March 23,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 11

The House met at 2:00 p.m

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am rising on a point of order. My point of order is that

some people in the Province, news reporters among them, have the wrong

impression that the document the Premier tabled yesterday is a legal opinion of

the Department of Justice about the ENL MacKenzie contract and, in fact, it is a

report written personally by the Minister of Justice, a politician. It is not an

opinion of any impartial solicitor and I would like the record corrected to

reflect that reality, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would submit:

a) that is not

a point of order -

PREMIER WELLS:

b) It is incorrect.

MR. ROBERTS: -

b) it is incorrect, and

c) what the

document is, is what it is held out to be, a report by me, as the Attorney

General, to the Premier, it is there, it is signed and it says what it says and

d) there is a legal opinion in it to which the Premier did make reference

yesterday; that opinion was prepared by McCarthy, Q.C., who is one of the senior

civil solicitors and he addressed a particular point which he was asked to do.

MS. VERGE: A narrow little point.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. lady speaks of narrow, little

points - Mr. Speaker, I say the law is the law, and the fact that she apparently

has no knowledge of the law, doesn't take away from the fact that the law is the

law. Mr. McCarthy gave an opinion which stands there, and we have made it

public, Mr. Speaker, so those who wish to read it can see it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There is a place where the hon.

member may be able to mention it somewhere, but it is not in this particular

part of the routine orders.

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

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

point of privilege.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege stems from what happened

in the House yesterday. When Orders of the Day was called, we went directly to

Interim Supply, which is most unusual, and I want to, for a moment, talk about

customs and traditions of this House. What is supposed to happen, is that, after

the Minister of Finance finishes his Budget Speech - we know what happens here -

if it is Thursday, we adjourn until the Monday and, of course, that is exactly

what we did; and then the Opposition fisheries critic is given the opportunity

to respond -

MS. VERGE: Finance critic.

MR. MATTHEWS: The finance critic is given the opportunity

to respond to the minister's statement.

I want to refer Your Honour to Beauchesne, 6th Edition, page

265, paragraph 979, where it says: "It is the custom for the Opposition finance

critic to begin responding to the remarks of the Minister of Finance immediately

after the Minister finishes speaking, and moving the adjournment of the debate

at the appropriate time."

Now, we realize that if we had gone to the Budget Debate

yesterday, the Government House Leader could have called Interim Supply today,

but I want to refer Your Honour to that particular paragraph of Beauchesne and

to refresh memories about the custom and tradition of this House, where that is

what has happened. So, I want to submit to Your Honour that the privileges of

the Member for Mount Pearl, the Opposition finance critic, were, indeed,

breached yesterday when he was denied the customary opportunity, the traditional

opportunity, to begin responding to the remarks of the Minister of Finance

immediately after the minister had given his speech. The first opportunity was

yesterday. I submit that to your hon. for consideration.

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

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have

seldom heard such nonsense wrapped up in the guise of partisan attempts to make

specious points of order. It is my submission there is none. Here is what has

happened in the last three years - and I am having the last ten years checked:

the Budget Speech was given on the 2nd of April, I don't know yet what day of

the week this is, I will have it checked. The Budget Debate began on the 7th of

April and ran until the 19th. In 1988, Mr. Speaker, the Budget was delivered on

the 29th day of March. The Budget Debate began on the 11th of April, there may

have been a break there for Easter, I am not saying there wasn't, I don't know

yet. In 1989, last year, my learned friend, my hon. friend from St. John's

Centre brought in his Budget on the 6th of June, the debate began on the 12th of

June. Again, more than a Thursday - but I will have the days checked. What I do

say, Mr. Speaker, is two things; number one there is no rule or tradition or

custom of this House that says the Budget is called immediately. Secondly, the

Government must have Interim Supply to enable us to carry on the business of the

Province.

Now, there will be no attempt to restrict the Budget Debate,

no attempt to limit it and no attempt to avoid it. In fact, we welcome it. It

will start as soon as we can get Interim Supply passed and that is not a threat

or an attempt, it is just simply a recognition of the fact that we must have

Interim Supply to enable us to continue to pay the bills. In fact, in the last

three years, the Interim Supply bills were passed before - I am sorry, these are

1987-88, these are the last three Tory years, these are not the Liberal years,

but one of them is a Liberal year, 1989. The last, 1987-88 were years when -

AN HON. MEMBER: Good times.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may think they are good

times and that is why he is where he is, because he does think they were good

times, that is why he is over there and likely to stay there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, in 1987-1988, my friend from Mount Pearl was the

Minister of Finance. In 1989 my friend from St. John's Centre brought in an

honourable, honest, truthful Budget, a mere six or eight months late because of

the fact we had only been in office a month or two and hadn't had a chance to do

it.

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

worthy of -

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

of privilege.

MR. ROBERTS: It is not a point of privilege either. There

have not been breached any privileges of any member of the House or of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: The problem the Government House Leader

has, and what has created problems in the House, as he did this Fall, is that he

prejudges and predicts and predetermines what is going to happen.

The Budget Speech came down on the 18th of March. You don't

need Interim Supply until the last of March. Today is the 23rd of March and you

are prejudging that we, as an Opposition, will not grant Interim Supply in the

time that you want it. That is not the point. That is what you are doing, and to

do what you did yesterday, I further submit, breached the privileges of the

Opposition finance critic, the Member for Mount Pearl.

I don't know yet, I submit to the Government House Leader,

when an Opposition party held up the granting of Interim Supply beyond the time

that the government wanted it.

We all know why government needs Interim Supply. You have to

pay the bills; you have to pay the salaries. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't

know where the Government House Leader is getting off, Mr. Speaker, I really

don't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will allow one more submission just to even the matter. The

hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to add a very small point to the submission

made by the Government House Leader. It is a small point, Mr. Speaker, but it is

also a very big point.

The authority quoted by the Opposition House Leader is on

Page 265 of Beauchesne, paragraph 979, which I should read to point out how off

base the hon. member is. It says: "Standing Order 84 circumscribes the

proceedings during the budget debate. The debate lasts for no more than six days

of resumed debate, which need not be called on consecutive sitting days. It is

the custom for the Opposition finance critic to begin responding to the remarks

of the Minister of Finance immediately after the Minister finishes speaking, and

moving the adjournment of the debate at the appropriate time. On the second day

of the Budget Debate, if an amendment and a sub-amendment", and so on. "Any

amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance is dealt with in a similar

way on the fourth" - specifically on the fourth - "day of the Budget Debate",

and so on.

