March 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 13

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me much pleasure today

to announce the details of the 1993-'94 Municipal Capital Works Program. As we

know from the Budget document, funds in the amount of $50,306,000 were approved

for the 1993-'94 year.

Since this administration assumed office, capital works

funding in excess of $277 million has been approved for water and sewer

facilities and for road construction and paving projects.

This equates to an average of $55 million for each of the

five capital works programs that this administration has approved since coming

to office. These substantial expenditures include $50.3 million in 1989-'90;

$63.9 million in 1990-'91; $53.1 million in 1991-'92; $59.9 million in 1992-'93

and $50.3 million for 1993-'94.

It is a considerable expenditure in view of the difficult

economic conditions which have been with us in recent years.

Some $46,306,000 of the total has been approved for water and

sewer and road construction and paving. The 1993-'94 Municipal Capital Works

Program also includes: $1 million for waste management facilities; $1 million

for emergency capital works funding, and $2 million for municipal recreational

and sports facilities. This marks the first year that funds were approved in

this manner for recreation facilities and this money will be utilized for the

construction of new facilities and/or the upgrading and rehabilitation of

existing facilities.

The 1993-'94 Municipal Capital Works Program will generate

considerable employment in the construction and trades industry and it will have

a positive impact on the continuing efforts by government to stimulate and

accelerate economic activity throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some 149 communities will share in capital works projects in

1993-'94. Some 133 water and sewer projects were approved for 109 towns at a

cost of $32,627,000. A total of sixty-two road projects were approved for

forty-six communities at a cost of $13,679,000.

In all, some $179 million in capital works funding was

requested for the 1993-'94 program consisting of 413 requests for water and

sewer and 272 requests for road construction and paving. It does serve to

illustrate the great need that still exists for this type of municipal

infrastructure throughout our Province.

This year's projects are expected to create 2,300 direct jobs

in the construction industry in addition to other indirect spin off jobs in the

supply industry.

In addition to the jobs, which are so important, the funding

also means the provision of essential municipal services for many people in our

Province.

Mr. Speaker, these funds are being distributed fairly and

equitably throughout the Province and they will address the most pressing

problem as they relate to cost-shared municipal services.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, most financing for Capital Works is

through the Newfoundland Municipal Finance Corporation. Road work is financed on

a 60 per cent Province - 40 per cent municipal basis. The contribution for water

and sewer is based on the cost per household or a percentage of fixed revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to be associated with such a

significant and positive announcement. I am sure it will be well received by the

large number of municipalities which are sharing in the program.

While we have come a long way we still have a long way to go

before all residents are provided with water and sewer services. Some 497,540 of

our total population of 568,474 reside in areas where there is some form of

municipal government including a city, town or community council or Local

Service District. In all we have a total of 295 municipalities. Some 48 of these

municipalities representing 4.6 per cent of our population are still without

water and 108 municipalities representing 9.7 per cent of our population are

without sewer services. Our best estimate is that it would require an

expenditure approximately of $900,000,000 to completely service all of our

municipalities with water and sewer services.

For the information of the House, I am pleased to table the

expenditure approved for all municipalities for the 1993-94 fiscal year.

Projects are listed by municipality in alphabetical order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister

for providing me with an advance copy. A copy of which I have been waiting for

since December month because the minister had indicated that if he did not have

the complete list available by December, he would resign, Mr. Speaker, it is

three months late so he has had lots of time to prepare it.

The minister makes mention of the fact that they've provided

$277 million for water and sewer and for road construction. Mr. Speaker, that's

not really the case. Some of it has been cost-shared on a 60-40 and what you've

done in many cases is allowed municipalities to actually borrow. It's not that

the Province has spent $277 million on these capital works. Much of that has

been funded by municipalities themselves.

I note that the minister has allocated for the first time, he

said, in quite a while, $2 million for recreational and sports facilities. I

would assume this is a part of the regional recreational facilities program that

was announced some time ago when there was - the minister indicates it is not.

Perhaps the minister could indicate what heading in the Budget that appears

under, that $9 million that's been allocated for regional recreational

facilities in this Province.

It's passing strange that we allocate money for spending, for

construction, and on the other hand the minister takes it away because he

doesn't give them enough operating money to run their facilities. Slashes that

have come to the hydro subsidy and now he's even thinking of tinkering with the

little bit of a grant that's given to community recreation leaders.

I haven't had a chance to go through in detail to see if the

last statement on the minister's page is correct, that these funds are being

distributed fairly and equitably throughout the Province. Over the next days

we'll get a chance to look at and see if these funds have been allocated on an

equitable basis. I doubt very much if they are. What we'd like to see is the

minister provide the ranking sheets. How he determined who was going to get

water and sewer or capital works, because it's important for municipalities. If

you've been excluded this year you have no chance to get it next year if you

don't know what you have to do. So I think it's incumbent on the minister to

provide municipalities with their ranking sheet.

The minister in announcing his statement doesn't talk about

the difficult hardships. He talks about the problem the Province faces. He

doesn't mention the hardships that municipalities have faced as a result of this

administration downloading, particularly on capital works, when they're now

requiring most communities to pay in excess of $300-plus per household for debt

charges that all accrued as a result of capital works, Mr. Speaker. I look

forward to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling the next item the Chair

would, on behalf of hon. members, like to welcome to the galleries today five

students from Long Island Academy in the district of Green Bay. They are

accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Lorne Roach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: A point of privilege of the House, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Your Honour tabled in this House a

special report of the Auditor General concerning the refusal of Memorial

University to allow the Auditor General to examine the University's records and

accounts pursuant to the statutory authority vested in her under the Auditor

General's Act. This is the second special report to the House on this matter.

Hon. members will recall that the Auditor General reported the objections of the

University to the House on 30 November 1992. At that time, she also reported

that she had retained legal counsel to seek an appropriate determination from

the courts.

Mr. Speaker, the case was heard, as Your Honour knows, by Mr.

Justice Noel of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Trial Division. His judgement

is attached to the Auditor General's latest report tabled by Your Honour, just

yesterday. In that report, Mr. Speaker, the court has confirmed the right of the

Auditor General to the information requested, and has found that Memorial

University has failed to provide the information as it is required to do under

the Auditor General's Act. However, according to Justice Noel, the Auditor

General could not obtain remedy directly from the courts and his reasons for

that are given, Mr. Speaker. I should quote

section 17 of the Auditor General's

Act, which: 'imposes an obligation upon the university which it does not

fulfill'. This was a statement from Judge Noel in his order.

His reason, Mr. Speaker, is on top of page seven of his

judgement and again: ' The powers and duties imposed upon the Auditor General

are for the benefit of the House of Assembly. They are not for her personal

benefit, they are to enable her to make reports to the House of Assembly.'

Further down on page seven, Mr. Speaker, and continuing on to page eight, His

Honour ruled that, the plaintiff made her report to the House of Assembly

pursuant to

Section 12 (1). In doing so, she exercised the only remedy available

to her with respect to the university's failure to fulfill its obligation under

the act. His Honour is backed up, Mr. Speaker, by Erskine May, 19th Edition,

page 136. and I quote: " It may be stated generally that any act or omission

which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its

functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in

the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to

produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no

precedent of the offense."

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General now seeks a direction of the

House of Assembly on this matter. What the Justice of the Supreme Court has said

is that the university's failure to fulfill its obligation under the Auditor

General's Act is not an infringement of the rights of the Auditor General, but

something much more serious. It is an infringement, a denial of the rights of

the House of Assembly, a breach of the privileges of the entire House and of

every member who sits in this House. We have a clear breach of the law, the

Auditor General's Act, which is fundamental to the House being able to carry out

one of its most basic functions. That is to be able to examine fully the

expenditure of public monies appropriated in the Budget and approved by the

House. If we can't do that, Mr. Speaker, there is little value in our being here

in this hon. House. Holding the executive and its agents accountable for the

expenditure of public funds is the first and most cherished right of free

Parliaments under the British Parliamentary system, particularly at a time, Mr.

Speaker, when the President of the University is talking about increasing

tuition fees for students. His Honour has told us that the remedy is in the

House. We can allow the University to run roughshod over the rights and

privileges of this Parliament or we can insist, as I believe we should, and as

other Parliaments have had to do in the past, that the University obey the

orders of this House, as clearly expressed in the Auditor General's Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling that the University has

violated the privileges of the House of Assembly and if you do so I will be

pleased to move the appropriate motion.

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

Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not at all certain that what the hon.

gentleman has raised amounts to a prima facie case of privilege but, that point

made, I would like to say, if I may, that does not mean his concern is not

justified or substantial, but I want to draw a distinction. There is before the

House now for second reading - the order stands for second reading but the bill

has not been distributed - "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act," (Bill

No. 7), and that addresses the situation dealt with in the litigation and the

situation dealt with in the Auditor General's initial report to the House, which

was before Christmas. I forget the date, but that is beside the point.

That point made, let me go on to say that the decision of Mr.

Justice Noel in the Trial Division which is appended to the Auditor General's

Report and which was delivered, as I recollect, about two or three weeks ago - I

think it was filed on March 12 from my recollection, and we saw it shortly after

that. I assume anybody who was interested saw it shortly after that. It does not

say what the hon. gentleman said it says. Again, I don't want to get into a

debate with him because I do not think that is the point of the question of

privilege, but what I do want to say is that the remedy lies within the House.

The government proposed to bring before the House legislation which will address

it and the House will decide what happens to that legislation. That is where the

remedy is, here in this House. Let me tell the House, if I may, Mr. Speaker,

where we are with the legislation because it has not yet been distributed. We

developed a bill after meetings between the Premier and a number of his

colleagues on one hand, the Auditor General and one or two of her colleagues,

and the President of the University and one or two of his colleagues, there was

a discussion. The government then took it upon ourselves, as I believe is our

duty, to develop a bill to address the problem. There is a problem; it is quite

real; it has to be dealt with.

