Burgeo is not acceptable to the Province and that the

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Member for Grand Bank.

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

It is, indeed, regrettable that the situation in Burgeo is as

we find it today. Most of us, if not all of us, wanted the situation with the

Burgeo plant to work out to provide employment for the people of Burgeo. Of

course, that is what it was all about when National Sea decided to leave. We

were the party in power that put the new Burgeo plant there and we subsidized

the NatSea operation in Burgeo to the tune of $1 million a year, so we know the

history of Burgeo and the problems and so on there. They have fallen on hard

times, Mr. Speaker, like many other communities around this Province. I look at

my hometown of Grand Bank that no longer processes groundfish and, at that time,

that community as well, was looking for the fish that was traditionally

processed there to be left with the community. We all know the phrases of port

quotas, community quotas, and community allocations, but at that time there was

not too much support from certain hon. gentlemen in this Legislature about port

quotas or community quotas for many other communities along the South Coast that

are not now processing groundfish.

AN HON. MEMBER: Times have changed.

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, times have changed.

Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of reservations about the Seafreez

deal in the first place as well, but there is one thing that the Seafreez deal

did and that was enable the people of Burgeo to work up until now, because there

was no other option available at the time this deal was put in place. So, while

I had reservations about it, the Provincial Government expressed reservations

about it, and residents expressed reservations about it, neither the Minister of

Fisheries nor the member at that time had anything else to offer the people of

Burgeo. It is too bad, it is a sad day that this thing has fallen apart, Mr.

Speaker, and one wonders what is going to happen to Burgeo. What is going to

happen to all the other communities along the South Coast? I don't know.

I want to say to the minister that on Page 2 where he talks

about the callous action which is another reason for the growing need for joint

fisheries management between the Province and the Federal Government, I say to

him, yes, indeed, he is correct, because while I think we all agree that the

Federal Government should set the total allowable catch, it should be up to us,

Newfoundland and Labrador, what we do with our portion of that total allowable

catch. I think right here is a glaring example of how this thing could have been

prevented if we had such control. I agree with the minister on that point. I

only hope that before too long we do see a workable agreement reached between

the Province and the Federal Government on that very important issue. Because,

if not, we are going to see many more Burgeos, I say to members opposite.

The people of Burgeo do deserve everyone's support on both

sides of the House. They deserve the support of anyone who can help them. I have

gone through it in spades for the last twelve years myself, with my hometown and

many more communities in my district. I have gone through it, in some cases,

three times. It is very difficult. There is nothing worse than to be filled with

uncertainty and not knowing where you are going to get your next meal. That is

really what the people of Burgeo are facing and I only hope there can be a

solution found to this.

I want to say to the minister as well, in his reference to

the accusations by the federal minister about support for the water line,

whether that is true or not in Burgeo, I can tell members in this Legislature

that there was a similar request from the town of Grand Bank to set up a water

supply to a new operation processing scallops and surf clams in this Province

for the first time, pioneering a new fishing industry, this Minister of

Fisheries and the Minister of Finance and the government did not give them one

nickel to do it. They had to do it in spite of the Provincial Government.

Whether or not it happened in Burgeo, I don't know, but I can tell members

categorically here that this government did not give them one nickel of support

in establishing a new fishery in this Province.

MR. TOBIN: Did they ask for it?

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, they did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think all hon.

members agree that the transfer of quota to Canso from Burgeo is a travesty to

the people of Burgeo and to all the people of this Province.

I don't say that I am very surprised, because I think, I,

like many people, was very suspicious about that deal that was made with

SeaFreez. I recall one of the principals of SeaFreez going down to Burgeo and

dictating, or trying to dictate to the people of Burgeo, under what terms and

conditions he and his company would come to Burgeo, what wages he would pay, and

meantime, we now know he was making an agreement that he had no intention of

keeping and we now see the end result of that. It is a classic example of

corporate greed taking precedence over the needs of fisheries workers in this

Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I join with the Minister of Fisheries and

the Opposition House Leader in condemning the actions of the Government of

Canada and of SeaFreez in taking that allocation.

I don't think, however, there is a simple answer from the

Minister of Fisheries to say that what we need is joint management. We haven't

heard a word from this government about what kind of management they want. We

haven't heard whether they support enterprise allocation, which is the root

cause of this problem in the first place. Are they in favour of port allocation?

Are they in favour of community quotas today? Are they going to tell us which

fish plants they intend to keep alive? Why, in this Budget, do we have money

taken out of the Fisheries Loan Board? Why do we have money taken out of the

Department of Fisheries? Why do we have money taken out of government support

for fisheries-related agencies in this Province, at a time when we need to have

some planning done by this Province and by the people involved in the fishery to

decide what to do here?

I would like to see, instead of the Minister of Fisheries

getting up in this House and complaining about the government in Ottawa, like

the Member for Eagle River does all the time, that he start saying what they

intend to do with any kind of management that they might be able to get their

hands on, Mr. Speaker. Because the people of Newfoundland deserve an answer to

that question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House

that Florence Delaney has been appointed Assistant Deputy Minister in the

Department of Education. She will be responsible for Finance and Administration.

Ms. Delaney has held a number of important positions during her twenty years as

a public servant and has performed her duties proficiently.

She joined the public service in May 1973 as an

administrative officer with the Department of Consumer Affairs. In May 1975 she

moved to Treasury Board as an organization and management analyst and held that

position until October 1981. She then transferred to the Department of Finance

as a management analyst and remained in that position until November 1983. She

then became director of finance and general operations in the Department of

Works, Services and Transportation, a position she held until January 1990. Ms.

Delaney then returned to Treasury Board, where she has stayed until today's

announcement, as Director of Budgeting. She has been responsible for overseeing

preparation of the annual budget, the monitoring of that document, preparation

of fiscal plans, and the provision of advice to Treasury Board on a variety of

financial matters.

Mr. Speaker, Florence Delaney was born at Clarke's Beach in

Conception Bay. She graduated from Memorial University in April of 1973 with a

Bachelor of Commerce Degree. I am sure that all members will join me in

congratulating Ms. Delaney on her new appointment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will join the minister in congratulating and wishing all

the best to Ms. Delaney in her new position as an assistant deputy minister.

With her background in budgeting and preparation of the annual budget, I am sure

she has expertise, and it is unfortunate that some of the elected officials do

not have the same degree of prudence and are not as wise as the person who makes

the recommendations. Hopefully, after the next election, there will be a

government that will acknowledge the wisdom of those public servants in the

preparation of the budget, especially in Education now, an area that is so vital

to the future of this Province. We hope that the mighty axe of governments won't

slash another $20 million from December and another $20 million now from the

current Budget again, and hopefully she will be able to perform her duties and

make recommendations that will be heeded for a change. We wish her well and I am

sure she will be an asset to the department.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to thank the Minister of Education for making

available a copy of his Ministerial Statement. I wish to join with the minister

and the Member for Ferryland district in congratulating Ms. Delaney on her

appointment as Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance and Administration in the

Department of Education.

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see competent women with

much experience in the public service being promoted to the assistant deputy

minister level and I congratulate the minister on the appointment.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: I have a statement today, but I must apologize

to the hon. the Member for Harbour Main, my critic, he did not receive it before

he came to the House. I immediately gave him my copy to have a look at so that

he wouldn't be left totally in the dark, being very honourable in that respect,

I thought. He did receive his copy and I hope that while the other three

ministers were making their statements he did have time to read the statement

carefully and put his reply together.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the

House a number of actions that I have directed with respect to emissions from

the Newfoundland Processing Limited oil refinery at Come By Chance.

When Newfoundland Processing Limited was issued an operating

permit, the department required the company to carry out a monitoring program

for sulphur dioxide, which is the most common pollutant associated with oil

refineries.

This monitoring is conducted on a continuous basis at sites

in each of the communities of Come By Chance, Sunnyside and Arnold's Cove. The

data collected in the monitoring program is provided to the department to ensure

that the company complies with the terms of their operating permit and the Air

Pollution Control regulations.

In recent months, the monitoring data have indicated that

emission levels of both hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide may be exceeding

provincial limits, and are high enough to be of concern to my department.

It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the data are not

definitive. However, the assessment suggests the need for some further action by

the department to verify the data and ensure that the interests of the public

are protected.

Mr. Speaker, based on the internal assessment of the

monitoring data, the following actions have been taken:

I have issued an order to Newfoundland Processing Limited to

institute some immediate corrective measures to control emissions and to improve

their emissions monitoring program.

The department is in the process of engaging the services of

a consultant to independently evaluate the department's assessment of the

monitoring data, and the conclusions which have resulted. This action will

provide improved data for decision-making by the department and position the

department to more quickly respond to any new emissions data.

The department will carry out some special short-term

monitoring projects to determine longer term monitoring requirements and needed

change to the refinery process.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, representatives of my department

will be meeting with the citizens of the surrounding communities to discuss

their concerns and outline the department's response.