Mr. Speaker, this obviously is a process that is not part of

the rules of procedure of this House. Budget debate is not limited to six

days,as this particular directive indicates. There is no specific timing about

what specifically has to be introduced on the fourth day of debate of the

Budget. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this paragraph has absolutely no bearing on

this situation whatsoever and is just another example of the Opposition simply

trying to incorrectly make a few points, hoping to get a little bit of coverage

on it, Mr. Speaker, that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: It was a point of privilege and the Chair is

not going to allow a full-fledged debate. I've allowed equal submissions from

both sides. The Chair is going to take the matter under advisement and report

back to the House a little later. I thank hon. members for their submissions.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Premier about the public service pension plans. Over the past four years the

Premier has expressed serious concerns about the precarious financial condition

of the public service pension plans, particularly about the government's ability

to meet obligations as they come due when public servants retire. We all know

that the smallest two of the four plans, the MHAs and the uniformed forces

plans, are now broke.

How can the Premier justify suspending government

contributions to the public service pension plans over the next year? If the

provincial government reduces its contribution to the pension plans this year

by, say, $50 million, in twenty years time won't there be hundreds of millions

less in the plans to pay out to the public servants then retired, since money

invested now earns interest and compounds in value?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we took over this

government four short years ago we found that, because of practices instituted

by members opposite, our pension funds were in very serious difficulty. It's

been recognized in the financial community that the changes we have so far

brought about - number one, with the public service pension plan, number two,

through negotiation, the NTA plan - that our pension plans have indeed been put

on a solid footing. This is recognized as an accomplishment in the financial

community, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BAKER: It's also recognized, Mr. Speaker, that if we

continue to do what members opposite did, the plan would be bankrupt by now.

Having indicated that particular background, the bankruptcy

over here, the bankruptcy across the way, and the record of looking out to the

pension plan on this side of the House, having recognized that background, I'd

like to say to hon. members that I suspect the Member for Humber East doesn't

even understand what's going on. It's obvious from her questions. There is

nothing, absolutely nothing, in any proposal that's before public sector unions

now that would in any way harm the pension plan. As a matter of fact we have

that confirmed by actuaries. Not only our own actuary that we use but other

actuaries. We have had that confirmed, that there is no harm to the pension

plan. As a mutter of fact there might even be a slight benefit in terms of the

unfunded liability of that pension plan. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for

members opposite to worry. Our record is clear. We do not intend to bankrupt the

pension plans as they had set out on a course to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Premier.

You can fool some of the people some of the time and you may

expect to fool enough people until a mid-May election to get away with this

pension scam. My question is, are you seriously saying, Premier, that there will

be no harm to public service pension plans through government suspending

contributions over the next year? Is that what you are saying? I ask the

Premier. I would like the Premier on record.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will state again, as I have

stated many times, as the actuaries have stated who have examined the proposal,

and as everybody else who has looked at the proposal who understands anything

about pension plans realizes, that the proposal that is now being considered by

some public sector unions will have no, no, negative impact on the pension plan

in any way whatsoever. Is that clear enough?

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

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

Premier. The Premier and the Minister of Finance use words very craftily, very

craftily. I would like the Premier to explain how the pubic service pension

plans will not be seriously hurt with government suspending contributions this

year, since $50 million contributed now earns interest year after year, after

year, and compounds in value. By suspending contributions isn't the Premier

repeating the sins of the past by borrowing once again from children and

grandchildren, since $50 million spent now for people today will have to be made

up by taxpayers in twenty or thirty years time who then will not have to pay $50

million but hundreds of millions?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows that in a supplementary the hon. member

is suppose to be brief and is not suppose to embellish the remarks.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member obviously knows nothing about what she's

talking. It's obvious to me now how members opposite in their term of office a

few years ago could have started the destruction of the pension plan, recognized

by everybody in the financial community all throughout this nation. It's easy to

understand why they did what they did because they didn't have the slightest

clue about pension plans or what the pension plan entails.

I repeat again: not only is there not very much harm to the

pension plan, there is no harm whatsoever to the pension plan by the proposal

that is presently being discussed by the unions. No harm whatsoever. For the

contribution that is being made there will be a 1 per cent accrual of pension.

If twice as much were made there would be a 2 per cent accrual of pension. If

all of a sudden we quadrupled what we put into the pension plan there'd be an 8

per cent accrual of pension. Mr. Speaker, it's fairly obvious to anybody who

understands the plans that there is no harm to the plan by the proposal that we

are putting forward.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you,. Mr. Speaker, I actually have a new

question for the Minister of Finance this time. I'll say to the minister first

though that anyone who truly does understand pension plans can see this scam for

what it is. Now my question is: will the Minister of Finance table the list of

so-called third party organizations, community groups, volunteer organizations,

the provincial government has cut in this Budget? We know the Minister of

Finance has the list. He's kept it under wraps since last Thursday. Will the

Minister of Finance now table the list and let people know which groups are

getting hit?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have no such list, but to

respond to the first part of her question, to respond to the first comment that

she made, I will in this House - because I do have it, not in my possession

immediately, but as soon as I can go and get it - I will table in this House the

advice from the actuaries who indicate that the hon. member is all wet.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. The minister indicated

yesterday he was going to today release the capital works program. Can the

minister now provide the breakdown of how the $50 million was spent? What

portion is spent on water and sewer? What portion under the roads component, the

60-40? What if any is going to fund regional recreational complexes this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't recollect

making any such indication yesterday I would release any information today. I

have already advised all members of the House of Assembly what's allocated to

their various districts and municipalities. Unfortunately, circumstances don't

permit me today to make a ministerial statement or table the normal alphabetical

list in the House. It will be done shortly.

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

MR. WINSOR: The minister in his meeting with the councils

always talks of the importance of the ranking sheet. The ranking is based on

three or four factors: health, environment, financial ability to pay, and so on.

Is the minister prepared now to table the rankings of the municipalities in the

Province? Why isn't this information readily available to municipalities since

they want to know how they're going to qualify for subsequent years?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to table the

internal work sheets of the department in the House of Assembly.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously we know why

the minister won't table it. Of the fifty million plus dollars the minister

announced he was going to have in capital works, how much of this $50 million is

actually spent by the Province? In other words, how much of it is just

permission to borrow given to municipalities? How much will the Province

actually spend out of that $50 million capital works? What portion will be given

to the municipalities to pay?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: That's a very pleasant surprise, Mr. Speaker.

A pleasant surprise to get an intelligent question. I will table the answer as

soon as I can get to the bottom of it.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this

then: In past years a number of municipalities have been unable to accept

capital works because of the high debt repayment cost. It happened last year,

it's going to happen again this year. We know of communities already who can't

take advantage of it, the communities which have funds allocated that are going

to return them to the department because they can't pay. When will it be

announced? Or will it be announced during the election campaign that's to follow

shortly?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The practice in the past, Mr. Speaker - over

the past three years for sure - has been that if municipalities reject monies

that were either approved to be borrowed or in grants - and I suspect they would

not reject anything in grants, but to quote the phrase of the hon. member, this

money has either not been borrowed by the Province or returned to general

revenue. I would assume that the same practice would prevail this year, although

that particular and specific decision has not been made by government, and I

will deal with it and advise the hon. member, as I have in the past, of such

decisions.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also to the Minister responsible for Municipal

and Provincial Affairs.