The draft legislation was then sent, at the Premier's

direction, to both the Auditor General and Dr. May, the President of the

University, for whatever comments, if any, they wish to make - not for approval

or disapproval, but for comments. We got comments back, subsequently.

We then, with permission of each of the other - we had to go

to each and ask permission to send to the Auditor General the University's

comments, and to the University the Auditor General's comments, and ask them to

respond to that. So we had, if you wish, all of the arguments before we bring a

bill before the House.

That process is not yet completed. I believe we are expecting

this week the responses from Mrs. Marshall, the Auditor General, from Dr. May,

or whoever speaks for the University - I think Mrs. Gardiner -

PREMIER WELLS: In response to the comments of the other.

MR. ROBERTS: In response to the comments of the other.

When that is done, and we have those, we will bring a bill

before the House. The House will then decide what is to come of the bill. If the

bill addresses the matter adequately, in the opinion of the House, it will be

adopted. If it does not address it adequately, it will not be adopted. It will

be changed.

We are also prepared to refer the bill to a committee, should

there be a need for hearings. Now I do not know, to be quite candid, whether it

should be the public accounts committee, which has taken a position on this

matter, or whether it should go to a select committee, or whether it should go

to one of the legislation review committees. That is again a decision which is

yet to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well my hon. friend, the Leader of the

Opposition, has a point of view. He may well be right. I am not quarrelling. I

am just simply saying that we have not come to a decision on our side. We have

not asked the House to come to any decision consequently.

So what I do say to the House is that the matter is in hand.

It is being dealt with on an urgent basis. It is important and it will be dealt

with as quickly as we can.

I doubt if we will get the bill debated before the House

rises for the Easter recess but I would anticipate, unless there is something

untoward, we will have it here in the House.

There is a draft bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

MR. TOBIN: We will look after that after the election.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may look after a great

deal after the election. That is for the electors to decide. He may be looking

after his severance pay and his pension after the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the point that I want to make -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker,

is that in my submission there is no point of privilege, but I do appreciate the

opportunity to deal with what is an important matter which ought to be of

concern to every member of this House and to every person in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take another submission from the hon.

the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comments from the hon. gentleman opposite.

Let me point out to him that regardless of what the government might intend to

do, it is not the government's prerogative to prejudge what this hon. House may

choose to do when a bill is brought forward before this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Neither, Mr. Speaker, is it the prerogative

of this House to change a law retroactively to make legal what was not legal at

the time that an infringement of the law took place. That is clearly what has

taken place, and His Honour has ruled, and I believe ruled quite correctly, that

the University is in violation of that law. Now the only remedy available to the

Auditor General is through this hon. House and I believe this hon. House - every

hon. member in it - has had his or her rights infringed upon, and I think it is

our obligation and our duty and our responsibility to order the University

immediately to comply with the requests of the Auditor General.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have read the decision of Mr. Justice Noel and I think I

have to reach the same conclusion that it does not appear that this is

necessarily a breach of the privileges of the House of Assembly, but it is very

clear that the only remedy available to the Auditor General must come from this

House. So I do agree to the point that this has to be something dealt with on

the floor of the House and not necessarily by the government going to having

negotiations with the Auditor General and negotiations with the University. If

there is draft legislation it should be before this House and a committee of

this House, perhaps, should hear what the Auditor General has to say and what

the University has to say before any negotiations are going on, because this

House is the only body that can provide a remedy.

I do not necessarily think that it is a breach of the

privilege of the House, but it is quite clear that this House has to deal with

it. I do not think that the government should be dealing with it before the

House. If they have draft legislation, put it before the House. Let a committee

of this House listen to the Auditor General and listen to what the University

has to say and then pass the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Final submission, the hon. the Government

House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. gentleman

for St. John's East and I, I think, are singing from the same hymn book. We may

be perhaps on different lines of the same stanza.

PREMIER WELLS: He's slightly off-key.

MR. ROBERTS: He's a little off-key, my friend the Premier

says. The Premier has never heard me sing, obviously, or he wouldn't make that

remark.

Mr. Speaker, the comment I do want to make in response to

what I take as being a substantial concern of the hon. gentleman is that we are

not attempting to preclude or to foreclose any discussion by the House. I have

said we intend to ask the House, if it wishes, to deal with it through a

committee. The committee may hear whomever they wish and presumably will hear

whomever wishes to come forward. Consulting with the University and with the

Auditor General doesn't preclude any of them. We're not asking for their

approval for draft legislation. We believe it's our job as a government to take

it upon ourselves to bring legislation before the House. That's our job. That's

the Premier's job as First Minister, and all of us as members of the present

Ministry. The House will decide.

The issue now before the House is my hon. friend for Mount

Pearl says there is a point of privilege. It is my submission that there isn't.

It is my submission there's nothing in Mr. Justice Noel's decision or in what

can be said arising from that decision that founds a prima facie case of

privilege. That's the matter which is before Your Honour right now. We'll deal

with the legislation as soon as we can get it here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would not want to make a quick

decision on that and would like to take it under advisement, with the indulgence

of hon. members.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Tuesday I questioned the Minister of Fisheries for an update on the status of

the Roddickton crab plant. In his response to my question - I refer the minister

to Hansard of that day - he said: "In fact it would be extremely difficult to

justify providing government funding for a plant in Roddickton, given the fact

that we already have more than enough crab processing capability around the

Province now."

I want to ask the minister: is that the real reason why the

Roddickton crab plant issue has not progressed? Is that the reason why the crab

plant is still idle and the people unemployed? Further, I want to ask the

minister: how could he make such a statement that you could not justify

providing government funding when I have here a copy of an agreement entered

into between the Minister of Fisheries and the Roddickton crab plant workers

committee funding that particular plant?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the main reason I suppose is

that the building, as the hon. gentleman knows, burned down some years ago and

it's been rebuilt. There's now a legal dispute as to the ownership. I understand

the matter is now before the courts. Until that issue has been settled then of

course nothing can be done in Roddickton with respect to that licence.

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

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister didn't

answer the question. I ask him, is that the real reason why he and the member

have been leading the people of Roddickton down the garden path? Is the real

reason that there is too much processing capacity and that's why you haven't

reactivated the Roddickton plant? How can the minister justify saying that he

couldn't provide government funding when he's already entered into an agreement

with the crab plant committee to provide funding, and the copy of the agreement

is here? How can he justify that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I know there's a committee in

Roddickton that's forming themselves into a cooperative and that they are

contemplating re-opening the plant. But again, until the legal matter has been

resolved that can't happen. I don't know what agreement the hon. gentleman is

talking about but certainly there's been no - not to my knowledge anyway - any

funding from my department to that committee to enable them to reactivate the

plant.

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

Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to

refer the minister to the same Hansard where he said: "...[M]aybe the more

important qualification, will be that the outstanding legal issues regarding the

ownership of the building must be satisfied." Was the minister saying on Tuesday

that he was not aware that a legal opinion had already been passed on on that

particular issue? That there indeed was a legal opinion on that lease situation

in Roddickton? Is the minister saying that as of Tuesday he was not aware of a

legal opinion?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the matter to the best of my

knowledge is either in the courts or it's about to go before the courts. I'm not

aware of there being any opinion given as to the ownership. In fact, no later

than two weeks ago I talked to the former operator of the plant in Roddickton

and up to that time the matter had not been resolved.

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

supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious the

Minister of Fisheries is not aware. A supplementary to the Minister of

Education: who paid for the legal opinion that was submitted to the Minister of

Education on February 2, 1993 by the firm Martin, Whalen, Hennebury and Stamp,

the opinion given by one Norman J. Whalen Q.C. former president of the Liberal

Party? Let me ask the minister who paid for that legal opinion? Did he pay for

it personally or did the Department of Education pay for the legal opinion? I

would like to table the letter, by the way.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary conventions and

precedents are that minister's may be questioned only for the departments for

which they are responsible, so in that sense I rise to - it is not an education

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Hold on now, let me answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - it's asked about a legal opinion unless

something has changed the Auditor - the Department of Justice -

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice Act

says that the Attorney General is responsible for all legal advice. The answer

is, that nobody in the government, no public money was used to pay for that

opinion. I do not know who paid for it, if it was paid for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. lady would control herself, I

will answer one question at a time. I do not know anything about that opinion,

what I can say is I am the only person or my officials, are the only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Again, if the hon. gentleman for Kilbride

would try to be polite - the Department of Justice, the Attorney General's

office, is the only part of the government that commissions legal opinion's or

legal advice. Some of them we do with our own staff lawyers, others we do

through retaining outside counsel. I do not know who paid for that opinion. I

can tell you that the government did not pay for it. I can go on and say the

Minister of Education is not responsible for answering anything other than

matters that fall within his portfolio, it is that simple.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The procedure is we tried to adopt that a point of privilege

would come at the end of Question Period. Although the Chair, if the member

insists, cannot stop the hon. member. But for the last couple of years, the last

three or four years, I have been trying to discourage points of privilege during

the Question Period but if the hon. member insists than there is not much I can

do about it.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I insist on a point of

privilege. There are insinuations being made here and there is innuendo being

put forward here, Mr. Speaker, which certainly does insinuate that I did

something wrong. Now, there is no government money paying for that legal

opinion, none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of privilege with respect to an allegation

made, the hon. member should know that that is not a point of privilege.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been

recognized, Mr. Speaker, sit the bully down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognized the hon. member, the only thing is if

the member is on a point of privilege, well then the Chair has to go back but

the Chair recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, my honour is at stake here and I

am not going to allow any insinuations to stand in this House without having the

ability to address them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been working with a group of people

in Roddickton to try to get 200 jobs in place -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - I have asked a company for a legal opinion

and I am personally responsible for any cost which is involved in that legal

opinion. I do not know anything about the Department of Education, unless he

used the address as the place to find me. There is no way in this world, Mr.