The department will also meet with representatives of

Newfoundland Processing Limited to impress upon them the importance of these

measures.

Mr. Speaker, these actions will deal with certain problems at

the refinery, resulting in a fairly rapid reduction in the release of certain

pollutants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the surface this seems to be a very good statement, a very

positive statement, and I would commend the minister for finally taking some

action on this particular issue - and I say finally taking action on it. Better

late than never, Mr. Speaker, because as the minister is very much aware, we

have been hearing quite a great deal about this particular issue in the media

over the last year or two year period. We have been fielding complaints from

people around the Come By Chance and Arnold's Cove and Sunnyside area about the

fumes coming from the Come By Chance refinery, that the sulphur dioxide levels

out at Come By Chance and surrounding area were well above normal.

As a matter of fact, I remember the Member for Kilbride

raising this issue in the House back about a year ago and we were given some

assurances by the minister at that time that all was well at Come By Chance, and

that the company itself was doing its own monitoring program.

I would say to the minister that it is not good enough that

the company be given the sole responsibility for monitoring the emissions out

there. It is like leaving a fox in charge of a chicken coop, Mr. Speaker.

The minister has had quite a number of complaints as well

from the Mayor of Sunnyside, and they were given assurances as well that the

sulphur dioxide levels over the last year or two at Come By Chance were quite

normal.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the minister that it is good

that she has finally taken action on this particular issue. Government should

have been involved in it long ago. Government, by virtue of the fact that it has

an occupational health and safety division within the Department of Employment

and Labour Relations, should have been on top of this quite a number of months

ago, or a couple of years ago.

The minister has taken some action. She has issued an order

to the Newfoundland Processing Company to institute immediate corrective

measures, and I would say to her as well that what she should be doing also is

getting on to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and have probably

a full-time person from that department placed on the site at Come By Chance to

ensure that the fumes and the sulphur dioxide is kept within acceptable levels;

but I do commend the minister that she has finally taken action on this matter,

and maybe we will have better news from Come By Chance in the future.

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

have leave of the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to see that this matter is finally receiving

attention from the minister's office and that an order has been issued. It is

unfortunate that it seems to take such a long time for the department to be able

to get in place the kind of procedures that are needed to address this problem.

It leads me to believe that the regulations and laws that are in place are, in

fact, inadequate.

The minister came into this House in the last session before

Christmas with some very punitive measures on other environmental areas, and it

is all very well to talk tough and carry a big stick, but perhaps another method

is needed in places like this where we have a heavy industrial circumstance,

where the likelihood of pollution in exceeding limits is there, that perhaps

having on site, or an ongoing monitoring program that is independent of the

company but paid for by the company so that the taxpayers are not expected to go

out and have somebody on site all the time, at the taxpayers expense, when we

have a situation where there have been complaints before about that site and

they are exceeding limits that are certainly potentially possible at any time,

that it seems to me that an ongoing monitoring program paid for by the company

but independent of the company ought to be a condition of the operating permits

out there, and perhaps the minister should have given consideration to taking

that kind of action in the future.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the

Minister of Finance today resulting from or arising from his now infamous Budget

speech of last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, and one that will be recalled now as the

old one, two, punch. We got one punch in December, when he did all the taxation

and now he is doing all the cuts, so putting it together, two documents to form

one Budget. Let me ask the minister this, Mr. Speaker: does he really expect

this hon. House to pass a Budget which has on the surface a $120 million

deficit, in trying to ask for a blank cheque to reduce it by $70 million,

without telling the House how he proposes to do that? I will go into detail a

little bit later of how I think this Budget is indeed far more than $120

million. Does he honestly expect to get a $120 million deficit passed through

this hon. House?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there is a $51 million deficit on

current account, and a $172.3 million deficit on capital account and yes, Mr.

Speaker, this is a Budget that I expect will pass this House at some point in

time. It is a Budget, Mr. Speaker, that I believe will ensure the future

prosperity of this Province.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, whether it actually passes

through this House or not really does not matter. This is a Budget that will

never see the light of day and will never in fact go into action, as a Budget,

for this particular Province, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister like to tell us,

Mr. Speaker: he says he is going to save $70 million by negotiating with the

public service unions, does he honestly believe that he can do that? When does

he think he is going to accomplish that because every month which passes he

slips by $6 million? So, does the minister think he is going to do that before

the end of March or is it some time later on in the year and what is the impact

of that going to be, Mr. Speaker, if he is not able to do what he says he is

going to do?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all the amount has been

taken out of the Budget, it is a reality, and cannot be changed at this point in

time. Secondly, arrangements will be made in terms of exactly where the $70

million comes from. Absolutely, certainly, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in

advising the hon. member that this is an accurate figure and I also have no

hesitation in advising him that things will be sorted out, given time.

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

Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that $70

million has been taken out, I would suggest to the minister that that is an

absolute fraud, $70 million is in the expenditure estimates. The only $70

million that has been taken out is on the bottom line. The minister expects this

House and the people of this Province to believe that he, with one quick stroke

of the pen, can knock $70 million off of the real deficit of $120 million. The

people of this Province, Mr. Speaker, are not going to be prepared to take that.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this, if he does indeed take $70 million

out of the Budget - I do not for one moment think that he is going to do it by

stealing from the pension plan - how many jobs or what is the equivalent of

that? How many jobs does he expect to be lost, because if he takes that out

totally by way of jobs, we are talking well over 2,000 jobs?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon.

House that Merrill Lynch does not think it is a fraud, Wood Gundy does not think

it is a fraud, the financial houses that we deal with do not think it is a

fraud, I will listen to them rather than the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, we have decided, as we explained

publicly and we have been very open with the people of the Province about this,

that we would allow a little more time for the consultation process to continue

and that the $70 million was being removed from the Budget estimates. I am

confident that before the Budget process is finished, that I will be able to

tell hon. members exactly which headings these will come from and perhaps at

that time we can do an amendment to the headings involved.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister just admitted that

the document we had before us is not worth the paper that it is written on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Now, he might think that he satisfied the

bond rating agencies in New York, Mr. Speaker, but he has not satisfied the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is who he should be listening to and

he will have a chance to listen to them very shortly, Mr. Speaker. The minister

tries to tell us that he is going to save $70 million by cutting from the

pension plan contribution. His own Budget document, only has carried in it, Mr.

Speaker, $54 million.

If it were possible, which it is not, but if it were possible

to save everything that is to be contributed to the pension plan he would only

be able to save $54 million. Optimistically, if he had co-operation from all the

unions he would be lucky to save $30 million. Where does the minister propose to

find the other $40 million, Mr. Speaker, assuming he gets co-operation?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Province has suffered from

years of overspending and building up of the debt, make no wonder we have had to

do things now, make no wonder we are running into difficult times. The hon.

member's numbers are wrong. The hon. member's numbers are incorrect and

therefore his question has no basis in fact and requires no answer.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is wrong,

too, when he talks about the growth in public sector debt. I refer him to Page 4

of his Budget document with a graph which shows a growth in public sector debt

and you will find that the slope is much greater since this government took

office that it ever was before. We will see who is building up the public sector

debt, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will he not admit that his projections are

wrong? His record over the past four years has been abysmal. I stood here in

this House last year in starting my Address in Reply to the Budget Speech and

said: I told you so, I told you so, I told you so. I say to the minister this

year: I told you so, I told you so, I told you so, I told you so. Once again you

will be off by about $50, $60, or $100 million. Will the minister not admit, Mr.

Speaker, that his projections are wrong and that the real deficit that is shown

here is $120 million, his projections are off by at least another $30 to $50

million so we are actually looking at a deficit somewhere in the range of $150

to $200 million. How does he propose to deal with that, or does he expect his

lotteries to bail him out again this year?

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

MR. BAKER: We have been told by the financial

institutions that do analyses of our Budget that we have in fact done an

excellent job in terms of our estimates for our own source revenues. We have

done an excellent job and have been very close to reality, Mr. Speaker, much

closer than other provinces have been able to be. I would also like to comment

on the hon. gentleman's mention of a graph in the Budget. Unfortunately he is

right, there has been a big increase, Mr. Speaker, fuelled in large part by

having to pay interest on what has been charged on the Province's credit card in

the past. That is what we have to stop. Also we have been hit for three years

with reductions in payments from Ottawa. Now one thing I can guarantee the hon.

member, if he will talk to his buddies up along and tell them not to cut another

$100 million from our revenue this year then we will not be $100 million out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister's record speaks

for itself. Just last year he predicted a deficit of $29 million. Had he not

brought in $100 million taxation on December 4, $100 million per annum taxation

on December 4 by his own admission, he would have ended up in 1991-92 with $154

million deficit, a far cry from $129 million to $154 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Does the minister expect he will keep the

deficit to $51 million this year?