In last week's Budget the Minister of Finance announced that

the subsidies paid for electrical power to municipalities in the Province for

stadiums and swimming pools and other recreation facilities would be cut out,

and also funding to sports governing bodies in the Province would be cut out.

It is no secret that this administration is famous for

cutting into budgets of municipalities in mid-season. Municipalities in the

Province bring down their budgets on December 31st and it is famous for the last

four years that they have been notified in June, July and August that they have

a $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 or $100,000 bill to pay - with no other

recourse. This will mean considerable hardship, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister now tell the House of any further cuts that

are going to be made by his department in the next couple of weeks, and would he

table a list of all cuts made by his department in last week's Budget and those

that are going to be made over the next week to ten days - the Minister

responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: It is regrettable that the electrical

subsidies had to be cut, but where does one stop when one has to do essential

savings to meet our fiscal and budgetary requirements?

The hon. member was not specific as to where he would like to

know where the cuts are going to be, but there are no other cuts that I am aware

of that were announced in the Budget to municipalities. There are yet to be

identified in the specifics of the Budget where some of the subsidies to

whatever are to be made or not to be made, and those details will come forth in

the coming days.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the minister is after admitting that there will

be other cuts. He will probably table those next week.

If there was ever a time in this Province that we needed

recreational facilities, a time of social upheaval, a time of high unemployment,

one of the highest times, I suppose, for social services cases in the Province,

could the minister explain to the House how municipalities in this Province

today, the way they have been cut over the last three or four years, are going

to cope with yet another increase to their budgets?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I do not know exactly of what increases the

hon. member speaks in municipal budgets, except the one that he already

enunciated a few moments ago, and that was to probably contribute to the

electrical subsidy, or to replace the electrical subsidy, to ice hockey arenas

and swimming pools, which I said was regrettable, but it is a fiscal

responsibility that has to be met by the municipalities.

The hon. member is aware that one of my philosophies is

nothing new, and that I have preached it and practised it myself over twenty

years in municipalities, that the municipalities are the ones and the community

services are the ones which have to be responsible for the actual expense of

recreation in the grass roots area of the communities, and that the Province and

the federal government each have a particular role to play, and I hope that

throughout the life of this administration, and our four years yet that we have

to serve after the next month or two, that we will be able to develop that

particular philosophy to the betterment of the sports community and indeed to

all municipalities.

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

supplementary.

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

Based on the comments made by the minister, I will ask the

minister if he would take his concerns back to his colleagues in Cabinet and ask

them to overturn the decision already made last week pertaining to recreational

facilities in the Province and have them re-evaluate this decision and make it

easier for municipalities, Mr. Speaker, or is he going to be the minister

responsible for taking away the caps from the Cubs next, the sashes and scarves

from the Girl Guides, the Pathfinders and the Brownies in the Province, what is

next, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: In all my experience, Mr. Speaker, in

municipal affairs and indeed associated with the Department of Municipal Affairs

and the Department of Sports and Recreation, did I ever realize that that

particular department contributed to Girl Guides, Boy Scouts and Pathfinders. I

never knew that they actually put the scarves on the necks of those children.

There must be somebody else in Cabinet responsible for that particular function

because it was never there - not when any of the people over there, were

minister's in recreation, was that the case. What we have been doing is

subsidizing third party groups out there in the sports and recreation community

that unfortunately must be in the bite of these tough fiscal times and it has to

be spread as evenly as we can and as justly as we can. That is the thing that we

are going to be examining with the groups over the next couple of weeks.

Again, I will reiterate, it was unfortunate that the

electrical subsidies to the arenas and the swimming pools had to be done but

what has to be done, has to be done. There are other things that are in the

Budget, for example this year a portion of the capital works, $2 million to be

exact, has been allocated to recreation in the capital works and this is the

first time that this has ever happened.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier

and concerns the closing of the Day Break Parent Child Centre in St. John's. Is

the Premier aware that this program not only assists over two hundred people in

St. John's but in fact was instrumental in assisting the setting up of the Bell

Island Head Start Program and also is working with the community initiative

project in Port au Port, to assist in similar kinds of services there, Mr.

Speaker, providing training and consultation for these organizations, it is not

just a St. John's service?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have brief knowledge of how

this program got started, like many others, it got started with impetus from the

federal government. The same as the one in Corner Brook, there is a similar

facility, I do not know if it is exactly similar, it is pretty much the same as

this in Corner Brook, it has been functioning. The federal government causes it

to be set up, funds it for two or three years, then walks away, leaving the

Province with the burden. Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue forever to allow

the federal government to dictate our Budget. If the government is to change its

position on this it must be prepared now to take over funding of, I think it is

$194,000 for the facility in Corner Brook, that would have to be added to it as

well.

If Corner Brook and St. John's are entitled to it, how can we

say no to Marystown, Bonavista, St. Anthony, Port aux Basques and all the

others. These things often get started when the federal government decides they

want to do something that is worthwhile, I do not decry it, but the federal

government cannot determine the provincial government's policies, approach and

ordering of its responsibilities by themselves setting up things and walking

away from it, leaving the provincial government with the responsibility.

Now, I am very, very much aware of the highly valuable work

that they do but there are a lot of other expenditures that government has had

to cut too that would have to be described as highly valuable work as well.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Day Break Child

Care Centre has been operating for twenty years, I do not think it was a fly by

night organization started by the federal government and left to it's own

devices afterwards. Mr. Speaker, based on the Premier's theory and the new

theory and policy of the Liberal government that if it only exists in St. John's

it must be closed down, what other services can the people of St. John's look

forward to being shut down by this government as a part of its new policy?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: You can make anything sound like an

intelligent question if you are prepared to base it on a false statement, which

is what the hon. member has just done. It is not the government's policy that if

anything only exists in St. John's it must be closed down, it is the

government's policy to treat all taxpayers of this Province on a fair and

balanced basis, and we cannot cut out general services throughout the Province

in order to maintain specific services for one sector of the Province, that is

unconscionable and this government will not do it.

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

a supplementary.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier aware of the exact amount of savings the

government actually hopes to receive by the shutting down of the Day Break Child

Care Centre? Is the Premier aware of the analysis done by the board of directors

of Day Break, showing that in fact the only savings when the alternative

services that are required are paid, would amount to $8,000, is the Premier

prepared to shut down this service for $8,000 at the cost of twenty jobs and a

valuable service to over 200 individuals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, that too is incorrect. I am

aware of the proposition but I do not have confidence that the proposition is

accurate. I mean, if that proposition is accurate, all we have to do is just

spend hundreds of millions and why stop at hundreds of millions, why not spend

billions of dollars, if it is going to do so much for the economy and do it for

the economy in all parts of the Province? That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Premier.