Speaker, that I am going to allow any sleazy, slimy, insinuations that hon.

members are putting forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is not making a point of privilege.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, to repeat the supplementary, I have a letter

here addressed to the Hon. Chris Decker, Minister of Education, Confederation

Building, St. John's, Newfoundland, re: Canada Bay Seafood Plant in Roddickton,

signed by one; Norman J. Whalen, Q.C. I ask the Minister of Education, who paid

for the legal opinion? Did he pay for it personally? Did the Department of

Education or the government pay for it? The crab plant committee did not pay for

it. I want the question answered, Mr. Speaker. Now, the minister can rant and

roar and squirm all he likes, if he is guilty he should admit it.

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

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is the insinuation.

There is the sleaziness, there is the gutter, there is the muck. The Department

of Education did not pay for that legal opinion. The Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador did not pay for that opinion. No one paid for that opinion who is

in any way, Mr. Speaker, affiliated with government funds. Now let us put a stop

to this preposterous nonsense which hon. members have been getting on with over

the last few days, where they have been coming forth with half-truths and

insinuations and they are doing a disservice, Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

institution known as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education is

saying it is free. Let me ask the Minister of Education, what did he promise

that particular gentleman to get a free legal opinion? What did he promise the

former President of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, to get a

free legal opinion, Mr. Speaker? Let him answer that one.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary to the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, if he did not pay for it I guess it

was free, I mean that is how most things are in the world, if you do not pay for

them, they are free, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Opposition House Leader to get to

the question please.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the

Minister of Tourism and Culture.

I want to ask the Minister of Tourism and Culture, did he

commit money to the Roddickton Crab Plant Committee, if so, has it been paid?

And since Your Honour has said it is a final supplementary I guess I have to ask

three things - I will let him answer the first two, Mr. Speaker.

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully aware of all the

commitments that may have been made by the department. I will take the question

under advisement, although I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the department has

given $5,000 to the museum in Grand Bank, $800,000 towards the Seamen's Museum

in Grand Bank and $500 towards a " Come Home Year" festival in Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALSH: But, Mr. Speaker, I will take that question

under advisement.

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

final supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: I have another question to the same

minister, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the money from the minister but they are

not-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - but they are not yet processing crab at

the Seamen's Museum, I say to the minister, they are not yet processing crab.

Now I would like to refer the minister to a letter of September 25, '92, written

to one hon. Chris Decker:

Dear Chris: I am pleased to be able to assist the Roddickton

Crab Plant Committee in its feasibility study. I must agree that this is an

opportune time to explore the tourism potential for the Roddickton area -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - the department will provide the Committee

with the $5,000 necessary to complete the study. Signed, one: James P. Walsh. I

will table the letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member obviously did not hear the Chair or he would

have taken his place. I want to remind hon. members of our own Standing Orders,

they are not rules that I have made, they are rules made by this House, and I

have, to the best of my ability, to try to enforce them and members have, to the

best of their ability, to try to follow them. We are not supposed to be reading

letters when we are in Oral Question Period. I think hon. members are quite

familiar with that and I shall find the appropriate quotation, but I know it is

clearly in our own Standing Orders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Oral Questions must not be prefaced by

the reading of letters, telegrams, newspapers, extracts or

preambles of any

kind, so hon. members should abide by that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member to finish his question please.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for reading the

letter but it seems so obvious that I wanted to put - let me ask the minister,

the Minister of Tourism and Culture, a final supplementary, as to where he could

$5,000, as badly as it is needed by the way by the people of Roddickton to get

this crab plant going, where could he find $5,000 in the allocation subheads of

the Department of Tourism and Culture to fund a $5,000 study for the Roddickton

Crab Plant Committee?

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, if, in fact, we did find the

money, it might have been the exact same place we found $2,500 to send Stogger

Tight to Europe to represent us last week or where we found it for other things.

He may be very well referring to it because he is only giving me one part of the

information. The actual letter sent to the department could very well have

covered the crab festival that they may want to put off. The same committee may

be looking to do some other work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, as in most small communities, a

group of people may be involved in ten, twenty, or thirty different activities.

If he would like to submit also the report, the recommendation that came in, or

the letter that came in, we can deal with it. I will go back to my original

comment, Mr. Speaker, and take it under advisement and table it before the day

is out.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions I would

like to ask the Premier relating to the issue that was raised in the Legislature

in the last day or so. I must say, I was kind of surprised to hear the Premier

on radio this morning, while being interviewed, saying that if he had known a

year ago that the Province was going to be in the financial mess it is in now,

he wouldn't have ordered the $120,000 worth of furniture for the Premier's

office and the Cabinet room. I want to ask him: Does he honestly think that the

people of this Province are willing to believe that lame excuse? Doesn't he

think that is a little bit too hard to swallow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: It may be if it were a true statement of

what I said but it is a statement of what the radio reporter attributed to me.

My recollection of what I, in fact, said was if we had known a year ago what we

know now, would it have been ordered? No, I don't think so. I am quite sure it

would not have been. In fact, and I suppose I have to take ultimate

responsibility for this, exactly what was ordered and what was being done I

personally didn't know. If I had known a year ago what I know now, would it have

been ordered? No, it wouldn't. I didn't say anything about the financial state -

if I had known the financial state. That is my recollection of it. If I had

known a year ago what I know now, no, I don't think it would have been ordered

at all.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: That is certainly the way the story came

across and he is now trying to wiggle out of it and trying to say if he had

known about it a year ago. He said yesterday in defence of this accusation that

he tabled the information in the House last November. Well, that is four or five

months ago, for sure, but the story clearly is that because of the financial

situation, if he had known about it a year ago he wouldn't have ordered it. Now,

that is a strange statement when you consider two years ago the Premier brought

in Bill 16, and then again last year Bill 17. Over the past couple of years they

have eliminated hundreds of jobs. They have increased taxes in this Province by

a whopping $150 million or more, all because of the fiscal problems and the

financial situation, then he has the gall to say that if he knew about it last

year he would have cancelled the order. Now, I want to ask him, who he is trying

to kid? Is it not true that the Premier really knew about this and despite the

fact they are in the middle of this kind of situation it was still okay from his

perspective to allow the furniture order to proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it isn't true at all. As

a matter of fact, the amount spent on my furniture in my personal office was

$8,548. That is $3,000 less than that government gave Brian Peckford to set up

his personal office on Newfoundland Drive, $3,000 less, in addition to $13,000

for rent, in addition to $20-odd thousand for a secretary. Good Heavens! The

Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for Humber

East, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and the Member for Kilbride sat

there and signed the order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Treated every Premier the same.

PREMIER WELLS: No, that isn't right, treated every

Premier the same. They turned over cash to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: We didn't give him a house on Roaches

Line.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: No, you gave him a house on Mount Scio

Road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Every member is to be extended courtesy when speaking. I

observe that the Leader of the Opposition had a rather long question and I think

he was able to do it without being interfered with, and I believe the same

courtesy should extend to the Premier in answering the question.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious

truth makes him very uncomfortable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the amount that I tabled in the House last

fall, for the eleventh floor - the Cabinet floor, and the eighth floor - my

office, and the offices around my office, was a total, I believe, of $118,000.

In fact, last fall, they cancelled what they could cancel and the amount was

reduced to $105,000; but they couldn't cancel any more. The orders were placed

and it was there, and the furniture is just now being delivered. That is what

was done last fall.

Mr. Speaker, I tabled the information, explained it all. I am

quite prepared to table it and explain it again, but I am not prepared to have

to shout because members opposite don't like to hear the truth. It is not what

they want to hear, so they keep babbling to prevent the truth from being heard.

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

supplementary.

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

I say to the Premier, that is a very clever political tactic

to try to divert attention away from the issue, and that is all he is trying to

do here.

He says they couldn't cancel the contract. Well, I want to

ask him: Does he not really think that the people of this Province are going to

be very hard-pressed to believe that kind of a statement because, after all, he

and his own government have twice broken legal contracts in this Legislature

with the public service, and they are about to do it for the third time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Isn't the real fact, the reason you didn't

break this contract was because you thought you would get away with it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it had nothing to do with

it. This Legislature decided what it would do with its funding, and this

Legislature made its determination, by

an act of this Legislature, determined

what it would do with the public sector collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't start, nor did this government start,

the renovation process. The former government started the renovation process

with this $24 million House. Now, there was an argument for it because the Fire

Safety Code on the ninth and tenth floors, as Your Honour knows, was

questionable. You couldn't have people in the gallery up there. We were breaking

our own laws. So I understand that.

The same thing applied with respect to the rest of the

building. That is why they spent millions putting up walls up the side, right up

through to the tower in the building. That is why they came in and took over,

three months after I took office, and took the entire corner of the eighth

floor, blocked it out, eliminated an office, eliminated half a hallway,

eliminated half my secretary's office, to put a concrete well and stairwell in

there, because the fire safety and life safety regulations required it. I didn't

start that, the former government did.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't do the temporary renovations in 1985.