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I fully expect to keep the

deficit to $51 million if nothing unexpected happens. If we do not get further

cuts in federal transfers that are totally in the hands of somebody else then we

will live within the $51 million deficit. The hon. member's numbers are wrong.

Even his numbers on the tax increases are wrong. It was about a $63 or $64

million increase in taxes and not $100 million, so the hon. member should really

go back and do a little bit of work on his numbers again before he gets up in

Question Period tomorrow.

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

Member for Grand Bank.

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

For two years in a row now the Premier has given pay

increases to his personal staff in clear violation of his governments wage

restraint program which has been in effect for all public employees. We all

remember the infamous Bill 16 and 17. Now, I want to say to the Premier that it

looks like on average his seventeen or eighteen member personal staff have

received increases of approximately 5 per cent. How does the Premier explain

this pure violation of the law that his government has imposed in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will try and explain why the hon.

member's representation of it is totally wrong. As he knows all people paid by

the public service, I believe, generally have step progressions, including for

example all the political staff in the member's offices.

I believe the political staff of the members opposite all got

step progressions. Maybe not all, most of them do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: They're already at maximum. They were

already at maximum. So they're already way up there. They were put way up there

before. Alright. Mr. Speaker, the step progressions -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - we didn't invent it. The members

opposite put step progressions in place. Everybody in the public service has the

benefit of it. When they get to the top of their classification they get no

more. From my point of view I'd be happy to see step progressions eliminated

too. It would help us control the expenditures somewhat more. I'd like to see

step progressions too. There's only so much you can do. Those step progressions

in many cases are part of collective agreements. Members opposite put it into

the collective agreements. We can't just whip it out of the collective

agreements on whim, Mr. Speaker. They're there. They put it in place for the

public service generally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: That's where it comes from. I'd be happy

personally to see it removed. I'd have no quarrel with having it removed. It's

nothing that comes for my staff particularly.

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

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier knows

that his response is not true. The political staff that is employed in the

Premier's office are on contract by the Premier. They've signed contracts. I

doubt very much if they're on a pay scale with regular salary increments or step

progressions, as the Premier says. He'd like for us to believe that. Most of the

professional public servants in the executive council who work side-by-side with

his staff haven't received a salary increment in the last two years. The

secretary to Cabinet, the director of administration, the director of policy and

planning hasn't.

So what's this all about? That this Premier's staff which is

on contract, has been - for two years, when everyone else in this Province has

been on a wage freeze, has received increases. Isn't it a fact, I say to the

Premier, that the real difference is that he thinks he and his staff are more

affluent and above the law, and he thinks everyone else should eat cake while he

and his staff dip up the caviar, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. It's an example of

fairness and balance. They're people the same as the people who work in the

offices of the hon. members' opposite. They've all been getting step

progressions.

MR. TOBIN: They are not!

PREMIER WELLS: Hon. members opposite, if their staff in

their office don't get step progressions and are not entitled to it, or are not

at the top of their scale, then I can assure you nobody in my office will get

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) step down.

PREMIER WELLS: We can take it back, if you want to, and

that's quite alright with me. If this is what members want to do, cancel step

progressions. Let's see you put your money where your mouth is and bring in a

resolution to do it!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The Chair is recognizing the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's fine

for the Premier to say: let's cut out increments, or cut out pay increases, or

slash, freeze and further rollback someone making $21,000 and $22,000. It's a

little bit different from somebody who has it printed on the television screen

Friday night that they're just about at $100,000 now. A slight difference, I say

to the Premier - $99,846, a little bit different.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier this:

is the Premier aware that the Auditor General in her report found that the

Economic Recovery Commission, appointed by the Premier, paid salary increases to

its staff during, again, the restraint period? Again, in clear violation of the

law. I want to ask the Premier: why are they above the law? Did the Premier tell

them as well that they could dip into the caviar with him and his personal

staff?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I'll table it, it's here.

These are the salary details for the Premier's office going back to 1987. The

former premier was paying his staff more in 1987 than the staff in my office

have gotten in any year since we've been there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: More. In 1987. Six years ago, Mr. Speaker.

The figures are clear. The actual cost of the premier's office was $200,000 or

$300,000 more in 1987 than the cost of my office is today. We're going to look

at the numbers, we're going to look at all of the numbers. We're not going to

look at any half-truths, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second

part of the hon. member's question, the answer is that the member is quite

incorrect. There was one person employed by the Advisory Council on the Economy,

which was changed during the course of the year. As hon. members know, we

collapsed the two - the Advisory Council for the Economic Recovery Commission

plus the Economic Council that had been created by the former members. We put

them into one single council and we saved tens of thousands of dollars by so

doing.

Now I gather from the comment of the Auditor General that one

person who was caught in that transfer over actually had some kind of an

increase and I am having that assessed now, Mr. Speaker, to see where it stands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we know the person who has got caught. I think the press

caught the Premier on Friday and now he is trying to behave the same was as he

did in front of the public of the Province, trying to justify people getting

increases who are making in excess of anywhere between $80,000 and $100,000.

Apart from the fact that the Premier really broke his own

laws - when he broke Bill 16 and Bill 17, he contravened them - how does he

explain it to pensioners, many of them who are now living below the poverty

line, and who have not received an increase in four years, I ask the Premier?

How does he explain that to those on social services? How does he explain it to

the working poor, I say to the Member for Carbonear, thousands of them who are

in the public service of this Province, the working poor?

How does the Premier explain this morally, Mr. Speaker,

having broken his own laws? What kind of moral code does the Premier live under,

I ask him? What kind of moral code is he running this Province under?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are a lot of improvements we could

make. I believe there are a lot of improvements we could make yet. We may well

be able to cut out step progressions for the entire public service. I have no

personal quarrel with it. Let's get the unions to agree and we will cut it out

now for the whole -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Okay, alright. You can pay it to

everybody, opposition staff, public service generally, everybody else, but you

cannot pay it to people who work in the Premier's office. There is something

immoral about that. What kind of standard or hypocrisy is that?

We could take a look at cutting out severance for MHA's who

decide to quit. That is the right thing to do. Let's do it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Let's cut it out now, for those who decide

to quit and draw a pension. Do you think that should be there? Talk about

morality, let's talk about that. Let's do what is right. Let's eliminate it

right now!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Premier will remember on Wednesday I asked

him if he would investigate to see which of his Cabinet members or ministers

bought a briefcase for around $800 in Toronto a little while ago. I ask the

Premier: Has he finished his investigation and does he have that information for

us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in my

absence in the House the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology advised the

House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Not that I know of.

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

supplementary.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Premier

did not do an investigation into seeing if one of his ministers bought an $800

briefcase. On Wednesday the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did admit

that he had a $600 one, which I did not know about actually, Mr. Speaker, but he

did admit having one.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: Will he table, in this

House of Assembly, the receipt and the tax and the expense claim of the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology where he claimed that specific briefcase that

he says was $550?

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is quite right.

On March 17th I rose and spoke in the House briefly about that. I think I made a

brief case in my defence.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the - you wanted the

actual receipt or the actual cost?

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

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

Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I say once again to the Premier: Will he

investigate to see which of his ministers bought an $800 briefcase, and will he

present that expense claim that was charged to a government department? Will he

present that expense claim to this House of Assembly?

Mr. Speaker, is it the Premier's policy that all of his

Cabinet ministers can be buying briefcases from $600 to $800, does he keep the

same policy for himself, and does he have a $600 or $800-briefcase too?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of going

on a witch-hunt. If the hon. member has some information, give it to me I will

explore it, but I will not go on any witch-hunt, unless I start to take a look

at the expenditures and the travel expenditures of the hon. member when he was a

minister - and I have those available, and I will also table those, Mr. Speaker,

at the same time.

Now, if the hon. member has any information that any minister

has acted improperly, well then, please let me know, I will attend to it without

any hesitation but I will not cause witch-hunts, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier about his government's

decision to slash support to, " most third party organizations." I am quoting

from the Budget documents.

The total amount being cut according to the supplementary

expenditure details is $3.6 million. I heard government employees say the

government, the Cabinet actually, made a deliberate decision to omit the list of

organizations being cut from the Budget documents that were printed. Will the

Premier now table the list and let people know the names of the so-called third

party organizations being cut, with the amounts each is losing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will take the questions as

notice and the Minister of Finance or the President of Treasury Board will table

the answers.