Memorial University has been informed that it will lose

almost $6 million from its operating grant, combined with increased costs of

almost four more million dollars resulting in a short fall of $10 million. Now

the President of Memorial University has indicated that in order to offset this

loss, it would result in tuition fees being increased by 50 per cent. Now your

government has already been responsible for increase in tuition fees by 50 per

cent since 1989, will your government take steps to ensure that the cost for

budget cuts are not passed on to the students and parents in higher tuition

fees?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware of the

fiscal problems that the Province has, and when we went through the budgetary

process it was expected that all the various sectors of government would take

their proportionate share of dealing with our fiscal problems. In the case of

Memorial University, maybe we were a little different than what we were with

some of the other parts of government, and instead of saying to the university:

you have to lay off ten people there or you have to do this or that, we

entrusted with the university their budget of $110 million or whatever it is,

Mr. Speaker, and it is their duty and their obligation and their right, and I

have every confidence in the administration at the university to deal with that

matter in a way which is fair, and which is fair to the people of the Province

and is fair to the students as well, and I do not see a 50 per cent increase in

tuition, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Premier,

your government has said that there will be no tax increases. Yes, you have

indicated that you would deliberately avoid tax increases because it is not the

time to pass on burden to the taxpayers. Are you not, Mr. Premier, passing on

the burden of higher tuition fees to taxpayers? Will you not keep your promise?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is making a lot

of assumptions here. He is going on the assumption that tuition fees will be

increased by 50 per cent; he is going on the assumption that all these bad

things could happen. Let us assume the moon is going to fall out of the sky,

what are you going to do then, Mr. Speaker? You see, I would caution the hon.

member to get his facts right. When I am absolutely certain that they are going

to double tuition fees, or if they are talking about it, then we will deal with

it, but the hon. member is just going on a lot of assumptions which have no

basis whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, he is just following in the old path they have

always followed, fearmongering, it is called, Mr. Speaker, and trying to make

political points on something that does not even exist.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Dwight W. Morrow said: Any party that takes credit for the

rain should not be too surprised when opponents blame them for the drought. This

government has increased tuition fees 50 per cent and I was quoting statements

by the President of the University. I am not making assumptions.

MR. GRIMES: He did not say that.

MS. VERGE: He did.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to ask his question.

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

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

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

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Ferryland.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. members should read Hansard to find out exactly what he

did say. He'll find that out tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to put his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if this government is not

going to do anything to stop tuition increases, and they haven't for the past

four years, will you at least accept your responsibility and increase the

provincial portion under the Canada Student Loan program so that needy students

will be able to access the funding they need to cover tuition costs for their

education? To the Premier.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if the Province could afford it

we would love to provide free tuition for all institutions in the Province. We

would love to pave all the roads in the Province. We would love to build

hospitals in every nook and cranny. We would love to build schools in

everybody's back yard. But that is the kind of philosophy that got us in the

mess we're in. For seventeen years we had a government which reacted to nothing

more than political patronage and political expediency. We don't have that

luxury any more. We have to govern this Province based on the amount of money

that we can raise through fair taxation, based on the income that we have, and

we're doing it in a very fair and rational way.

We don't have the money to increase grants to students, but I

will tell the hon. member that his kissing cousins in Ottawa have frozen the

Student Aid program since 1985. If he could only get some of the vehemence that

he has against this administration and apply it to his cousins in Ottawa, where

the real problem lies, he might be able to do something about Student Aid in

this Province, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, and his

department has made allowance for that inflationary cost on the federal portion,

but not on the provincial portion. He has gypped the students out of the

provincial portion. I'd like to ask the Premier in response to - the president

of Memorial University said that Memorial University will have to become

smaller. Obviously smaller means fewer students. Is this what the Premier and

his government are up to in managing decline? Decline in post-secondary

education in this Province?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this government cannot take

responsibility for anything that the President of the University is saying, or

is supposed to have said. I can tell the hon. member this, that Memorial

University, like all other government funded institutions in the Province, is

looking at its internal operations. I cannot say what the President was talking

about when he said it had to be made smaller. I can tell the hon. member though

that they are looking at every dollar they spend. They are looking for value for

their dollar just as the Department of Education and government are looking for

value for every dollar we spend.

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

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

question for the Premier. It's a follow up to a question I asked last week as it

pertained to the Roddickton crab plant. The Premier made an undertaking that he

was going to check out the status of that operation, particularly whether or not

there's a licence attached. There's some concern in the area as to why that

plant hasn't been reopened, and the Premier made an undertaking to check out the

status. So I understand the minister is going to respond.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to table the

answer at the appropriate time on the Orders of the Day. But I can now tell the

hon. gentleman that the building in which the crab operation operated did in

fact burn down earlier. It's been rebuilt. I understand there's been some damage

done to it recently because of snow loads on the roof. The licence is still

there. If a person comes along who wants to reactivate the plant, if they can

meet certain conditions: one, it'll have to be certified by the Department of

Fisheries and Oceans; and two, of course, maybe the more important

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

of the building must be satisfied.

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

Leader.

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

also some question in Roddickton about funding and so on. Apparently there was

some promise of funding that was given to those people, not only for a

feasibility study but to get the plant back in its proper state. I think the

commitment was given to them by their member. I was just wondering if the

Minister of Fisheries is aware of that commitment and what the status is now on

possible funding for the Roddickton crab plant?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of there being any

- certainly not to my department there's been no application. I know that a

group of citizens in Roddickton has formed themselves into a cooperative. I

believe they are attempting to get the necessary wherewithal to reactivate the

plant. I understand they have, or they're about to make, an application to ACOA.

Certainly there's no funding coming from our department.

In fact it would be extremely difficult to justify providing

government funding for a plant in Roddickton, given the fact that we already

have more than enough crab processing capability around the Province now. In

fact, I believe, the entire crab processing sector is operating at probably less

than 50 per cent of its capacity.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I am wondering if the Minister of Fisheries

could tell us if there has been a commitment given to the people of Roddickton

by any other department, any other minister of government, for funding either

towards a feasibility study or to aid towards the reconstruction to get the

plant back in operation? I am sure as Minister of Fisheries if there was a

commitment made by another minister, I am certain that as the lead Department of

Fisheries that minister would be aware. Is he aware of any commitment that has

been made by any other minister?