They were in office then. They couldn't wait until the basic work was done, they

had to go and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on temporary renovations,

knowing that this other work would still have to be done in the future. They

couldn't wait - an incredible waste of money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if anybody is prepared to read what was

tabled here in November - and if you want me to, I will table it again, and I

will check and make sure that it is completely up-to-date, and if it isn't, I

will revise it and table a completely up-to-date position - you will see very

clearly why this work had to be done. I didn't start it. We stopped what we

could stop of it on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier this question - once

again he likes to try to be clever and divert attention away from the issue. Let

me ask him a very straight question: Who ordered the furniture?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

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

and let the House know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Does the Premier have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. member, but I plan to.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: I ask the Premier: Has he had a chance in the

last day or so to at least find out when the furniture was ordered? Could he

tell us that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am told, July, 1992, Mr. Speaker, but I

will check and make sure.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this Premier is quick to put his

own principles and behaviour way above those of his ministers on many occasions,

especially when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. He said that

the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, just last week, because of the

briefcase issue, was irresponsible or showed poor judgement, an error in

judgement.

I want to ask the Premier: What is the difference between

this kind of a situation when one of his ministers gets caught and the situation

that the Premier's in now, where he, his government, ordered this furniture, in

the middle of a financial crisis situation? What is the difference?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, these funds are expended for

public purposes and presumably what is there will be there long after I cease to

be Premier, when some other member from this side is Premier - perhaps even some

distant time in the future when some member presently on the opposite side of

the House might be Premier.

What I will commit to is that we will not do what the former

government did - bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of Gibbard mahogany

furniture, crystal, silverware, clothes, bed linens, cookie sheets, pots, pans

and turn it all over to the departing Premier for a pittance. We will provide

that information, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the office of Premier -

not because I occupy it personally - but the office of Premier is an important

office in this Province. It sees people from every community in the Province.

There are fishermen's groups, there are municipal councils, there are Red Cross

societies, there are sports groups, there are ambassadors, there are presidents,

there are prime ministers - everybody comes to this office - not because I am

there, they come because it is the office of the Premier of Newfoundland and

Labrador. They will come in the future when I cease to be.

The Premier has a responsibility to make sure that he

performs in a proper way, that he accommodates people in a proper way, in

reasonably acceptable circumstances and, Mr. Speaker, patched up, worn out,

saturated, soaked walls and carpeting is not an appropriate way to do that. So

some redecoration and some renovation was necessary. But, Mr. Speaker, I can

assure you, Sir, that this government will not take and abuse that privilege and

then take the thing for their personal property, as was done before.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have

questions for the Premier.

Last night, the people of this Province were startled when

they got their first glimpse on the television news of the palatial renovations

the Premier is having done to the Cabinet room in this building. They saw

expensive wooden cabinets and glass block partitions. The people still haven't

had their first look at the extravagant renovations the Premier has had done in

his own office. Why did the Premier order those expensive renovations, those

renovations costing $1.5 million, in the middle of what the Premier, himself,

calls the worst recession since the 1930s?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I told the House that the

former government did temporary renovations - and they did. One of the things

they did was remove the Cabinet room from the eighth floor. It was totally

removed to make more space for the Premier, who felt he needed more space. They

removed the Cabinet room totally. They put it up, temporarily -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

PREMIER WELLS: - temporarily -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

PREMIER WELLS: - put it up, temporarily, on the eleventh

floor -

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

PREMIER WELLS: - the old military museum space that had

been previously slightly renovated to accommodate press conferences and so on.

That was its original purpose. When they then took the Cabinet room off the

premier's floor so that they could renovate on a temporary basis, and give that

premier the palatial space that he wanted, they moved the Cabinet room up then

to the eleventh floor, without any proper preparation of it as a Cabinet room.

That was before the fundamental restructuring was done in the building.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when the engineers were coming up through

with the changes that they were making, and when the House was moved down to

these palatial new surroundings that they put in place, that it was too late for

us to stop, when we then moved down and started to renovate the ninth and tenth

floors, the renovations were done for the eighth and eleventh floors at the same

time because they were adjacent to those two floors.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there were a moderate amount of renovations

done to make it an acceptable Cabinet room. Some of it -

MS. VERGE: Over $1 million worth.

PREMIER WELLS: No, it wasn't over $1 million worth, it

was $335,000. The figures are there, $335,000, I think. I will get the exact

figures and table them, Mr. Speaker. The renovations were done to make it an

acceptable Cabinet room. I have no quarrel with that. I think it is a reasonable

thing to do. Had we known the kinds of circumstances, we probably would not have

done it last year. But it was in progress and it is done. We did what was

underway and we completed what was underway. We stopped the fifth, sixth and

seventh floors because no contracts were let in respect of them.

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

time for a short supplementary and an appropriately short answer.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How can the Premier

look at me, a person who was in the Cabinet, who used to meet in the Cabinet

room from 1986 until 1989, and say that it was not permanently and expensively

renovated and refurnished in 1985. The Premier is lying, I say. How can the

Premier do this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair thought it heard the member make an unparliamentary

- of course, the Chair can't be certain, the Chair can check it, but the hon.

member can do the appropriate thing.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unparliamentary

word. I was so upset hearing the Premier say what he said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - that I couldn't help myself, but I do

withdraw the term 'lie'.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the truth is very simple.

What I stated is accurate and is clear to be seen. Before the fundamental

renovations could be done, the former government jumped in, hired a minister's

wife to do the interior decorating and made an utter mess of it, covered the

lights with 3/4 inch thick pine slats so that the light couldn't even get

through, made a complete mess of it, did this expensive temporary renovation

before the fundamental renovations were done. It is very easy, Mr. Speaker, to

stand and look at any hon. member opposite, the Member for Humber East, the

Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the Member for

Grand Bank or any member and tell them clearly what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a point of privilege.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would just like the Premier

to clarify. He made an accusation here that some minister's wife was hired to do

the interior decorating. Would the Premier like to clarify whose minister's wife

he is talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That is what I have been told, but I will

check and make sure in detail before making a statement on it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the

Premier, before he spits his venom out any further, in case he is referring to

my former wife, who was an interior decorator, and the only minister's wife,

that I am aware of, who is a professional interior decorator, that she at no

time worked for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. You will find that

Miss Suzanne Campbell, in fact, did the decorating in that office - who is now

still employed by this government.

The Premier should withdraw any innuendoes that he wants to

make. Try somebody else next time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will happily withdraw any

innuendo and check the detail and make it known to the House exactly what is the

situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has

been Given.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we have leave to revert

to Notices of Motion? My colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, I guess, was a little slow getting to his feet, but he does have a

Notice of Motion, I believe.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have permission of the House to revert

to Notices of Motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I am losing weight, Mr. Speaker. You didn't

notice me, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act", Bill No.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Culture.

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, to a question by the Member for

Grand Bank, in Question Period, I don't have the full details but the basic gist

is -

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down then. What are you standing up

for? Sit down.

MR. WALSH: I don't have the full details but I can advise

the hon. House, my department has informed me that no funds were given to the

committee referred to in your question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) letter.

MR. WALSH: In my letter, in the question. If it is my

letter, I haven't seen it. He has not provided me with a copy to look at.

No funds have been given to the committee.

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 664 residents

of the district of Fortune - Hermitage, from communities of St. Bernard's,

This is one of those petitions that I was presented with last

Sunday in Marystown when church leaders and parishioners from various parishes

in the districts of Grand Bank, Burin - Placentia West, and Fortune - Hermitage

were there to give the petitions to myself and my colleague, the Member for -

MR. TOBIN: There is some noise here!

MR. MATTHEWS: They are awfully touchy, Mr. Speaker, and I

can understand why. The time for a lot of them is drawing nigh.

Six hundred and sixty-four people asked us to express their

views to this House. To the members of the House of Assembly:

'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality

education in this Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep

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

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

especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in

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

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

This is the petition that I am presenting today. I support

the petition. I am signing the petition and supporting it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the minister, I did not

instigate it. This action was taken by church leaders and parishioners from my

area of the Province who felt very strongly that their school system was being

threatened by the Wells Government, I say to the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, felt that their system of education was on the brink of being

destroyed by Premier Wells and his Administration, Mr. Speaker. That is why they

got those petitions, that is why they held public meetings in Marystown where

400 to 500 people showed up to express their concern, I say to the minister;

that is what this is about.

My colleague and I are only doing the same as the Premier did

a few days ago, when he presented petitions from his area. Now, he may have done

it reluctantly, but I am not doing it reluctantly, I am doing it because I want

to do it, Mr. Speaker, because I support those people and what they desire. So I

am calling on the government to consider those people's wishes, to listen to

what they are saying to you, and, Mr. Speaker, I present the petition and want

to inform the House that I support the petition.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition

of my colleague on behalf of the constituents of Fortune - Hermitage district. I

was with the Member for Grand Bank when representatives from the Fortune -

Hermitage district asked us - well, actually, the member was invited to the

meeting, but my colleague and I were present and, in the absence of the member,

it was presented to us, and we were asked to present it in the House of

Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say after listening

to the people who were at that meeting that day, and who represented the 500 or

600 who attended the public meeting in Marystown, that there is a tremendous

mistrust of this administration as to how they propose to handle the educational

system in this Province. It was made quite clear at the meeting that people

agree with and support many of the recommendations in the Williams Report, but

they believe that their constitutional rights to the denominational school

system should not be tampered with.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why people would be

concerned when you have the Minister of Education for this Province - not for

his district but the Minister of Education for this Province - stating that he

would like his grandchildren to remember their grandfather as the man who

destroyed the denominational education system in this Province. When these types

of statements are being made by the person responsible for education, then it is

no wonder that the masses in this Province are concerned about their rights

which have been enshrined in the Constitution.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) what people like you will do if

you get a chance, like you are doing now.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He had a chance. When we were there, we

gave the Pentecostal (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with the Member for Windsor -

Buchans? He is awfully defensive.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad they are closing

out the hog farms, because there is a future for the minister -

MR. SIMMS: Imagine paying $100,000 to him for that now.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, what a contribution! Now,

Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans that I stand to

support the petition on behalf of the people from Fortune - Hermitage district,

and if he lacks the courage to bring petitions into this House on behalf of his

constituents, like some of his colleagues, then stand up and admit it. We will

present the petitions and we will stand up for what we believe in, not when it

is politically expedient to do so. Our Leader and our party have articulated our

position on this from day one, and I say that we support the petition that was

presented by the people of Fortune - Hermitage. We ask the government to be

definitive in their stand and position relating to the protection of people's

constitutional rights and let the people of Fortune - Hermitage and the other

people who have presented petitions in this Province know that their dreams and

aspirations, their wishes, will be adhered to.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Further petitions?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

I would like to present a petition on behalf of 1,343

parishioners of St. Kevin's parish in the Goulds, who have requested that I

present this petition. It is a petition similar to others that we have had in

this House of Assembly over the last little while, a petition similar to one

that I believe the Premier presented just a little while ago. But, Mr. Speaker,

I don't understand why members over there, like the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture, are afraid to present their petitions, when the Premier presented

his.