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier have the list tabled today, and given the

dependence of many community organizations on provincial core funding or seed

money for generating other funding, other funding from governments, private

sector funding and so on, and for attracting volunteers, can the Premier say how

many jobs will be lost and how much public good will be lost as a result of his

government's decision to withdraw $3.6 million in funding from third party

organizations?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, if the list is ready and

available today I have no doubt the minister will table it today. If it is not

ready today then I have no doubt the minister will table it as soon as it is

ready and I have no doubt that when the list is tabled, the member will be able

to see what organizations would be involved.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Premier explain his rationale for his government's

slashing support, withdrawing support from community organizations and volunteer

groups?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

During the recession in the early 80s, the government greatly

increased its borrowing - and it was sort of understandable at the time - the

problem is they did not have the sense of responsibility to diminish it and

bring it back to normal levels before. That factor, coupled with the cuts in

federal transfers, coupled with the downturn in the economy has greatly

diminished government's revenue; the moratorium on northern cod affecting 25,000

people has further diminished government's revenue, all of that is the

rationale. That, taken together with the sense of responsibility that this

government has to manage the financial affairs of the Province in a proper way,

all of that is part of the rationale for the decision.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Premier once again, with the Minister of Finance

now in his place, will he table the list?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The answer is exactly the same as it was

the first time, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change since the Minister of

Finance took his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: I just want to remind hon. members again,

for the future, Beauchesne, 410 sub-section (9): "Questions should not repeat

questions already asked although this does not mean that other questions on the

same point are out of order." I remind hon. members of that.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services has slashed the

budget of his department by some $15 million of provincial funding, and one of

the areas where there is a very small amount of money, the minister has decided

to slash that as well, and as a result of this the minister, who is well-known

for his bungling of the amalgamation issue, has now charged a savage and

unprecedented attack upon the children of this Province and in some cases their

parents as it relates to the Day Break situation. Let me ask the minister, how

can he justify cutting out the Day Break Program in this Province, when he sits

as part of a Government who allowed the Premier to spend hundreds upon hundreds

of thousands of dollars to do up his suite of offices?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that the Day

Break Program is a worthy one. It has been serving this Province well now for

some twenty years but the decision is taken, Mr. Speaker, to downsize that

program and the mandate as it was shaped will be changed. We will continue to

look after the sixty-five children who are in the centre right now. I have had

the Board of Day Break in to see me, they were in this morning. We will be

reshaping that program. Mr. Speaker, in better times, hopefully we will

reintroduce this program and expand it throughout the Province but this time it

has to be changed and we will continue to provide services for the children

involved in Day Break.

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this project was started some

years ago as a pilot project and has been extremely successful and it is not

enough to say that we would like to have it in other areas of the Province and

because we cannot afford to do it, we will have it nowhere. That is not fair to

the people who have been in the Day Break system, I say to the minister. Let me

ask the minister if any other daycare centres in this Province or anyone else

who are attending daycare centres in this Province, will be affected as a result

of this Budget?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, there have been some changes in

the grants allocated to daycare centres. We provide a yearly grant, it ranges up

to $1000 per centre, that has been changed. It is now 50 per cent, depending on

the size of the centre and there is an allocation per child as well that has

been changed to 50 per cent of the current rates.

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

West, on a supplementary.

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

admitted that he has attacked everyone in this Province basically, who attend

daycare centres, I would like to ask him, what about the grants for children of

people who are the working poor in this Province, who have children attending

the daycare centres, is there still an incentive in place for these people? Has

he now relegated the people who are only on social assistance and forgetting

about the working poor who takes advantage of this program as well?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right

when he states that children of people in receipt of social assistance will

continue to receive full benefits and full subsidy under our daycare program,

not unlike all other programs in the department, Mr. Speaker, that are provided

to children of recipients of social assistance or in fact, social assistance

recipients and other people who are in our various programs throughout the

department. In fact, there are no carve-outs, no changes in the Budget for any

of those recipients or their children.

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

West, final supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

minister again. Is the minister now saying that the working poor in this

Province, in order to avail of the subsidy program for daycare, will have to go

on social assistance in order to benefit from that program?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that our

programs, under our social assistance programs and other programs throughout the

department, have to be qualified for. The working poor, as the member describes

them, are a different category of persons who are not presently qualifying and I

assume this is the group he speaks of, are not presently qualifying, except in

the cases where their income is topped-up as a result of qualifying and in those

cases of course, they do receive a top-up if they qualify. Otherwise they do not

qualify and are not in receipt of any of the benefits of our programs and that

is normal and will continue to be, as it has in the past.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, it concerns the same program

that has been cut by the Government in this Budget. Is the Premier aware that

the Day Break parent child centre is not really a daycare centre in the ordinary

sense. In fact, it has been operating for twenty years and provides specialty

services to children who are at special risks, Mr. Speaker. The services that

they provide have been proven to be effective tools with family and community

based intervention to save children with special needs and special problems.

Will the Premier not have a second look at this and rescind

this cruel measure which is going to seriously damage children who are already

at serious risk?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there is more to this than

the hon. member has raised. Sure, we would like to be able to continue it, but

if we are going to continue it for St. John's, then we have to put it in place

for the rest of the Province, too. We can't justify cutting out other things

generally throughout the Province and maintaining a special or privileged

situation.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the hon. the Member for St. John's East

wanted the hon. the Member for Humber East to ask a question, I have no doubt he

would have asked her. Now, if she would just be a bit civilized and recognize -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: - that there are two sides to this House

and there is an appropriate process and if she wants to ask a question she can

ask it afterwards.

Now, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when the government looked at

its overall position and took the decisions that it had to take in order to

ensure that it could manage its financial affairs properly, there were a whole

host of considerations. Nobody can question the desirability of having such a

daycare program. What we can clearly question is the propriety of confining it

to one part of the Province and cutting out other equally sound programs

generally throughout the Province to maintain this for one sector of the

Province. The government can't do that. The government has to treat all of its

people on a fair and balanced basis.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a couple of

reports: first of all, the audited financial statement of the Province of

Newfoundland Pooled Pension Fund, for the year ending December 31 1991;

secondly, the annual report for the Newfoundland Liquor Corporation for the year

1992; as well, a list of guaranteed loans paid out by the Province, and a list

of temporary loans raised under sections 44 and 45 of the act, between the

period March 5 1992 and March 3 1993.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, last week, members opposite

asked a variety of questions relating to a contract awarded to Mr. MacKenzie by

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador. I advised the House that I had asked the

Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, to do a complete assessment of it for

me. I am happy now to table two copies of the report that he has provided me.

I should say that in the process there was a legal opinion

that bothers me a bit. The legal opinion revealed that there is a weakness in

the 1982 rules with the suggestion or the lawyer's advice that they do not apply

to executive assistants. I don't see - certainly that should not be the case, if

it is, in fact, legally the case. We will take steps immediately to ensure that

any changes necessary to cause the rules to apply to executive assistants will

be done. I can say, in general, Mr. Speaker, that the report made by the

Attorney General clearly demonstrates that there is no evidence of any improper

conduct by any of those involved and no evidence of any intention whatsoever to

provide for a specific benefit for Mr. MacKenzie.

Petitions

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

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

today to present a petition on behalf of 2,185 residents of my district, taking

in the communities from Little St. Lawrence to St. Lawrence, Lawn, Lord's Cove,

Point au Gaul, Lamaline and Point May.

The petition to the members of the House of Assembly: 'We,

the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education for the children

of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and we want to keep them. In

the same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire.

We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially

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

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

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

Constitution of Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, I, with my colleague, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, received this petition yesterday in Marystown, where we met with

representatives from all around the Burin Peninsula, taking in three districts,

those of Grand Bank, Burin - Placentia West, and Fortune - Hermitage. It was a

very informative evening, I must say. It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon and a

lot of people said: We really thank you for taking your time to come here,

because we know there were many other things you could have been doing today.

It was most informative, I say to members. It is very nice to

chat to people from all walks of life who have very strong opinions on this

particular issue. Yet, one thing they wanted to stress is that they really

support sharing and doing away with and avoiding duplication as much as

possible. That message came through loud and clear, I say to members. It was

very refreshing, really. But, as the petition says, they don't want any

tampering whatsoever with the rights they now have under the Constitution of

Canada.

It was interesting, as well, to hear them chat and discuss

the statement of the Friday before last that was given here in the House by the

Premier and to see the reaction given by the church leaders. There are some who

didn't take a great deal of comfort from it, I say to hon. members. They weren't

really sure that what was said here the Friday before last was really concrete,

that they really could take too much comfort from it.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I present this petition on

behalf of those 2,185 residents of my district, and want to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

petition, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand with the Member for Grand

Bank in the presentation of this petition. We originally planned to do it on a

Friday but because the Member for Fortune - Hermitage wanted to have it done on

a Sunday because it was more convenient for him, my colleague and I agreed, and

we both showed up to accept the petitions from the people of the three

districts. It was a very informative discussion, I must say.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was Oliver there?

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

It was a very informative discussion I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, a discussion that brought people together from three provincial

districts of the Burin Peninsula. They were a group of people who shared a

common objective in terms of the denominational education system and I think it

is fair to say there was a fair amount of mistrust, if that is the word, as it

relates to this government's position. I believe the people who presented this

petition to us yesterday presented it understanding full well that there are

some good recommendations within the Williams Royal Commission. I believe it is

fair to say that these people also feel there is room for sharing within the

school programs of the various schools but, at the same time, these people want

government to respect the constitutional right that is included in the

Constitution and that the adherence of that constitutional right be respected.