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

MR. CARTER: I cannot speak for the other ministers. I can

only say that we have not made a commitment. Certainly I will take the question

as notice and report back if in fact there has been a commitment made. I am not

aware of one.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before going on to the next routine item of business, on

behalf of hon. members, we would like to welcome to the public galleries today,

twenty Grade V students from Park Avenue School, Mount Pearl, in the district of

Waterford - Kenmount, accompanied by their teacher, Margaret Wakeham, and

chaperones, Joan North, Dianne Spurrell and Geri Graham. I understand that maybe

they have left, but we welcome them in absentia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Also, we have nine students from the PREP

Centre, 30 Harvey Road, in the district of St. John's Centre, accompanied by

their teachers, Sharon Byrne and Heather Powell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Notices of Motion

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

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

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

Tax Act."

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

the following resolution:

WHEREAS the attainment of higher education is fundamental to

the future prosperity of our Province;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador take the necessary steps to provide adequate funding to Memorial

University to ensure that tuition fees are not increased during the 1993-1994

fiscal year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

point of order.

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

clarification.

The Premier presented a couple of petitions yesterday. As we

know, members have to sign petitions when they present them. I am just

wondering, looking at the remarks the Premier put on the petitions - I really

can't read them, but there are two remarks made, I think, on the petition before

the Premier signed them. Would the Premier clarify what they are? It says:

'Certified that this petition does not contain' - I am not sure what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Whatever claims I may make, I don't make

claim to great penmanship. My penmanship is not the best and I apologize for it.

If hon. members would care to read Rule 90 of our Standing

Orders, there is a requirement that: "A petition to the House shall be presented

by a member in his place who shall be answerable that it does not contain

impertinent or improper matter; and every member offering a petition to the

House shall sign it with his own hand."

I certified that it contained no impertinent or improper

matter, and signed it with my own hand - Rule 90.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I just want to rise to say that I couldn't

read it. I accept the Premier's explanation for it. I couldn't pick out what he

wrote, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on

behalf of 2,882 people from the district of Burin - Placentia West, consisting

of the parishes of Rushoon, Marystown and Burin.

The petition is to the Members of the House of Assembly: 'We,

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

children of our Province. We support the Roman Catholic schools and want to keep

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

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

especially shared service schools where they are needed.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the petition, signed, as I said, by 2,882 people

from my district, was presented to me on Sunday. As I said yesterday, my

colleague from Grand Bank and I met with the various church leaders, the parish

priests from St. Bernard's, Rushoon, Marystown, Burin, St. Lawrence and

Lamaline, together with representatives of the parishes represented by the six

priests.

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

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

At that meeting, Mr. Speaker, they presented the petitions to

my colleague and me, from the districts we represented.

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

hear what 'Oliver' just said?

MR. TOBIN: What?

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is between the Member for

Fortune - Hermitage and his constituents, it is not for me in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Member for Carbonear that when the

church leaders, and the priests, in particular, presented these petitions to us,

they asked that they be presented in the House, and I don't think they expected

the mockery coming from the Member for Carbonear to be part of the presentation

of this petition. I tell the member that I, on behalf of the people from whom I

accepted the petition, do not appreciate very much the childishness and

foolishness he is getting on with in respect of these petitions.

Mr. Speaker, this petition was presented by these groups

representing their church and the prayer of the petition specifically spells out

that there be no tampering with the rights to the denominational education

system.

Shortly after the Williams Royal Commission was put in place,

the leader in our caucus, together with some officials and other people, made a

thorough assessment of the Williams Royal Commission Report, and shortly after

that, within a matter of days, the position of our caucus was articulated by our

leader and by those of us who wrote it from the very various churches and

parishes in the Province. That position, Mr. Speaker, was quite clear, that the

constitutional rights of the churches and those who are in adherence to these

rights should be protected. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the rights of the

Pentecostals to have it enshrined in the Constitution was done, I would say, by

the Peckford Administration, under which many of us served in the Cabinet. That

is exactly where we came from on this.

Now, several days after the Minister of Education said in an

article in 'The Evening Telegram' - and the Premier and others are now basically

trying to get through - but I think what really set the ball rolling and what

disturbed the people in Newfoundland was an

article in 'The Evening Telegram', I

believe, where the Minister of Education stated, 'I would like for my

grandchildren to know that their grandfather took over education at a time when

the illiteracy rate was 40 per cent and eventually the illiteracy rate was

licked. And I would also like for my grandchildren to know that when their

grandfather was minister there was a denominational education system and

eventually there was no segregation based on religion.' Now, Mr. Speaker, that

is the statement by this minister that caused the churches and other people in

the Province who wanted to protect the denominational education system to become

outraged. In that interview, the minister went on to say, 'There are

recommendations which require changes to the Constitution and changes could be

made through consensus or by force, but hopefully it can be reached through

consensus.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I present this

petition to the House of Assembly on behalf of the people from whom I accepted

it the other day, with my colleague from Grand Bank, and I ask the government to

strictly respect the wishes of these people.

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

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

I rise to support the petition presented by my colleague from

Burin - Placentia West. The member has outlined basically how he got possession

of this petition. It was in a forum on Sunday with representatives of church and

community that we were presented with the petitions. As I said yesterday, it was

most interesting to hear the views of those people, to hear church leaders and

parishioners express their views on denominational education. They feel very

strongly that it should remain protected under the Constitution but, again, I

reiterate they do not mind sharing. They think duplication should be eliminated

and avoided, but they were very, very strong in their resolve to maintain the

protection they now have in the Constitution. Of course, as I said yesterday,

they are not all that certain that the government of the day has been definite

enough that it will not tamper with their rights under the Constitution, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, to go on, as my colleague says, about

what the Minister of Education says: 'There are recommendations which require

changes to the Constitution and that change could be made through consensus or

by force. Hopefully, it can be reached through consensus.'

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: If there is one person, I guess, who has

inflamed this debate more than any other, it is the present Minister of

Education. My understanding is that the former Minister of Education had to be

brought in at the eleventh hour to try and pull this thing together for the

Premier and the present Minister of Education. He had to be called in to sort of

put down the flames and try to find some way to resolve this matter and to get

the church leaders in last Friday with the statement that we saw. That is what I

am hearing, Mr. Speaker, from very good sources. I see the former Minister of

Education is blushing somewhat, and that is usually a sign that you're right on

the money, when you get the former minister to blush.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I understand the views and the

wishes of those people who signed the petitions, and I want to go on record as

very clearly supporting their position.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite are really

trying desperately to get a fight going between myself and the churches in this

Province, because they realize they have lost it. They were all set to make this

Williams report and the denominational issue into a great big political football

and they really thought they were on to something. I remember how their chins

fell the day that the heads of churches walked in there and stood cheek to cheek

with government and showed our consensus, church and state together, to try to

deal with the problems that we have in education.