I am here supporting this petition today, and I will stand on

my record as a former minister in this House of Assembly, when we gave the

Pentecostal Assemblies of this Province the constitutional right to

denominational education. That is my record, That is what I tried to do when I

was in there.

The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture wants to abolish the

denominational education system. The Minister of Education that we have now has

said, at least has been reported on one occasion as saying, that he wants to be

remembered by his grandchildren as the person who did away with denominational

education in this Province. He may be proud of that - there may be some reason

for him to take pride in that. I am not sure why he would.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take that same position, I take the

opposite position. I know of provinces in Canada which are moving towards

religious affiliation in their education system. Places which have public school

systems are now financing - as of five or six years ago, I guess, Ontario was

one province which started to finance the Catholic education system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Bill Davis was defeated for doing it, so

that is some time ago the Tories went.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: They did - yes, Mr. Speaker, and the

people in that province who are looking for the financing of the Catholic

education system. That is what we should stay with in this Province. We should

stick with it in this Province and not allow the present Minister of Education

and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture to get their own way. The former

Minister of Education, now the Member for St. John's North, also supported the

abolition of the denominational education system.

We are told it is too expensive, Mr. Speaker. I haven't seen

the figures. The only figures I have seen, of late, were some figures in a

Letter to the Editor within the last month or so. They gave some comparisons

between the Newfoundland system, which is the denominational education system,

and systems like those in PEI, New Brunswick, and I think Nova Scotia was in it.

There were three or four others. We were as cheap as or cheaper than any of

them. So I don't know why our system is blamed for being so expensive when the

provinces with public systems, on a per capita basis, whatever the per capita

basis they were looking for, showed that our system, on a per capita basis, was

not spending any more than other provinces in Eastern Canada. Actually, we were

spending less than two of them. I didn't get a copy of that Letter to the Editor

but I am having it researched and when I present another petition here in the

next day or so, I hope to be able to read out those figures.

Mr. Speaker, our system is not more expensive per capita than

others, not outlandishly so. We have a hard province to service, period, no

matter what the system is, whether it is water and sewer, or a highway system or

our education system. We have a population that is spread out over a large area,

so we are going to have some extra expenses because of our locations, but our

per capita expenditures, or cost of education, are not out of line with the rest

of Canada. So the expense or waste of money is not a reason for the Minister of

Education to proceed with what he wants to do, which is to abolish the

denominational education system in this Province.

When the person who asked me to present this petition called

me two night ago, I explained to him that the Premier and the churches had made

a deal. There is an arrangement signed by the Premier and agreed to by heads of

the churches suggesting that this government is not presently looking for a

constitutional change concerning the denominational education system. I

explained that to that person and he asked right away: 'The Premier and the

government are not - or they will not? What actually does it say?' I said, the

statement says: 'The government is not presently looking for any constitutional

change.' And he said: Well, that doesn't mean very much to me, because what the

government, any government, should say is that they will not look for that

constitutional change.'

Now, if we get an election behind us in the next -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Sir.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition which I am very proud to present on behalf

of a number of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was another member who wanted to speak to the petition.

Of course the Chair has no idea what members want to do.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support my colleague for Kilbride on behalf of St.

Kevin's Parish in the Goulds. The churches have shown a great deal of

co-operation over the past number of years into joint service schools and in

sharing facilities and instruction, and so on, in areas where it is not

economically feasible to operate separate schools. This co-operation has

accelerated over the past few years and when denominational education, I guess,

raised its head in the minister's statement it did more really to cause anxiety

levels to increase. Denominational education would have certainly continued and

the rate of acceleration of combined efforts would have continued.

Now, the adherents and the representatives of the different

churches are really concerned with government's true motive with reference to

denominational education. Churches over the years have invested heavily,

financially and time-wise, in the education system in this Province and the

rights were entrenched constitutionally to give churches authority to be able to

have a say in how education is delivered in this Province. Nobody questioned

that and progress was being made, and hopefully progress will continue to be

made because I am sure rational minds will prevail and they will see what is

best for the education of their children or the children in the communities if

they be of a different religion.

That is not the question here at all. The question is that

they have a constitutional right entrenched and it is important for these

churches and their adherents in the faith to have a say in the type and quality

of education that is provided to their children. They have an entrenched right

and it is only appropriate for them to be able to exercise that right. After all

parents should have that right, a prior right to have a say in the future of

their children. It is unfortunate that the minister had to make those statements

back in November 1, about his desire to have the denominational system

eliminated during his term as minister. I think that is very unfortunate and it

has done a lot of damage to the progress and to education over the past several

months and the direction people are following. It has raised the public

sentiment to, I guess, unprecedented levels in terms of denominational

education.

I feel a Minister of Education should be more concerned and

be trying to allay those concerns and encourage denominations to work

co-operatively in introducing efficiences in the education system, to have

efficiences in the transportation of students, in the sharing of schools,

programs and services in education. The department had a good opportunity just a

couple of years ago to be able to improve on efficiencies in this system and the

minister exercised his powers under

Section 61 of the School Act to stop that

process where the minister, I guess, took away the opportunity of parents to be

able to send their kids to the schools of their choice. Yes, the minister did

exercise his powers. If they want to respect parents' rights in education they

should be concerned with

Section 61, an amendment to that

section of the Schools

Act, if they have a great concern.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition. They have every right to

request to have their voices heard and their kids educated under the system they

desire and that was constitutionally given to them. It is not too much to ask

and it is only fair that this government should proceed and carry out the wishes

that were given to them in 1949 in the Terms of Union with this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on this

same subject. It is on behalf of St. Theresa's Parish, Mundy Pond, St. John's,

within my district but also overlapping some adjacent districts. It is signed by

about 2000 perishioners of the parish. I would like to read the prayer of the

petition: To the hon. the House of Assembly in Legislative Session Assembled the

petition of the undersigned humbly showeth that we the undersigned are committed

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

Roman Catholic Schools and want to keep them, in the same way we support the

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

between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they

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

Province taken away and we ask you as our representative not to tamper with the

rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada, and your parishioners, as

in duty bound, will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present and support this

petition, I thank you very much.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which I very proudly

support. A petition addressed to the House of Assembly. The prayer of the

petition is: 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 cooperation between the churches

in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not

want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we

ask you as our representative not to tamper with the rights we have now under

the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is signed by 1013 people originating in the

Parish of St. Pius X, where a meeting was held on January 11, 1993, which I

attended and where the issue was discussed. Mr. Speaker, no one in their right

mind would have anything negative to say about the Roman Catholic Schools in St.

John's Centre. Some of these schools are the finest schools in this Province,

the finest schools in Canada and I submit, amongst the finest schools in this

world. I speak of Gonzaga High School, where Father Altilia is principal.

Brother Rice Regional High School, Holy Heart of Mary Regional High School, St.

Pius X Elementary, St. Pius X Junior High, St. Patrick's Hall and Ecole St.

Patrick. Mr. Speaker, these schools are the finest schools that have ever been

established. They are a light to all of us and no one ever suggested or will

ever suggest that these schools be done away with, and neither should they.

Let me say this, I want to speak a word about sharing between

denominations. The denominations of this Province have been sharing for many

years in education. Let me say this, did you know that Newfoundland was one of

the first provinces in Canada where teacher training was done jointly by all

religions, done jointly at Memorial University? Alberta was the first university

to have teacher training in the university and Newfoundland was second. This

meant a tremendous cooperative spirit amongst denominations in the training of

teachers. Some of us who taught at that university, taught side by side with

nuns and brothers who were also delivering the education program.

I might also say, that our university is a university for all

Newfoundlanders. In Nova Scotia the churches have not cooperated to the same

extent. They have denominational universities in Nova Scotia and in New

Brunswick and other parts of Canada but in this Province churches have

cooperated and we have one university attended by all people.

So that is, again, a symbol of tremendous cooperation between

the churches in this Province. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this, that there

is a need for church schools for this reason, we have problems in our country

and problems in this world that have to do with the teaching of values and

ethics, what is right and what is wrong. We cannot leave this to courts to

decide. Courts decide matters of law, but they do not deal with what is right

and what is wrong. If churches, through their schools, do not push and do not

tell us, and do not indoctrinate children and tell children and discuss these

matters, who then will do this? In modern society one of the problems we face is

that the television seems to be dictating the morality of people, and this is

what we fear.

I support the parishioners and I support the people in St.

John's Centre and right throughout the Province who are with this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, just a brief word.