What they have asked us to do is ask this government to honour the

constitutional right as it relates to the denominational education system in

this Province. They have asked us, Mr. Speaker, to pass on that wish to the

Legislature of this Province and, in particular, the government, the Premier and

the Minister of Education.

I think it was the Minister of Education who stated in this

House that he would like his grandchildren to remember their grandfather as the

person who changed the denominational education system in this Province. That is

not what these people asked us yesterday. They asked us to request the Premier

and his government to respect their constitutional right and to ensure that the

denominational education system continues in this Province. I stand, Mr.

Speaker, with my colleague from Grand Bank in supporting the request of these

people for having the constitutional right of the denominational system

continued.

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

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: I stand in this House today to present a

petition from some 463 constituents of mine in the community of St. Alban's in

the district of Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir from the St. Ignatius Parish. It is

virtually the same type of petition that I just heard my friends from across the

House presenting from the people of their district. The prayer says, 'We, the

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

of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and we want to keep them. In

the same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire.

We also support co-operation between the churches and education, especially

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

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

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

of Canada.' Now, I think this petition was taken up before the Premier, the

church leaders, and the Minister of Education met to destroy some of the myths

that were out there concerning the Williams Royal Commission. I think the

Opposition, out in the Province, have tried to stir up concerns that they didn't

believe that government and church leaders would get together and come up with

an agreement. They were very, very disappointed, so they have been out there

stirring up suspicions that this thing is really not a fact, but as I sign this

petition with my constituents, my fears are taken away.

The Premier said in his statement in the House on March 12,

he was pleased to be able to tell the House that a meeting between the church

leaders and Cabinet had made significant progress towards achieving a consensus

which will lead to major improvements of the education system in Newfoundland

and Labrador. This has been the objective of both churches and government from

the beginning. Government and church leaders have agreed to work co-operatively

in developing new approaches which will: 1) enhance the quality of education; 2)

achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of services; and 3) make substantial

changes in administration that will lead to a major reorganization of school

districts.

He also went on to say that the government has assured

leaders that it is not seeking to change the constitution that would remove

constitutionally-protected rights of classes of people specifically provided

for.

That, to me, is satisfactory, and I think it is satisfactory

to the people who signed this petition in the community of St. Alban's.

I am quite happy to stand here today and support their

petition and present it in the House further to ensure that their rights will be

protected.

Thank you.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly rise to support that petition, but I want to say

to the member, I don't know where he is living all his life, or how long his

head has been in the sand, but this Opposition and this member of this

Opposition have not gone out and tried to stir up anything. I didn't have to.

The great number of people out there can stand on their own two feet.

It is insulting, to say the least, to the people who signed

those petitions, to say that we went out there and tried to stir up something.

Where does he think he is living?

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

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

the church, condone it.

Let me say this to the Premier: The other day when I brought

the first petition here, I used some pretty strong language. Really, I was not

literally speaking but, I suppose, figuratively speaking. It was symbolic for me

to say what I said, that we would fight them in the streets, but in saying that,

after attending some several churches over the weekend to accept petitions on

behalf of the people, if anything were ever tampered with that is within the

jurisdiction of our churches, then I think perhaps you might see it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that this is

not something that just came up today or yesterday. This has been with us since

our first forefathers settled on this Island. It didn't start yesterday; it

didn't start today, and it is not going to end tomorrow.

I was delighted with the Premier's statement, and I told him

that. The only thing that worried me a bit about the Premier's statement was

there might be a minority, and the minority are not going to rule the majority.

Now, I agree with that, but I don't know where he is coming from when he talks

about this minority.

I think that all churches are agreeable now to sharing. I

have been saying that myself for years, even when I was a member of the R.C.

Board for St. John's, and I was a member for fourteen years. I always advocated

it, and it was becoming a part of the institution. It was being integrated. It

took time. It just didn't happen overnight. People used to say they were going

to lose their identity and they were going to lose this, that, and the other

thing, but it is finally happening. It is happening in areas where we have

insufficient numbers to make a school viable - so pupils can receive the

education to which they have a right, then you will see sharing.

I know in my district alone, Mr. Speaker, there will be a

school there - presumably and hopefully - in the very near future that will have

several religious people being involved in that school, and I do not see a

problem in that; but tampering with the Constitution is what people are fearful

of. Once you tamper with something - not alone Catholics, every religion; all

the people of this Island have put a lot into the education system.

Now, there are red herrings being employed out there. I, for

one, think that Dr. Williams went beyond went beyond the terms of reference he

was given, because I don't think it was in the terms of reference, to bring in

his number one suggestion, which was to eliminate the denominational education

system.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this over and over and over, and I

will be presenting thousands of names on petitions within the near future, and

all we are saying is that we are making it known. And I know government realizes

that we, as Newfoundlanders, support the denominational education system.

Certainly, we need changes, more sharing; there is no problem there. All we are

saying is that we want to keep what we have. Listening to CBC the other night, I

was surprised to hear that a poll going across Canada shows that 50 per cent of

Canadians are dissatisfied with the secular school system, the system of public

schools.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I am joined by pretty well every one

in this House, in saying that we will have a denominational education system,

many, many years from now.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,470 individuals

in the City of St. John's, who are petitioning concerning the Day Break Parent

Child Centre, and these petitioners say to the Minister of Social Services and

through him, to the government of this Province, that they urge the restoration

of funding to Day Break Parent Child Centre as soon as possible. It is critical

that this service be one of the options available for families who need child

development and parenting support and other specialized services.

Mr. Speaker, these petitions were gathered over the weekend

and were initiated by parents of children who use this service. It was obtained

from about 4:00 p.m. on Saturday until Monday morning, this morning, a very

short period of time. The parents who were involved in this exercise with the

Day Break Parent Child Centre, are very, very concerned that the future of their

children will be put further at risk by the elimination of this program.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Social

Services on the radio this morning trying to defend the action by saying it was

merely a budgetary measure. Mr. Speaker, if it were merely a budgetary measure,

and if the minister were not at all concerned about the children being cared for

at this centre, then he would still keep the centre open. Because the centre

provides a service which is available to special children who are suffering from

very serious problems, whether they be in families where there has been a

history of abuse, where they have had some problems themselves with aggressive

behaviour in other centres where they could not be handled, this centre provides

what they call a holistic approach involving the parents in the program and

other initiatives involving the families, that attack the problems, Mr. Speaker,

at their source.

The source of the problems are tackled there and the results

of this program have demonstrated already that, there is, in fact, an economic

aspect to it, and I say, if the minister is not even concerned about the

children, themselves, let him draw his concern about the consequences of not

helping these children, that if we look at what kind of problems these children

may have in the future and the kind of work that Day Break does, they will save

money in social programs in the long run.

I will give you one example, Mr. Speaker. One of the programs

operated through the centre is a pregnancy support program for pregnant

disadvantaged parents, which provides prenatal education and food supplements to

these women in the families that they service and the model that they use is

basically trying to prevent children being born with disabilities and

disadvantages. The estimate, Mr. Speaker, is that only one baby brought through

a healthy pregnancy without having to be hospitalized for being medically

fragile, or having to have specialized health and education services throughout

his or her life, will save government enough money to fund the entire Daybreak

program for one year. So, if we are not concerned about the children at all but

are only concerned about budget, we will keep this program alive.

Mr. Speaker, this is a cruel move by the government, cruel

for these children. I ask the Premier, who said in question period today that we

shouldn't have this centre if we can't have them all over the Island: Is that

the theory on which public services are going to operate in this Province? Are

we going to close down the Janeway child care centre emergency department

because it is not available to everybody in the Province, only the people who

can use that emergency service in St. John's? Is the Minister of Health going to

close that down because it is not available up in Labrador but only available in

St. John's?

That kind of thinking means that we can't have any progress

at all until everybody in the Province can be brought to the same level of

service. This group has developed a model which is effective and works to assist

in families which have serious problems. They deal with problems of illiteracy,

parenting, family violence, abuse, neglect, low birth rate amongst pregnant

women, and personal and family health issues which are the root causes of the

problems these children have. This is not a daycare centre, Mr. Speaker. This is

an effective family service centre which is resolving and helping to resolve

some of the problems (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: I urge the government, Mr. Speaker, to take

back this cruel decision and restore this service.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure who the member

was listening to this morning, but I certainly didn't say that I wasn't

concerned about children.

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

MR. GULLAGE: I didn't say that either. I may have said

that, and he took it out of context. Certainly, it was a budgetary measure, that

is quite accurate.

Mr. Speaker, this program, as the member has said, is a

program that treats the entire family. That is quite accurate. Obviously,

Daybreak is different from daycare centres throughout the Province. It is not

strictly a daycare and does, in fact, focus upon families that are identified

almost entirely from our case loads, families who have difficulties of various

kinds. Treatment is provided for the parents - counselling and treatment and

services provided within that centre for not just the children but also for the

parents involved.