Hon. members opposite are trying to take words out of

context. I don't mind getting up and saying what I told the reporter from 'The

Evening Telegram'. I told him I would like to be able to say to my grandchildren

that as a result of what the Liberal Administration did, illiteracy has been

eradicated from Newfoundland and Labrador. That would be a great achievement. I

would like to be able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I said I would like to see the day when children

are not segregated, based on their denomination. I say that as a Christian, I

say it as Minister of Education, and as a Newfoundlander. I would, indeed, like

to see that day. But when I say that, I can tell you that I am saying exactly

the same thing the churches are saying - that the hon. member pointed out they

are saying - that they don't mind sharing. They are encouraging sharing. The

churches recognize today that in this fiscal climate we live in, we have to

share. As a Christian, I don't want to see children segregated simply and solely

on the basis of denomination. I stand by that point. I can tell the hon. member

that there are a good many members of a good many churches in this Province who

would stand up and say exactly the same thing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to the people who presented the petition, I

would suggest to them that they get their hands on the statement that was

presented in this House by the hon. the Premier on behalf of the churches and

ourselves some weeks ago. The hon. members opposite will not be sending these

statements out to their constituents because the hon. members want to have a

fight, they want to make a political football out of this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind hon. members that it is too noisy here. The Chair

can hardly hear what the hon. member is saying. I ask hon. members, please, to

keep their conversation at a minimum.

The hon. the Minister of Education may continue.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate,

Sir, that you would have to do that. Hon. members presented this petition which

I thought they were serious about. I thought they wanted to hear the position of

government on this. It is unfortunate that they won't give the courtesy to

whoever is speaking so we can put out the truth. They want to make sure that the

word that gets out from this Chamber is anything but the truth, and so they kick

up all the disturbance they can so that the good people who signed this petition

in good faith will never be able to hear that government is in agreement that we

do not want to get out and take away their rights, Mr. Speaker, we want to give

a good quality, sound education. The hon. member also talks about changing the

Constitution. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe I should clarify it to the hon. members

so that they could go back to their constituents and explain the reality of what

we are talking about.

The reality is, this is the legal advice I am getting, I am

not a lawyer, the reality is, Mr. Speaker, that if all the churches came

together and reached a consensus that would see some kind of sharing, the

Constitution would have to be changed. Now this is the legal advice I am

getting. I am also getting the advice that what happened back in 1969, when the

Integrated Board was formed, in the strict letter of the law, the Constitution

should have been changed, and no one was forcing it, but it should have been

changed. It could easily have been changed by consensus because, as the terms of

union are written, it is my understanding, and I say it clearly, I am not a

lawyer, it is the legal advice I am getting, it is my understanding that any

member of any church could challenge what happened in 1969, because it is

breaking an individual's rights under the Constitution, so if all the churches

today were to agree by consensus, to come together in one, say unified system,

the Constitution would have to be changed in order to protect that from being

challenged some years down the road, so the Constitution, Mr. Speaker, could be

changed by consensus.

I also said, Mr. Speaker, that the Constitution could be

changed by force, so it can be changed by force I suppose, but this

administration has no intention of changing it by force. I suppose anything

could happen if you have a mind to speculate on it, but I caution hon. members

not to read any more into that, than it actually says. There is no intention to

force the change in the Constitution.

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

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

I have a petition also with 574 names and the prayer of the

petition is much the same as other petitions that have been presented in this

House of Assembly over this past while, particularly since this Minister of

Education has taken over, the minister who wants to be remembered as the

minister who did away with denominational education.

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

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

Education -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, so that the record will not be

confused, the hon. member is either misadvised or ill-informed. He is assuming

that I have said things which I did not say, so, Mr. Speaker, I would like the

record to show that what the hon. member is saying, shows that he is ill-advised

or misinformed.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. Member used the occasion for a point of

clarification.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

The hon. minister can squirm and twist and squeal all he

likes, but it was in the papers that he wants his grandchildren to remember him

as the one who did away with denominational education. I do not know what paper

it was in, it was November the 1st, 1992, but it does not say on this which

paper it is. He also wanted -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I know that I am not allowed to

use certain language in this Chamber, but surely there must be some way by which

an hon. member in this House should not be allowed to get up and lie, Mr.

Speaker. I am not accusing the hon. member of lying because I am not allowed to

say it, but surely there must be some procedure that would prevent this kind of

thing from happening because it is certainly giving misleading information to

the people of this Province, and I do not think it becomes either the hon.

member or this Chamber to allow that kind of attack to be made, Mr. Speaker,

without some basis of truth to it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. the Opposition House Leader, on

a point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

hon. minister cannot be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to do through the back

door, what he cannot do through the front. Now really what this minister has

said right now is that the Member for Kilbride is lying, he is accusing him of

lying and, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend and suggest to Your Honour that the

minister be directed to stand in his place and withdraw any references

whatsoever, that the Member for Kilbride lied.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear the member say that

the Member for Kilbride actually lied because as the member said he was not

allowed to say that. I would hope that members would not put the Chair into that

kind of position by trying to do it through the back door, and I would ask the

hon. member if he made any reference to the fact that the hon. member lied, that

he withdraw that statement.

MR. DECKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly did not make the suggestion, the only reason I

did not make it is because I am not allowed to make it, Mr. Speaker, so if there

is any suggestion -

MR. SPEAKER: Again the hon. minister is not to qualify

and I would ask the hon. minister to make a total withdrawal.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, if I have in any way suggested

that the hon. member was lying, Mr. Speaker, if I suggested that he was lying

about what I was supposed to have said, I withdraw that, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: He told the truth.

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

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I know for the rules of this House of

Assembly he had to apologize. Mr. Speaker, he would be like the Minister of

Environment and Lands, he would be down on his knees in a day or so -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: - apologizing to me. Now, to get back to

the petition, Mr. Speaker, not only does he want to be remembered by his

grandchildren as the minister who did away with denominational education but he

also goes on in that same

article and says: this is going to take constitutional

changes, Mr. Speaker, and he said if they do not agree with it, if they do not

do it by consensus, I will shove it down their throats, Mr. Speaker, that is

what he meant in his article. If they do not agree with me, if they do not come

along and do exactly what I say, I will make sure they will. Mr. Speaker, he

will probably hire a lawyer like the Premier, who tried to take away our

offshore rights or one of these things, and maybe he can get away with it, maybe

the churches will knuckle under to him, I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, the biggest deceptive statement that was ever

made in this House of Assembly was the Premier's statement on this issue a

little while ago, when the Premier came out and said all the churches agree with

what he wants to do. I do not know if the church leaders read this or not while

they were agreeing to it, Mr. Speaker, but actually what the Premier says in his

statement is: the government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking

changes in the Constitution.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

- The Capes.