Yesterday I started in support of another petition to do a

little bit of a historical analysis of sharing in the Province, with my friend

from St. John's Centre and St. John's West. They have provided some of this

data, but I would like to stand in support of the petitions presented by my two

colleagues.

We have many, many examples of sharing, but I think it is

crucial for three or four reasons, for us to systematize the kind of sharing

projects and to put some model in place. I think this is what the government has

done, in co-operation with the churches, trying to put a model for sharing in

place. I think it is a historic achievement for the government to sit with the

churches and to get agreement on a kind of a model for future sharing.

I think there are three or four reasons why it is important

for us to do it now. First of all we have new demands on education. These are

very challenging times. If we are going to compete in an information based age,

compete in the world, we need the best education that we can have, and sometimes

we can't provide the best education in the kind of settings that we have in this

Province. We need to promote sharing and co-operation.

We have fewer resources and we have to get the most scholar

for the dollar that we can - more scholar for the dollar - and I think the

people of this Province recognize that, and in some cases sharing and

co-operation can produce more scholar for the dollar. The churches acknowledge

that.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we have declining enrolments. I do not

think the people of the Province recognize what is happening in student

enrolments in this Province. In 1971-'72 we had 162,000 students in the schools

of this Province. Now since that year we have added the fourth year of high

school. We are now down to - perhaps the Minister of Education might confirm it

- about 120,000 - even with the extended high school program - and the

projections are that we are going to go down to 100,000 at the turn of the

century.

That means if we continue with the traditional model of

having in rural Newfoundland two, three, sometimes, when I was a teacher, four

schools in the same community or set of communities, we are going to have

smaller and smaller schools.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province recognize that if we

are going to provide the computers and the libraries and all of the things

necessary, and all of the specialist teachers, we cannot do it in the

traditional framework. Declining enrolments make it essential that we look at a

new model.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, we have a greater willingness among

the denominations to share. I was criticized recently for saying that

twenty-five years ago there were certain negative attitudes among the

denominations that do not exist today. I do not see it today. My friend from St.

John's East Extern and I have talked about it on many occasions. There is a new

willingness to sit and share within the denominational framework - within the

denominational framework - for the various christian denominations to share.

There is a new willingness to recognize the rights of non-christians and

non-religious, to guarantee that they have the right to a good education.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are about four reasons, I would

suggest, why it is very timely and very important that the churches and the

government work together on a new model of sharing and co-operation, and I am

proud to be part of a government that has worked with the churches to get the

kind of agreement and to work on the kind of proposals for the future that will

make education better.

We believe, as a government, in the rights of everybody to

quality education and that is where the government is heading. I'm proud to be

part of a government that has signed this agreement with the churches to move

forward on these fronts. I'm pleased also to support the petitions that are

presented today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a

few words following the remarks of the Members for St. John's Centre and North

concerning the quality of schools in the City of St. John's, particularly in St.

John's Centre. I'm familiar with a number of these schools, having attended

Brother Rice High School and St. Bon's college. Not in the member's district but

in my own district, across the street from St. Pat's, which is in the Member for

St. John's Centre's district.

These are fine schools. I don't know if I'd go so far as the

Member for St. John's Centre and say that they're the best schools in the world.

I haven't been all over the world. Perhaps the hon. minister has, having been a

professor of education at Memorial, no doubt he has had opportunity to travel

all over the world and visit schools all over the world. I take it as a great

compliment that the Member for St. John's Centre, having travelled all over the

world, as a member of the Faculty of Education, can come back with that

judgement, that these schools are the finest schools in the world. I think

that's a fine compliment to our education system.

I wouldn't go so far, but I'd accept the judgement of the

hon. member. I'm sure his constituents, when he has that Hansard printed up and

passed out to every resident in St. John's Centre in the upcoming election

campaign, which I'm sure he will, would also be flattered to know that a man of

such eminence in the field of education has judged these schools to be the

finest in the world.

I too support the desire of the petitioners to ensure that

our schools continue to provide the kind of moral education that's required in

our society. It is a concern to all parents and it should be a concern to all

society, if children are expected to get their morality from the television set,

from the kind of information that's available to children today, and the

difficulties that parents have in being able to pass on to their children the

kind of moral needs that they have in a very complex world. So the desire of the

parents in this case is very highly regarded and should be continued to be

guaranteed.

I have a concern though because it seems that this issue is

raising itself during this particular time because of a fear that seems to be

spread about that somebody is about to put all the religious denominations up

against the wall and perform some sort of execution on the cause of religion and

religion in the schools and religious education. I think that's a very false

notion. I haven't heard anybody say that they want to do away with the cause of

religious education and religion in the schools. To try and put forth the

suggestion that any working together or trying to find a better way immediately

involves a threat to all that's gone on in the past I think is a big mistake.

There does need to be some assurance to the peoples whose

rights are contained in the Constitution, in the Terms of Union, will not be

tampered with without their consent. I think that there has to be continued

constitutional protection to ensure that those who are concerned that any change

would involve a removal of the right to teach religion, religious education, in

the school system, is going to be lost. I think that has to continue to be

assured. Whatever constitutional protection is required to do that must of

course continue.

But to suggest that everything must remain the same and not

involve any change, it's going to relegate our educational system to the

backwaters of the future. I don't think that anybody in this Province wants to

see that happen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased

today to present a petition on behalf of 374 residents of a number of

communities along the coast of Labrador, particularly from L'Anse-au-Loup,

Pinware, West St. Modeste and Black Tickle, Labrador.

This petition is similar to the ones that previously came to

this House. I would like to read for the record: 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, I have no problem with the general thrust of

that petition and I think that this government should be commended for reacting

to the wishes of the people in this way by the steps that we have taken to

assure the church community of this Province that we are not about to do

anything that will destroy the system that we have. However, at the same time, I

am quite pleased with the progress that this government has made through the

Minister of Education and the previous Minister of Education, towards getting

more 'dollars for the scholar' as my colleague from St. John's North puts it.

It is certainly quite necessary as we see declining

enrolments and as we see the challenges that are there before our children,

especially those days, Mr. Speaker, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The

challenges that are there for our children to compete with the knowledge based

industries, to compete in high technology industries, to compete more

effectively in science and technology. These are areas of the education system,

Mr. Speaker -

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: "May it please Your Honour, the General

Assembly of the Province has at its present Session passed certain Bills, to

which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request

Your Honour's Assent."

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act," (Bill

No. 1).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of

Packaging On The Environment," (Bill No. 2).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," (Bill

No.4).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government-Corner Brook Pulp And

Paper Limited Agreements Act," (Bill No. 10).

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: "In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to

these bills."

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

continue.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: He was half-way through.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Half-way through another great speech to

be interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind at all, but I would just like to say

to the members of this House that one of the greatest challenges to the

education system in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, and has been for

quite a number of years, is to be able to give our students the ability to be

educated and be able to compete in the science and technology areas of the work

force, because growing up on the Coast of Labrador, as I did, we certainly had

no computers to work with. We certainly had no -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no Mace on the table. I am sorry. The

Sergeant-at-Arms is some time getting the Mace. We will wait for that.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I

would say even Boris Yeltsin would be a little bit confused by now.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I fully support

the petition presented and the thrust of the petition because we have to achieve

greater bang for our buck in the education system, and I just wanted to submit

to the House my personal experience, growing up on the coast of Labrador. We did

not have the labs. We did not have the biology and chemistry and physics labs

that would have equipped many of our students to go on and be able to get higher

education in the fields of engineering and medicine and other areas from where

certainly we would be able to generate great careers.

Mr. Speaker, what we see today, and we are very appreciative

of the moves that have been made by this government and these Ministers of

Education to see that the dollars are put in place to be able to give the

computers to the small schools, to be able to use the distance education and the

teleconferencing system for the small schools throughout the coast of Labrador.

I am sure that in the years to come we will see the students coming from these

areas of the Province and be able to compete in the areas of high technology and

knowledge based industries, and be able to have meaningful careers in these

industries.

That is why we have to work toward the objective of sharing

facilities, sharing the administration budgets of education, and sharing the

co-ordinating budgets of education and so forth, because we are in a changing

world; we are in a more competitive world, and we have an obligation to our

children to give them the greatest opportunities available in line with the most

opportune places they may be able to have to get these careers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the petition presented by

the hon. Member for Eagle River.

I noted a number of times during his presentation he

supported the thrust of the petition. Now I have only been in this House, I

guess, about four years, but I think one of the things that generally have to be

spoken about with regard to a petition is the prayer of the petition.

I have noticed over and over again, on the part of Liberal

members of this House of Assembly, the fact that they support the thrust - the

inclination - the direction of a given petition.

The petition is quite specific. They want their education

system as currently constituted preserved, albeit with some sharing, albeit not

having schools where there are not enough people to actually form a school, but

the nub of the issue behind this particular petition, the nub of the issue

behind the petition that I presented on behalf of the Pentecostals in Green Bay,

is they want their denominational school system left intact, not chipped and

withered away, not thrust away here and thrust away there, and thrust away

somewhere else, so that all of a sudden you have a thrust going in all

directions, which gets you absolutely nowhere.

Denominational education involves a school having a certain

moral atmosphere, a certain ambience. Parents who choose to have their children

raised in that particular fashion, educated in that particular fashion, have a

constitutional right to so do. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't just support the thrust

of this petition, I support the prayer of the petition. Thank you very much.

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

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in my place and

support the petition presented by the Member for Eagle River. I support the

thrust and prayer of the petition. It's a good petition. I'm very encouraged by

the third sentence. It says: and the petitioners humbly pray that we also

support cooperation between the churches in education, especially shared service

schools where they're needed. I think that's very important.