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the children, in

particular, because that is obviously our prime concern. My conversation this

morning with the board was mainly around that point, the fact that we now have

some sixty-five children who have to be looked after. Many of them, as the

member has said, have come out of other daycare centres and for various reasons

have been located in the Daybreak centre so that further counselling and

treatment could take place, the kind of counselling and treatment that was not

available in the regular daycare centres throughout the area.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the prime concern. We have provided

enough money in the Budget to do that. Now, the objective is to see that that

transition takes place and that we are set up in such a way that these children

will be accommodated in daycare centres throughout the region, and we have the

funds set aside to do just that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition

on behalf of a large number of constituents in my district of Bay of Islands.

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

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: I thought three people could speak to the

petition presented by the Member for St. John's East. Mr. Speaker, if the

Premier has to go to other business or do something else, I can certainly speak

to this afterwards. I will let him go ahead if he wishes.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. The Chair was of the

understanding that that petition was finished. The Chair apologizes. The Chair

thought the Premier was presenting a petition.

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

the petition?

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to obviously

support the petition that was presented today and say to this House that I

sincerely believe the government has taken a very regressive step in the attack

upon this daycare centre in this Province. It was one that was put in place for

the sole purpose as a pilot project, to see how it would work. I say to the

minister that it has worked extremely well and that program has had some very

significant and very positive results in this Province. The minister says we

cannot afford to put these all over the Province. I say to the minister that it

is not enough to level off downwards but what the government should do is level

off upwards and eventually we could probably get there. This step today is

extremely regressive and it is unfortunate because both the minister and I share

the same view, that there is not enough and never has been enough money in the

daycare program in this Province.

For government to slash the $500,000 that was there, to

effectively slash every daycare program in this Province is certainly not very

becoming of the objectives of the Department of Social Services. This Day Break

program which has been extremely effective in this Province - people will

suffer, and prevention has a lot to do with the various programs. What the

minister has done is basically taken that program away from all those who are

affected, so I ask the Minister if he would reconsider his decision to attack

the daycare program in this Province and reinstate the money for a very

worthwhile cause.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two

petitions, one forwarded to me by the Parish of Our Lady of the Star of the Sea

and it is signed by a large number of people in the district of Bay of Islands,

because this parish is in Benoit's Cove, and another one by the Sacred Heart

Parish Council in Curling, which is also in my district, up in the western end

of the city of Corner Brook. The petition is, of course, as I am sure all hon.

members will be aware in exactly the same wording as has been read out from all

other members. I assume it is a standard form petition that the church has

arranged and asked all their members in different parishes to have circulated.

I understand the concerns expressed by the people who have

signed these petitions and I would say that government's position is exactly as

I read it in the House on March 12 when the church leaders were present. The

government's position is very clear, that it is not seeking to obtain an

amendment to the Constitution in relation to the education rights of the

different denominations as is provided for in Term 17 of the Terms of Union.

Instead we are seeking to try and provide improvements in the education system

with the agreement of all those involved, particularly the churches, who have a

vested interest in this because they have constitutional rights secured under

the terms of the Constitution. It does not matter that you call them classes of

people, what we are talking about are the churches and it is for that reason

that we are dealing with, in this committee, the heads of the churches.

I am hopeful that we will be able to develop a consensus. I

have now seen the general outline of the proposal which the churches had to put

to the government committee and the committee is working with the churches in

discussing how that outline might be further expanded and fleshed out and see

whether or not it would enable us to meet the objectives in terms of improving

the system of education in the Province. The position is very clear, that if

after the conclusion of these discussions there is a consensus amongst the

leaders and government that some adjustment or changes to the Constitution are

necessary or desirable then they can be pursued at that time. I do not see any

point getting involved in an extensive discussion over whether you should or you

should not amend the Constitution, or seek to amend the Constitution right at

this particular time. At the same time I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would

also present a similar petition on behalf of the Member for Gander who had a

similar petition from St. Joseph's Parish in Gander. It says exactly the same

thing so I would present to the House all three of these petitions, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: I see the hon. Member for Green Bay

standing. Is the hon. member speaking to the petition or presenting one?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

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

to the Premiers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair does not know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I yield.

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

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

I, too, have a petition relating to denominational education

and unlike some of the other that have been delivered here today, it comes from

a different faith group - the Pentecostal faith group - which are a well

established church with a large membership in and around the Green Bay area and

the northeast coast in general.

The petition to the House of Assembly says: We, the

undersigned of this petition, acknowledge our support for the continuation of

the Pentecostal School Board and Pentecostal schools to provide education to

Pentecostal students and others who wish to attend Pentecostal schools.

We further acknowledge the support of Pastor Roy King,

General Superintendent of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Newfoundland, and his

executive, in speaking on our behalf.

The prayer of the petition ends with this in capital letters;

WE ARE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH THE DISMANTLING OF THE DENOMINATIONAL SYSTEM.

Mr. Speaker, first when I got myself elected, Green Bay had

not been used to having an MHA on the opposition side, and for some time I do

not think they quite knew what to do with me. Then one day this government came

up with the idea of a Royal Commission on Education and all of a sudden there

were a lot of meetings to go to and people found a use for their member. They

wanted a voice to put across their point of view in this Assembly, and there was

building in our society at that time - and might I say quite often from the

ranks of the government across here - a certain mind-set that we had to get into

a secular school system; we had to abolish the denominational system.

The Pentecostals of Green Bay, and I would suggest the

Pentecostals of Newfoundland in general, do not wish to see their particular

school system dismantled. They do agree with sharing of services where

appropriate. They do not believe in putting up schools where they have

insufficient students to put together a decent educational program but they, I

suppose, among the denominations, are among the most denominational, if I may

use that phrase.

In terms of a Pentecostal school, and you will notice it when

you walk in the corridors, you will find God is in the corridors, God is in the

classroom, God is in the gymnasium, God is in the parking lot.

Denominational education to the Pentecostals is a matter of

ambience. It is a matter of atmosphere. It is a matter of their moral code being

applied in a school context, and they are afraid that this 'consensus' rather

than unanimity - consensus may be what comes of it in the end, but consensus may

not be exactly what the Pentecostal parents want because consensus for them, if

the denominational system is torn apart, will be a loss for them.

I support their petition, Mr. Speaker. I have signed it, and

I ask that it be tabled and given to the Minister of Education.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in my place to present a petition on behalf of some

221 constituents in the Town of Deer Lake who belong to the Immaculate

Conception Parish of Deer Lake.

I received this petition on Friday past and promised that I

would bring it to the attention of the House as soon as possible, and this would

be the earliest opportunity.

It is along much the same lines I guess, of other members who

have presented petitions here today. I would like to just add to it, for the

record, that we, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education

for the children of our Province.

We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them, and

in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire.

We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially

shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in

our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representative, not to tamper

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

Mr. Speaker, if there was ever an example of denominations

getting together and doing something to be more efficient, and taking it upon

themselves before ever there was a mention, or anything came out of the Williams

Royal Commission at all, those particular people in conjunction with the

Integrated System in Deer Lake took it upon themselves to have joint services.

One of the schools now, the Xavier High School and Xavier

system in Deer Lake, is looking after three grades. The Integrated System looks

after everything else, Mr. Speaker, especially in the high school system. The

integrated system closed out a school completely, gave them a few dollars, the

integrated St. Barbe's South integrated system in Deer Lake, I always refer to

it as the Deer Lake, it is not, it is the Deer Lake-St. Barbe's South Integrated

School Board now. It will allow them to free up some funds to do some work. They

put a piece onto the Elwood High School in Deer Lake, they did some work down in

Cow Head, the Cow Head School or the Daniel's Harbour School and they did some,

I believe, in the Woody Point's School, all because of the integration system in

the Deer Lake area. They freed up some funds to do other work with regards to

maintenance and additions to the school system. It is working really well. Like

I said, Mr. Speaker, the people started it themselves, they initiated it

themselves. So this made it better, nobody told them what to do or had to take

them by the hand and walk them through the system. They initiated it, they put

it in place and it is working fairly well, it is working really well. You talk

to teachers in both systems and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Pasadena is another example.