MR. HEARN: That is okay, Mr. Speaker, I forgive you. I am

proud to be from that district.

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

lives there.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to present a petition to

the hon. House, it is directed to the hon. House of Assembly in Legislative

Session Convened: The petition of the undersigned at the Parish of Holy Redeemer

in Trepassey, is that Catholic schools be retained. Wherefore, your petitioners

humbly pray that your hon. House may be pleased to accept and as in duty bound,

your petitioners will ever pray. Proper presentation signed by approximately

1200 people of the Trepassey area.

The petition, Mr. Speaker, is very similar to others

presented over the last few days by many members in the House, requesting that

this hon. House of Assembly not do anything to undermine the system of education

that we have. The heading of the petition also goes on to say that the

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

of the Province. They support Roman Catholic schools and we have had other

petitions supporting schools of other denominations and they want to keep them

in the same way they want their rights protected. They recognize that others

also have rights and have no argument with the rights of other people. They also

agree with sharing and support the sharing that has gone on, that has been part

of the developmental process over the last number of years, here in the

Province.

The Minister of Education, when he spoke just a short while

ago, talked about the time when the Integrated Faiths came together to form one

unified school system, known has the Integrated School System in the Province.

That narrowed down the number of specific systems, to the four that we presently

have. One of them did not have their rights protected under the Constitution,

that would be the Pentecostal Faith. Just a few short years ago, in fact when I

was Minister of Education, we did arrange for a constitutional amendment, passed

both here in our House and in the House of Commons in Ottawa, which assured the

Pentecostals the same protection under the constitution as the Integrated

Groups, the Catholic's and also the other people that are protected by the

Constitution.

So, Mr. Speaker, what the petitioners are asking is that we

leave our system of education alone. We encourage and promote sharing, we

encourage and promote fiscal responsibility but that we also tryto work together

to provide the highest quality of education that is possible within the

Province.

In speaking earlier to some of the other petitions I

mentioned that the system that we have is a product of our history and

geography, and we can be very proud of how far we have come over the years when

we look at the elements that we had to face in this rough and rugged Province of

ours.

Mr. Speaker, we can be very proud of the products of our

educational system and seeing what we have been able to do under such adverse

circumstances and situations, we should be encouraged, under present day

performances, that we can do a lot better.

When we realize that just a few short years ago we had almost

1,300 schools in this Province, and today we have fewer than 500, shows that

there has been a tremendous amount of consolidation going on. That hopefully is

going to improve the educational opportunities for our young children.

The people also have some concerns, mainly because of remarks

that have been made by people who now sit on the government side. They are

concerned that their system of education might be in jeopardy. They are

concerned with the recommendations in the Williams Report. Hopefully they will

be encouraged somewhat by the remarks of the Premier when he says that the

government will support and maintain the denominational system. We will always

try to make sure that he is held to that commitment. Also the people are

concerned with what they see happening in the field of education in relation to

cutbacks by the present government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Trepassey area.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any of us who want to

be repetitious when those petitions are coming before the House, but we want to

make sure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I want to remind the hon. minister that I am

not involved in severance pay. Even though I am going out, at the moment I am

not eligible for severance pay.

The minister knows as much about severance pay as he does

about agriculture, and I could put all that he knows about agriculture on that

little page right there; but that is not why I got up.

Mr. Speaker, I know that no one wants to become repetitious,

but I think that each and every one of us has to say what we have to say, and

repeat it as often as it needs repeating.

It with great pleasure that I rise in support of my colleague

and friend. In his submission, what he states is what is in the hearts of the

people, and no matter what the minister says, the point remains that it is the

minister who put the doubt in the people's minds. It was the minister who

created it. It was no one else only the minister. If the minister had to keep

his mouth shut - the way he is trying to explain it now, that he never meant it;

he never said it; he never meant anything by it; it was something that might

happen a hundred years down the road; but that is not what the minister said,

and the minister put the fear of God in all the people who recognize the needs

of a denominational educational system and are prepared to stand by what they

think is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture can

say: Talk so foolish. That is up to him, but the point remains, he will never

quieten this member here while he is in the House. There is no such thing as me

playing politics. I do not do it. I am not like the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture. I do not do it. Neither would I resign my seat for someone else to

sit in my place, to run in his place. I would not do that either.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, could I have protection from

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: And the parrot from Eagle River.

Mr. Speaker, I have a real problem with what is coming across

from the other side. It is insulting to the integrity of the people who signed

those petitions. It is a big joke to everyone over there, a big laugh about the

thousands of names coming in here from people signing those petitions.

Let me tell the hon. the Member for Eagle River that there is

no need for this to become political because the Minister of Education created

that animal himself, and now it is going to bear fruit because, not alone the

Catholics, but every other religious person who is active in this Province wants

to retain the denominational education system. And, if those members opposite,

not all the members across - yes, Sir, I can look at the Minister of Fisheries

and I have never seen him smile yet when this topic came up for conversation.

But there are some people on that side who find this facetious, it is a joke.

This is not a joke to the thousands upon thousands of people who have signed

this petition.

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, I say it over and over again, we

have no problem, I say to the ex-Minister of Education, we have no problem

whatsoever with sharing. I spent fourteen years on a St. John's school board,

and from the day I went on that board, I advocated sharing the facilities and

sharing wherever it was necessary, and that is within the guidelines of the

present denominational education system. I think, Mr. Speaker, out of all the

recommendations of the Williams Commission, 114 of those recommendations have

already been dealt with, and I am sure the rest of the recommendations can be

dealt with.

In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I support my hon. friend's

petition on behalf of his constituents and I hope that the people in government

are listening.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 191 residents

of St. John's and other parts of the Province who are opposed to the closedown

of the Day Break Parent Child Centre, and also, a petition from thirty-two

participants in the First Provincial Family Child Care Conference which was held

in St. John's on March 19 and 20.

Mr. Speaker, of these two petitions, the second one is part

of another petition which had a further eighty-two names, or a total of about

120 participants in the First Provincial Family Child Care Conference who are

also gravely concerned about the services being provided by the Day Break Parent

Child Centre being shut down. They say it is critical that the service be one of

the options available for supporting families who need parenting support and

other specialized services, and furthermore, protest that an agency working with

families and children would be given twelve days notice to seek services. This

indicates a lack of understanding of how much risk there can be to some children

when services to families are discontinued in this abrupt manner. Such actions

contribute to the disempowerment of families and the victimization of children.

That comes from professionals in the child care field who are attending the

First Provincial Family Child Care Conference.

Mr. Speaker, these individuals, the professionals we are

talking about, come from all over the Province, not just from St. John's, but

also from Conception Bay South, Bonavista, Trepassey, Placentia, and other

districts of the Province. Some of the other petitioners are from Ferryland,

Harbour Main, Menihek, Burin - Placentia West, as well as from every part of St.