There are some good examples around the Province of where

sharing is going on. Right in my own district one of the schools in Plum Point

has been engaged in sharing for quite some time. It's been a very successful

experiment and one that all of the children are happy with. I'm encouraged by

the Member for St. John's East's remarks with respect to the Member for St.

John's Centre's petition as well. I know that he and went to the Catholic school

system. He went to Brother Rice, I think, and I went to Gonzaga High School with

the Jesuits. i know they were very good in physical sports. They used to win the

basketball, hockey, volleyball and all those kinds of things. Interestingly

enough at Gonzaga we always won the public speaking, the debating, all those

intellectual things. So it was quite interesting to watch.

The Jesuits always told us, Mr. Speaker, to make money and do

good. I'm happy to say that half the equation is fulfilled now by me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FUREY: I said I have half the equation fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, the joint statement by the churches and the

government as presented to the House some time ago by the Premier made it very

clear. I know that there have been a lot of bogeymen, a lot of fearmongering and

a lot of fog and shadows cast around about this whole issue, but it couldn't be

clearer than how the Premier stated it on behalf of the government and in fact

jointly with the churches some time ago.

I just want to quote. It says that the Planning and

Priorities Committee of Cabinet met and "...significant progress was made

towards achieving a consensus which will lead to major improvements of the

education system..." in the Province, the "...objective of both churches and

government from the beginning. Government and church leaders have agreed to work

cooperatively in developing new approaches which will: enhance the quality of

education; achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of services; and make

substantial changes in administration that will lead to a major reorganization

of school districts."

One of the major concerns, or one of the bogeyman, that has

been tossed around is the whole issue of stripping the constitutional rights of

people or classes of people. Well, the statement goes on: "...[I]n response to

the church leaders' concerns that implementing certain recommendations of the

Royal Commission Report would jeopardize their traditional rights, government

has assured the leaders that it is not seeking change to the Constitution that

would remove the constitutionally-protected rights of classes of people

specifically provided for."

So when I see some of these petitions coming from friends and

family and other people around the Province I get a little worried that somehow,

somewhere, there have been some bogeymen created. The government is adamant that

we want to work cooperatively and closely with the churches and with the people

who make up those churches for the betterment of the children, Mr. Speaker.

That's what it's all about, and that's what the prayer of this petition seeks.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a

petition similar to the other petitions that have been presented in this House

of Assembly. I have three petitions but I'm certainly not going to go through

the three of them and read the prayer. I'll read the prayer of one of the

petitions. These three petitions are from Logy Bay, Outer Cove and Middle Cove.

They're signed by 656 petitioners.

Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated- although I've done it before,

but I think it's similar - but I will read the prayer on one of the petitions:

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 want to keep them, in the same way we support the rights of

others to have the schools they desire. We also support cooperation between

churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken

away, and we ask you as our representatives not to tamper with the rights we

have now under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few comments made by the

minister just previous to when I rose. I want to say to the minister that I

presented the first petition from the people in my area on last - I think that

was about a week ago. I want to say to him right now, never did I, and no one

else on this side that I know of, instigate, coerce, or incite anyone to sign a

petition. I repeat, that I don't know of anyone who incited, coerced, or

instigated anyone to make up a petition.

What the minister said, and what a couple of other ministers

over on that side said, that they were sort of provoked into making up this

petition.

MR. FUREY: I didn't say that.

MR. PARSONS: Let me tell the minister: these petitions

were ongoing before that ministerial statement was made. I want to get it quite

clear, Mr. Speaker, that these petitions had been started in many areas before

the Premier and the members of the churches were here. These petitions were

ongoing. It's not that I went out and started it. Yes, I was in Outer Cove last

week and accepted a petition. Which is my prerogative. That's what I'm supposed

to be doing. I'm representing the people the best way I can. I feel as strongly

about what they have in the petition as they do themselves.

I was really pleased when the Minister of Health rose today.

He said that he was very proud of the schools within that area. I say to the

minister, I am too. They're great schools. I had five children myself who went

through that system. I played a role. I was always there, a part of the school

system, and I feel really proud of that system.

I want to say to the minister, we talk about sharing. Sharing

is a big part of the conversational package. Eighty-eight per cent of the

schools in the whole system are single schools. There's no need of sharing in

that 88 per cent. What we're talking about is the other 12 per cent and that's

ongoing. Let me say to the members opposite: where I come from, I come from a

community of 1,000 people, Flatrock. We lost our school because of declining

enrolment. But Pouch Cove, who have an Integrated body, two classes, two

different religions, and Flatrock, which is all Roman Catholic, have no problem

in sending their children to the one school.

The point is that the people have already donated the land

with a recreational facility and whatever. The three churches involved agree to

sending their children to the same school, but, Mr. Speaker, there's no money to

build the school. It's as simple as that. We're not financially able to build

the school for the three denominations so they're going to have to stick with

what they have until we get the money to build the school.

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 Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to

rise in support of this petition. Before getting in, I think the hon. member may

have misinterpreted the remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, because at no time did he accuse members opposite of inciting

petitions. His remarks should be studied in the context of Hansard.

I too grew up in a small community, a very small community of

300 people where there was one school, one amalgamated school in the town of

Millertown. Most of the people in that area, it was basically run by the company

originally, and there was one Roman Catholic family in that town. Eventually

there were two because there were two daughters who married, then there were two

Roman Catholic families. One of the Roman Catholic families kept their children

in that school and we all went to school together. The other Roman Catholic

family decided that their one child would be sent to St. George's where there

was a convent school.

I want to say a few words about convent schools because I

taught in Bishop Falls in a school and there was a convent school in Bishop

Falls. Like other convent schools, that particular convent school added a

dimension to the community life that our schools could not provide and I am

referring to music. The nuns taught music and everybody who could learned music

from the nuns, not just Roman Catholic people but whoever was there. This

element of culture which was brought in many parts of this Province by a

religious school system should be very carefully appreciated. I think that

musical tradition is carried on now in places like Holy Heart and Brother Rice

where their are tremendous bands and tremendous choirs that are so exceptional.

It is not just the spiritual values which are extremely

important. I believe that this debate that we are having and the signing of the

petitions that has taken place all over the Province is going to do something

for religious education. I believe that church schools have a responsibility not

just to teach the usual things in the curriculum but to seize their main

challenge, which is the teaching of values, attitudes and morals and perhaps

even church schools may have gotten away from that to some extent. Now, this

brings us back, these petitions brings us back, all of us back, to think what it

is we had these schools for. I believe our church schools and the contributions

that they make will be even stronger now as a result of these petitions.

I want to make one other point before I sit down, and that is

the sharing which has occurred. I omitted to mention the sharing, the joint

services that occurred through the teachers union. In other provinces,

particularly the Province of Quebec, there was a protestant teachers union. In

other provinces too, they sometimes organize the teachers unions by religion. In

this Province we have the Newfoundland Teachers Association which from its

inception, had members from all denominations. I remember particularly when

Brother Brennan became president of that association and went on later to become

the president of the Canadian Teachers Federation. So, this is another example

of the way that the churches in this Province have been sharing. I do not think

that we should ever think that churches do not share but I will say this, that

in some of the smaller communities, it has been very difficult to maintain the

church schools because of the numbers. It is becoming increasingly difficult now

that the enrolments are so drastically declining. Some means, as the Member for

St. John's North said, must be found whereby we can not only preserve but

enhance the spiritual dimension of the school and at the same time pay attention

to the problems that are created by declining enrolments and decreased

financing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on

behalf of 716 residents of the Province concerning the closing of the Day Break

Parent Child Centre. Mr. Speaker, the petitioners state as follows: to the

members of the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

parliament assembled: we the undersigned urge the government to reinstate the

necessary funding to keep in operation the facility of the Day Break Parent

Child Centre, located at 3 Barnes Road in the City of St. John's, Newfoundland.

It is critical that their service be one of the options available for families

who need child development and parenting support and other specialized services.

Mr. Speaker, most of the speakers this afternoon, since the commencement of

petitions, have been talking about the quality of education and the quality of

our school system. This project is about those kinds of people who cannot

benefit from the school system and are going to be condemned to failure in that

school system if they as children do not get the help they need prior to

attending school.

I am glad the Minister of Social Services is here because it

is he and his fellow Cabinet ministers who have to make a very important

decision within the next week or ten days, a very important decision that is

going to affect the future lives of hundreds and hundreds of people in this

Province, not only the fifty children who are now there and the 150, or more,

related people, parents and other family members who are serviced at this

particular moment by Day Break, but the thousands who would be serviced by this

centre in the future. Also the many thousands in other parts of the Province who

will benefit from the work that is being done, from the model that is being

created, and from the valuable consulting and training services that are being

provided by the Day Break Parent Child Centre to other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I was at a meeting the other night at Mary Queen

of Peace School, as was the Member for Pleasantville, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, the Member for Humber East, and the Member for Port de Grave. We

heard firsthand from the parents, in the most part, and some professionals who

had worked at the centre, but mostly from the parents, telling their very moving

stories of the value that the Day Break experience had provided to their

children and to themselves. These parents are struggling with very serious

problems with their children, children who have particular disorders such as

attention deficit disorder. We had one woman speaking the other night about how

she had suffered so much stress that she lost all her hair. She was unable to

look after her child with attention deficit disorder and she asked a rhetorical

question to the group about her second child who she hopes will have an

opportunity to go to Day Break because she is concerned that that child will not

have the service available to her if this closes as the government has planned.

She said: what will I do in September? Will I have Day Break to turn to in

September when my second child is able to go? The answer from the crowd, Mr.