MR. WOODFORD: Pasadena is another prime example of what

can happen when there are schools like that. But the underlying problem they

have, and the underlying feeling that they have, they are afraid, I will quote

from one paragraph; in Deer Lake our concern is with the

interpretation and

implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. We want the joint

services system which we now have, preserved and strengthened. In maintaining

our joint services system we want to respect the rights of all denominations and

we believe that strengthening our faith and values can only enhance the quality

of our people.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that that was a

great opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to be able to rise and present the petition on

behalf of the Immaculate Conception Parish in Deer Lake and make those few

comments pertaining to where they are coming from, with regard to the

denominational system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. the Member on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: I would just like to ask the Opposition House

Leader, was this a new petition from the Member for Humber Valley? I thought it

was, so there are two more to speak then on this petition before -

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

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

speak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is the difficulty, the Chair does not know if the

members who are standing are presenting the petition or whether they are

speaking to a petition. I can only recognize one but we have a lot of people

standing. If there is somebody who wants to speak to the petition presented by

the hon. Member for Humber Valley that was raised on a point of order -

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

sitting here all evening presenting these petitions. We have been trying to

force the Minister of Education to stand up and support one of the petitions and

this is why we have not really said anything. I thank the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology for bringing it to the attention of the House and now

hopefully the minister will get up and support the petition so ably presented -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is anybody speaking to the petition of the Member for Humber

Valley?

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly rise and it is a pleasure for me to

support my colleague, after his presentation so ably presented, and the point

that was made in his presentation is one that the Minister of Education should

keep in mind; that we are not or the people out there do not mind sharing.

Certainly in that hon. member's district, there is proof in the pudding, there

is proof in the eating, it is there and there is no one who has any queries

about this. But, Mr. Speaker, I have to go back and say again that I heard the

Premier say exactly what - it put some doubts in a lot of our minds and a lot of

the minds of the people out there, is at this present time there is no need to

change anything in the Constitution, at this present time. When is the time? Is

there going to be a time or do we see in the foreseeable future a time? Does the

Minister of Education see a time? Would he explain to us what is meant by this

'sometime' or 'not right now'?

The point that the people are making overwhelmingly is that

there is no time, there's no problem out there. Everything can be justified

within this present system. So there isn't a problem. So why even talk about the

Constitution? With that said, Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to get up and

support the petition which was presented by the hon. Member for Humber Valley,

as well as several other petitions which were presented today, which essentially

were saying the same thing. The hon. Member for Humber Valley, I listened to him

very closely when he made his speech. He's a member for whom I have the utmost

respect. The only thing I regret is he's not a Liberal. He is a Liberal in his

heart. He's not a member of our Party but as far as I'm concerned we would

welcome him any day when he comes to his senses and leaves that bunch of

dinosaurs he's sitting with.

The hon. member talked about the fact that some of his

constituents don't seem to trust government - this air of mistrust. I have to

tell the hon. member that in the early days of discussions with church leaders,

between government and the church leaders, I detected there was an air of

mistrust. The churches somehow had come to the conclusion that government was

bent on destroying the denominational education system of this Province. I don't

know how they could ever have reached such a conclusion.

The Royal Commission report does not recommend the abolition

of denominational education. I've heard many people get up and speak contrary to

that and say that the report did recommend the abolition. The one person in this

Province who very clearly recognized what the Royal Commission was recommending

was Gerry Vink of the consumers association, or the consumer rights association.

Whatever. I forget the exact title now. Mr. Gerry Vink was interviewed on radio

one morning and he made it quite clear. He said: this Royal Commission does not

recommend the abolition of denominational education. Now Mr. Vink was

criticizing it, because in his view we should of course abolish the system.

Government has no intention of doing that. As a matter of

fact, if you were to look at the educational systems across North America you'll

find that people are moving away from the public school system and that they are

going to different church groups and different private groups to have an

educational system. It is the responsibility of government to make sure that our

educational dollars are spent wisely and properly; it is the responsibility of

government to ensure that all schools meet a certain standard, that they deliver

an educational system which is approved by the Department of Education, approved

by government. Those are the responsibilities of government.

There are some very clear examples, some good examples, of

cooperation. The hon. member can indeed be proud of Deer Lake. I visited the

schools in Deer Lake and there is probably one of the best examples of a joint

service system in this Province, in Deer Lake where the Integrated and the Roman

Catholics have come together. Not the first one. The first case took place in

Plum Point. Up near the great district of Strait of Belle Isle. The school board

which represents the Strait of Belle Isle also takes in Plum Point. Guess who

was chairperson of the board when that joint service was put in place, Mr.

Speaker?

I was. I was chairman of the school board which put in place

the first joint service in Newfoundland and Labrador. Close on its tail was Fogo

Island, which also has an excellent service. This is happening around the

Province. This sharing. Now it is not always necessary. I would think that if

you have a population base which can put 300 to 400 students in a school there's

really no need to bring schools together. But as schools get smaller with

declining enrollment, by the year 2000 we'll have less than 100,000 students in

our schools. In 1983 there were close to 150,000. At the present time, 121,000.

By the year 2000, if the projections are correct, there'll be less than 100,000.

So churches recognize that if we are going to continue to

deliver a good quality education then there will be times when there will be

some sharing, and that is exactly what The Royal Commission talked about, Mr.

Speaker.

So I would tell the hon. Member for Humber Valley to take the

statement which the hon. the Premier read, and send it to each and every person

who signed that petition, because there is no need to mistrust government. We

are not in the business of destroying a denominational education system and

replacing it with a public system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

MR. DECKER: By leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

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

We are not in the business, Mr. Speaker, of coming in with a

godless secular system. All we want for our children and our students is the

best system in North America, and we can have that system within the

denominational system, as long as we can get sharing and co-operation - the kind

which you find in Deer Lake and Plum Point and Fogo Island and many more places

throughout the Province.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present and support a petition signed by 424 people

of St. Peter's and Paul's Parish, Bay Bulls.

The prayer of the petition: We, the undersigned, are

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

support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them.

In the same way we support the rights of others to have the

schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in

education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not

want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we

ask you, as our representative, not to tamper with the rights we now have under

the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the rights that were given in Terms of Union in

1949 were given to adherents of the specific faith, and the current Minister of

Education has done more to raise public sentiment and concerns with

denominational education than anybody else in this Province.

Back on November 1st the minister said, and as quoted in The

Evening Telegram: I would like for my grandchildren to know that when their

grandfather was minister there was a denominational system and eventually there

was no segregation based on religion.

Now this is the same minister who was going to pioneer joint

service schools and had no intention of doing away with denominational

education, and it is the same minister who said: There are recommendations which

require changes to the Constitution, and that change could be made through

consensus or through force. Hopefully it can be reached through consensus.

He is a member of the same government whose Premier stated,

in a Ministerial Statement on March 12th, that it is not seeking changes to the

Constitution that would remove constitutionally protected rights of classes of

people specifically provided for.

Now the same Premier stated, and he has made no definitive

statement to date, and he said here in this House today that there is no need,

and I quote: To seek to amend the Constitution at this particular time.

He stated that in this House today, and he also stated on

previous occasions: It is not our objective and it is not our intention, and

there are no plans, to eliminate the denominational system of education.

That has been said by the Premier in the past. He is playing

with words. No wonder the people are building up a great mistrust in this

government.

This government signs collective agreements with public

sector unions in the Province. They made their intentions known at the time,

that they dealt in good faith, and they came back with Bill 16 and 17, and they

built up a mistrust among the people.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there are no guarantees given by this

government that they will not tamper with - the public sentiment was aroused to

such a great degree, and pending an election in the very near future, it is

their intention to smooth the waters, and the Premier brought that out very

clearly when he said that it is not their intent to amend the Constitution at

this time.

Also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

Article 26,

states: Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be

given to their children.

So all the petitioners are asking for is an opportunity to

have a say in the type and quality, basically, of education that they want for

their children. It's not an unreasonable expectation for people to ask. If these

people choose to have a system based on no specific religion they would request

it so. But they haven't and they have that right, and a government must respect

the right, not just on the eve of an election but between elections and at all

times. It's the public that sets the standards which government should follow.

We've had a case over the past several months, and mostly by

the minister. We've had a play, a direct statement by the minister in fact, and

we've had plays on words by the Premier, on the denominational education system.

I think it's time to come clean and make a definitive statement on

denominational education and not have the people out there wondering what's

going to happen. It's no wonder the people have built up a mistrust with this

government because they fail to take a stand on anything. They say one thing and

do something completely different.

I support this petition by the people of Saints Peter and

Paul's parish and I ask the government to treat it accordingly. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present as

well. This petition is to the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has no idea whether someone's presenting a petition

or speaking to it.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I stand in

support of the petition presented by the Member for Ferryland from the Bay Bulls

parish. The member has already presented other petitions and I presume will

present still more from the different parishes along the shore. The school board

involved of course is the Ferryland Roman Catholic school board. Being only one

school board in the area, and certainly being in an area where you haven't got

to worry about duplication in relation to or on religious grounds of course. I'm

a product, as is the member, of that school system.

When we look at the history of the development of education

on the southern shore, a topic that has been widely researched and written

about, we see that the original schools there were started by the churches - the

Church, in this case - and some of them under very trying circumstances in the

early days, The original buildings that were erected were done on church

property with money from the people, who really are the church. Over the years

the southern shore developed what came to be known as one of the best systems of

education in this whole Province.