Speaker, was, yes. They are a very determined group and they want to see the

government change its mind on this issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two alternatives here. Either

this government has made a cold and callous move purely for budgetary reasons

without considering the cost, and without concern for the cost, or it has made a

blunder which it can correct. Either one or the other, Mr. Speaker. Either it

has made a cold and calculated budgetary move that they have been trying to

justify for various reasons over the past number of days, such as the federal

government started it and the federal government takes away the funding. Well,

Mr. Speaker, that means nothing. Every cent the Minister of Social Services

spends, or practically every dollar that the Minister of Social Services spends,

fifty cents comes from Ottawa. If that were the excuse well, I guess, we would

have no program in the Department of Social Services because Ottawa's funding is

what helps through the Canada Assistance Plan, the existence of not only these

centres but also of the very Social Assistance Program itself.

Mr. Speaker, the second argument that seems to have been made

is, if we cannot have it everywhere in Newfoundland why should we have it in St.

John's? A most foolish argument, Mr. Speaker. If that were the argument we would

have no university in Newfoundland, and we would have no Janeway Child Care

Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask all hon. members, particularly those on

the opposite side of the House, to change that decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member for Burin

-Placentia West it being Thursday and 4 o'clock I am obligated to advise hon.

members the matters for the motion to adjourn. The first matter is raised by the

Member for Burin - Placentia West stating his dissatisfaction with an answer

given by the Minister of Social Services regarding the Social Assistance Budget.

The second matter is raised by the Member for Kilbride stating his

dissatisfaction with an answer by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

concerning hog shutdown. The third and final matter is raised by the Member for

Humber East stating her dissatisfaction with the Premier's response to answers

respecting renovations and re-decorating of the Premier's offices.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I certainly want to offer my full support to

the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East. What we see here is a

very serious situation. We are seeing a situation where government, I believe,

and I believe very strongly that what has happened is that this government, for

some reason, the Minister of Social Services and the Cabinet sat down one day or

one night, whatever the case may be, and decided, we have to save so much money.

All of a sudden they went through the Budget and saw Day Break. When they looked

at Day Break they said, one-half a million dollars, whatever it is, we can pull

that down right quick. They never looked at anything outside of the Budget

figure and the name Day Break.

There is no way that any human being - with a conscience that

is - there is no way anyone with a conscience in this Province, whether you sit

in the Cabinet room or whether you sit in the back benches of the government, or

in the Opposition, there is no way that anyone with a conscience and a heart can

vote against such a valuable and, I guess, a program that cannot be replaced in

this Province.

I attended the other night, as the Member for St. John's East

stated, and as a former social worker in this Province - as someone who

practised social work for ten years, apart from being Minister of Social

Services for a couple of years - I can say that it was a very touching and

moving experience to be present and to hear the stories of what Day Break has

done for these people, and what Day Break is continuing to do, not just for the

children who attend Day Break, but for the families involved, and there is no

way this government should be allowed to discontinue that very valuable service.

Yesterday we had a list of people who were asked to sit on

the social services estimates committee. The social services estimates

committee, St. John's North is the Chairperson of that committee; Humber East,

Baie Verte - White Bay, Eagle River, Ferryland, Humber West and St. John's East.

Now I say to the Member for St. John's North - a man who I

respect and who has had, no doubt, a great deal of involvement as an educator in

this Province for basically all his lifetime and understands the needs of people

- I would ask him to familiarize himself, if he is not, of the valuable service

that Day Care has -

DR. WARREN: I have done that.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, I am delighted to hear that.

I would ask you, Sir, if this government cannot change their

mind - and yesterday the Leader of the Opposition did not get too far with the

Premier - I will ask you if you, as Chairman of that committee, will encourage

your members on that side to reject the Department of Social Services budget

outright, completely outright, reject it. Stand in your place one of these days

in the House and in concurrence debate say: Mr. Speaker, I have to report to

this House that the committee has rejected the Department of Social Service

budget. Then we will see action on Day Break; but that decision will not be made

by bureaucrats. That decision will have to be made by politicians. Then when it

comes to this Legislature for a vote, we will all reject the Budget. We will all

reject it unless Day Break is included.

So it is not for this Premier and this government to dictate

to the people who are involved in Day Break or this Province what they will do

or what they will not do. It will be the intestinal fortitude of every man and

woman in this Legislature as to whether or not they support Day Break. The day

will come when we will have to stand and be counted, whether we want to turn our

backs, not just on the fifty people who attend Day Break - the fifty children -

but the couple of hundred plus who are involved in the Day Break operation in

this Province.

I would ask that everyone join with this committee that is

actively involved in pursuing the rights for these people to be protected and to

be continued, and to tell the Premier of this Province that we will have no part

of your government putting thumbs down to such a valuable service in this

Province.

I notice the Members for Port de Grave and Pleasantville

attended the meeting the other night as well. I'm sure that they -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want

to say that I'm sure that these people as well -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: - got a fair understanding as I did - well, I

had some knowledge of it before because of my previous involvement - but there

is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who attended that meeting the other

night -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I told the hon. member his time was up. Does the hon. member

have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Just in conclusion, just thirty seconds, Mr.

Speaker. I'm sure and I know that the Members for Pleasantville and Port de

Grave, as well as my colleagues, got a real understanding of what was taking

place the other night, as well. Thank you.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too want to rise in

support of this petition by some of the parents, supporters, directors and

operators of the Day Break daycare centre.

I've been persuaded to support the effort to keep the centre

open and restore financing because I think it's one of the best investments this

government makes. I think we get a tremendous return on the money that's put

into this operation, both in the jobs it creates - because it creates about

twenty full-time jobs - but in the services that it provides to this society,

and in the costs that it saves government in other ways. For many years to come

the money we invest in Day Break will save this Province thousands and thousands

of dollars.

It might look to some people who are making up a Budget like

we're saving $500,000 by cutting this out at this time, but I think the Day

Break supporters have put together a persuasive case that in actual dollars

we're probably not saving any more than $150,000 or $170,000 at most. I doubt

that it's that much,. For that amount of money we're getting twenty full-time

jobs and we're getting all of the services that are provided for some of the

most vulnerable people in our society, some of whom live in my district, some of

whom benefit from the operations of the centre, and some of whom work there.

If those people can create jobs like that for that kind of

price perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should come up to

one of the meetings we had with them and maybe they'd have some ideas for that

department and the Economic Recovery Commission in relation to job creation in

this Province, because I think they get a tremendous return on the money that's

spent there. So I hope the government will reconsider what it's doing in this

regard and what it's going to do for the centre in Corner Brook.

I would also say, in view of some of the things we heard here

today, when you hear about the waste and extravagant spending that's gone on in

this Province over the years, by the people in the former administration who

wasted so much money in this Province for the seventeen years in which they

governed. They came into office when we had a debt of $1 billion -

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NOEL: - and now we have a debt in excess of $10

billion in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pleasantville has

to address the prayer of the petition and he's not doing this. What he has to

remember is that for seventeen years the Progressive Conservative government

kept Day Break open, I'd say to the Member for Pleasantville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That's the issue.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it ill behooves the hon.

gentleman for Burin - Placentia West to make such a specious point of order.

I've sat and watched and listened to him. He has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order!

MR. ROBERTS: - distorted, I submit - I'm building up to a

submission that there is no point of order. He has distorted the purpose of

petitions to a new low, even for him. The hon. gentleman for Pleasantville was

making a very effective speech in support of the prayer, the thrust, of this

petition, as we would expect from the hon. gentleman for Pleasantville. The hon.

gentleman for Burin - Placentia West has once again made a wrong submission on a

point of order, as we would expect from the hon. gentleman for Burin -Placentia

West.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members when they are speaking to a petition

that they must keep their remarks to the prayer of the petition and to the

material allegations within the petition. I ask the hon. member to carry on.

MR. NOEL: The reason, Mr. Speaker, there was some

consideration given to cutting this program was because of the financial state

of this Province. We have to talk about the financial state of this Province if

we're going to talk about what needs to be done here. This Province is going to

go down the drain if we don't wake up and change how this Province is operated,

how we spend our money and how we raise our money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: We can't afford to throw out programs like

that, that are going to save us money for years and years to come, but we can

afford to cut out the kind of money that members on the other side are going to

collect in severance pay, the half-dozen of them who are going to be quitting

this House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - in a few weeks time, and going off with a

pocketful of a couple of hundred thousand dollars and fancy pensions that cannot

be justified in an economy like this. This is the kind of place where we have to

look for saving money in this Province, Mr. Speaker, not on the backs of the

most vulnerable people in our society.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

order.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Apart from the member not being honest with this House in the

statements that he just made, he is supposed to speak to the prayer of the

petition, and it is not enough for him to say, 'I support the petition.' and

lack the courage or the guts to support the petition, and try to come up with

other measley, weasely excuses - you support it or you don't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I advise the hon. member there is no point of order. There

have been many rulings made in this House. An hon. member doesn't have to

support a petition to speak to it. What an hon. member does is speak to a

petition.

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. NOEL: I would like to say that I support the petition

enthusiastically, and I hope government reconsiders the decision it has made in

this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. Time and time again now, the

Chair says that time is up. When the time is up, the hon. member should either

take his place or ask for leave of the House to make a few brief remarks.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we deal with Motions 2

and 3? One is a first reading and the second is the naming of the committees, of

which I gave notice yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill,

"An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act," carried. (Bill No. 13).

On motion, Bill No. 13 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3. Honourable members will see what

the motion is without the Chair reading it. It is the setting up of the

Estimates Committees.

On motion of the hon. the Minister of Justice, the setting up

of the following Estimates Committees, carried:

The Government Services Committee comprised of the following

members:

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville (Chairperson) (Mr.

Noel)

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main (Vice-Chairpers