Thanks certainly to that has to go to the Presentation

sisters and in the lower part of the shore, in the parish of Bay Bulls, to the

Mercy sisters who taught there for a number of years. The pioneers, actually, in

education in that part of the Province were Presentation sisters who instilled

into the young people of the area, and perhaps even more so the people

generally, strong Christian values. These values have always been held by the

people of the area. But over the last few years there has been a great concern

about what is happening to our system of education. It has come under attack by

people in the Province who are very vocal and have access to the media,

especially to CBC, a station which seems to take delight in promoting

anti-denominational views.

The government, feeling that this was the new way to go,

spurred on by an erroneous paper put out by the NTA some years ago when the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was then the president of the NTA, a

poorly researched paper, as admitted by the president in a red-faced interview

some years ago, where he stated that the cost of the denominational system is

astronomical. Absolutely no knowledge of the system or no research into the

matter before such a statement was made. He caused a tremendous amount of

concern. This has been taken up by government. The minister in his statements,

and government generally, have expressed quite often anti-denominational system

views, simply because it was too costly.

Mr. Speaker, I say to you, not only is the system of

education not costly, in relation to real dollars and cents, but in light of the

developmental history of the system of education in our Province and the

benefits we have received from it we can ill-afford to be without it, and the

minister, himself, admitted today that most of the rest of the country and,

indeed, the Western world, are turning toward semi-denominational systems of

education which gives protection and funding to religious sponsored schools.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very good system of education in this

Province that has done wonders in light of the history and geography of this

Province, and if we want to talk about why we are where we are, in relation to

education levels, as compared to the rest of the country, I suggest two things:

number one, we look at the history and geography of Newfoundland compared to

everywhere else, but we also look at the real facts and figures and take the

marks on the Canadian Test of Basic Skills for many of our smaller schools

throughout this Province and compare them with any in the rest of Canada and you

will see that we stack up today as well as any of them.

We have had a rough history, our geography has beaten us from

day one, but we have come to where we are right now because of the very solid

education system and we should do what we can to strengthen it, not what we can

to undermine it and potentially destroy it. So I certainly support the petition

and I ask the government to make sure that our constitutional rights are

protected, that we continue to have the same type of strong education system we

have, and that we can grow and build together and co-operate to make sure, as

the minister says, we have the best education system in the country.

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

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

petition on behalf of the Immaculate Conception Parish of Harbour Grace. We have

920 Roman Catholics who have signed. Yesterday afternoon, I was invited to a

meeting of a parish council and some committees in the church and school board,

where, even though they treated me really nice, and it was a good meeting, they

were very frank about how they feel about the school system and retaining their

school system.

It is nice to hear somebody like the Member for St. Mary's -

The Capes make a bit of sense about the petition. You know, there is a lot of

mistrust and a lot of fear, some of it caused by the Member for Ferryland, the

way he speaks on everything - everything is fearmongering. But it is nice to

hear the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes make some sense.

I guess this petition reads the same as every other petition,

Mr. Speaker - it says: 'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest

quality of education for our children in the Province. We support Roman Catholic

schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we also support the rights of

others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the

churches and education and, especially, shared services to schools.' This

government has been preaching that ever since the Member for St. John's North

became minister.

It says, 'Of the 980 baptized Catholics over the age of

eighteen, in our parish, who are eligible to sign, 920 signed, which represents

93.2 per cent. These people of the parish have clearly shown beyond the shadow

of a doubt our support for our Bishop Fabian MacDonald and our lay leaders, to

continue on their behalf.' I spoke frankly with them, as well, Mr. Speaker, and

I told them I honestly felt that this government is not out to scrap the

denominational system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not yet, not yet.

MR. CRANE: Not yet. Well, you won't be around to see the

rest of it. I did say that schools would go as the enrollment drops and some

might just be Roman Catholic schools. And they accept that if the Roman Catholic

schools don't have the enrollment, they will go as well as the protestant

schools and the Pentecostal schools. They are quite happy with that. But where

the population of Catholics in an area can support a school, they certainly

don't want to see that school change to anything else. I support the petition,

Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

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

This petition is dealing with municipal affairs, but before I

get into the petition I want to express my thanks to the minister who left a

meeting (inaudible) the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, to come in

and be in the House for the presentation of the petition. And I thank him, Mr.

Speaker, for not going back to his meeting and for staying around until I get

the opportunity to present it.

This petition was circulated and forwarded to me by a group

of concerned citizens from the community of Port au Bras. It says: 'We ask you,

Mr. Tobin, as our elected representative, to present this petition to the House

of Assembly on our behalf. We have known from your present performance that this

blame cannot be put on your shoulders but we do ask for a complete answer from

our present Provincial Government.' The petition, forwarded to the hon. William

Hogan, Minister of Municipal Affairs, with 90 per cent of resident voters,

requests a public meeting with someone from his department.

Mr. Speaker, this is about the council in Port au Bras. I

want to go on record as saying the council in Port au Bras is one of the most

dedicated and committed councils that I have ever seen serving in this Province.

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

I ask the member to take his place.

I just say to the hon. member, I didn't hear the prayer of

the petition. I don't know whether the member said the petition was irregular

and asked for permission of the House, or what. I would like for the member to

explain, because I didn't hear the prayer of the petition.

MR. TOBIN: A point of order on that then, Mr. Speaker.

The prayer of the petition is probably irregular, but I have consulted with the

Minister of Finance, as well as the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

and other hon. members and we have agreed to present the petition. Probably I

should have said that to Your Honour at the beginning.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with

this petition. I am delighted, by the way, that the Minister of Finance is here

to listen to the petition, as well. Last year, a government-guaranteed loan of

approximately $400,000 was given to the community of Port au Bras.

What happened was they went into the country to the water

supply and brought out the water supply to the community. Out of that money,

seven homes in the community of Port au Bras were hooked up. Accordingly,

officials from the minister's department met with the council to come up with

the formula as to how much money would be needed in terms of balancing their

budget and doing what was needed to be done.

As a result of that, the council, upon instructions from the

department, imposed a poll tax - because they don't yet have property tax - from

$120 to $350. I ask the Minister of Finance if he would listen to this as well,

please. It went from $120 to $350. In addition to that, the council brought in a

hook-up charge of $300.

For some of these residents in Port au Bras it was going to

take five years, I think, for them to get full water supply. But they had to pay

the taxes of $350, which I believe, I say to the Ministers of Finance and

Municipal and Provincial Affairs, is the highest poll tax in this Province -

$350. And, in addition to that, there was the $300 hook-up.

The residents thought that was exorbitant because it was

going to be five years before they got a water supply. Port au Bras is a small

fishing community, where people work at the fish plant and at fishing, which we

all know is not very successful these days. But on Thursday, when the Minister

of Finance announced his Budget, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs did not include one red penny for the people of Port au Bras. Now, you

have to bear in mind -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Could we stop the noise, Mr. Speaker, I

can't hear what the member is saying.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: We have to bear in mind that they did exactly

what government asked them to do, this council that was committed to serving the

people and doing everything they could for the people of Port au Bras. The

people of Port au Bras were upset by this exorbitant amount of taxes because it

was going to be five years before some of them got water, based on getting so

much money a year over a five-year program.

On Thursday, when the Minister of Finance brought in his

Budget and the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs revealed what was

there, there was no money for Port au Bras. They have done what the government

asked them to do. They have increased the taxes to the highest level in this

Province, a poll tax. Now what happens? - no money. The council in this Province

that stood up and supported the Premier's claim that people should pay for the

services, did impose the highest poll tax in this Province and were disappointed

when they received no money after following what the Premier asked them to do.

I don't know what is going to happen now, I say to the

ministers opposite. Seven communities were hooked up on the $400,000 last year

that brought it in. One of the worst areas would have got services this year -

if they had another $350,000 to $400,000 as they had last year, we would have

seen twenty-five to forty hook-ups this year; but not one cent. Yet, at the same

time, in other communities on the Burin Peninsula, and in other parts of this

Province, people are paying poll tax of $120 and continuing to receive money and

continuing to see it put in place, so it is a very serious situation. A

hard-working, dedicated committed group of individuals who are volunteers

serving on council, who go out to represent the people of their community the

best way they can, who cause the people to become very upset because of the high

amount of taxes that some of them - and there are people in Port au Bras who

cannot afford to pay that amount of money, Mr. Speaker. But the council and the

residents received the biggest slap in the face that one could ever receive on

Thursday when this government decided not to give them any money.

Mr. Speaker, what does the minister now propose for the

community of Port au Bras? How does he expect people to pay $350 poll tax when

they do not receive any services and have not been informed they are going to

receive any money this year? I also ask the minister if he would be honest and

straightforward with this House and the people of Port au Bras and tell this

House that every single project that was approved in this Budget received a

higher rating rank than Port au Bras? - because I submit to the minister and to

this government, they did not.

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

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

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me