John's. The centre, itself, is in St. John's East, but this is of concern to all

residents of St. John's and other parts of the Province. The signatories on this

petition are from St. John's East, St. John's Centre, St. John's South, St.

John's North and St. John's West, as well as from outside the city.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would venture to say that the

people of Eagle River are also very interested in seeing quality services for

families being presented and provided for the whole Province and would look to

this centre as a model for other services that could and should be developed

throughout the Province.

We have a very dangerous situation occurring in response to

the objection to this closedown. We have the Premier of this Province basically

taking the view that there ought to be some sort of fight between the people of

St. John's and the rest of Newfoundland and any service that exists in St.

John's is going to be questioned unless it exists in every other part of the

Island.

Now, if the Premier wants to take that argument forward to

the people of St. John's, as well as the rest of the people of Newfoundland,

well, he is welcome to it. Because the people of St. John's are not going to

take that, and the people of the rest of the Province are not going to take it

either. I think you are going to see over the next few days that there are going

to be more people from outside St. John's also objecting to this kind of policy

that the government is undertaking. Because we are not just seeing the closedown

of a particularly vital service in St. John's, what we are seeing here is an

attack on needy children and an attack on needy families.

Mr. Speaker, the analysis that was done - and the Minister of

Finance has an obligation to the people of this Province to give a proper and

appropriate analysis of the figures that have been presented to them by the

board of directors of Day Break Parent Child Centre. The clear cost of closing

down the centre, an expected supposed saving of $350,000, because that is the

Province's contribution to the $700,000 cost on the 50-50 cost-shared basis.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we are only going to close down programs

because the feds are in on them - if the feds are in on them, the feds are

providing support - the entire social services system in this Province will be

closed down. Because each and every dollar that is spent by the Minister of

Social Services under the Canada Assistance Plan is matched dollar for dollar by

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: If that is the criteria, Mr. Speaker, the

whole of the social services is going to be closed down and not just the Day

Break Parent Child Centre. So everybody in Newfoundland is concerned about this

issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for

St. John's East. I, too, have a lot of concern about this centre. I know that

there are areas of concern with respect to economics in this Province, but I am

not sure that this is the right area to completely eliminate.

I have had calls from people who have been actively involved

in this centre. Mr. Speaker, this centre is not only a child centre, this centre

educates families in the matter of good housekeeping, people who are in small

income brackets. It is an area where they are shown how to conserve, how to

preserve their family lifestyles with smaller amounts of money. One gentleman

who called me is actively involved. He is a volunteer worker. He told me

something that I never knew: For every child born prematurely, it costs this

Province $10,000 after that child is born, to put one pound of flesh on that

child. To increase the weight of that child by one pound, it costs $10,000.

For all the pre-natal women who have attended this centre,

because of the influence of the experts who teach them the way to go, who teach

them the rights and wrongs involved with pregnancy, not one who has attended

that clinic or that establishment has had a baby that is underweight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is very simple. This might

be classed as a social program but I think this program goes much farther than

that, in that alone, it costs $10,000 for one baby to increase its weight after

being born prematurely, $10,000 per one pound of increased weight. And, for

every woman who has attended this care centre - because you cannot call it a

child centre; it is not a child care centre, it is a combination of many aspects

of living. And for all the women who have been through this system, not one

child has been born prematurely, because of the expert advice that has been

given to those mothers by doctors, nurses and other people who have the

knowledge, who can tell them the right way to go with respect to exercising, and

with respect to diet.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise today to support the petition

of the Member for St. John's East and to say to the government: Don't throw out

the baby with the bath water - let us see if there is something else we can do

as legislators.

Granted, I heard the Minister of Finance on the radio

yesterday, saying, 'Well if the centre is to remain in St. John's, why not have

one in other areas of the Province?' I know where he is coming from, but the

point remains, we shouldn't abolish the one in St. John's just because there is

not a facility, likewise, in Corner Brook. Mr. Speaker, there is no rationale

behind it, it is not common sense, and I ask the government to reconsider this.

It only takes $750,000 to keep that whole establishment operating, which is not

a great lot of money when you look at the lives involved, the people who are

taught right from wrong with respect to family living and to other aspects of

our environment, and, Mr. Speaker, I again say to this hon. House, be careful

when dealing with people who do not have the educational background or the

facilities to care for themselves.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present

and support a petition on behalf of 1,020 people in the district of Menihek,

comprising residents of the towns of Labrador City and Wabush. The prayer of the

petition is that: 'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality

education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools

and want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights of others to have

the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in

education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not

want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away, and

we ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper with the rights we now have

under the Constitution of Canada.'

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and

speak in favour of this petition, and I have signed it, signifying my support

for the intent and the prayer of this petition. I have had the opportunity of

having two children - my wife and I have had two children educated in the

schools of Labrador City, and I must say, we are very pleased with the quality

of education delivered by the two schools in Labrador City, namely, Notre Dame

Academy and Labrador City Collegiate.

One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that we have such a high

quality education in our town and in this Province, is the fact that it is a

denominational education system. We do not have, we do not want, a secular

system, a godless system in Labrador City or Wabush, Mr. Speaker, and I am

pleased to have the opportunity, for a few minutes, to speak in support of this

particular petition.

The constitutional rights of people are very important. They

are very, very important and shouldn't be tampered with. It is not something of

which one should misspeak or engage in double-talk. What we should be doing is

telling the people of this Province whether we do or do not support the system

of education that we presently have.

The Progressive Conservative Party and myself - I am pleased

that the party has this position, that a Progressive Conservative government

would respect existing constitutional rights and would not try to change them

without the consent of the people who hold those rights.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is very, very plain. That is ordinary

they speak about constitutional rights and how they are going to maybe take them

away from people, rights set out in the Terms of Union, in Term 17 - some people

suspect that after an election, this government, if they were to win, would

immediately nullify Term 17. A lot of people suspect that.

It is because of the misspeak and the double-talk - and I

quote what the Premier said, in presenting a petition yesterday. He said that

the government's position is that it is not seeking to obtain an amendment to

the Constitution in relation to the educational rights of the different

denominations as is provided for in Term 17.

He goes on: "I do not see any point getting involved in an

extensive discussion over whether you should or you should not amend the

Constitution, or seek to amend the Constitution right at this particular time."

He does not say that he will do it - 'if you don't agree with me in the

negotiations we are having now - I will not tamper with the Constitution.' He

doesn't say that. He just says that he will not do it at this time. A lot of

people read into that, that after the election, if the Liberal party wins, they

will tamper with the Terms of Union, they will go and ask for constitutional

changes, and that would be wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Why do the people believe that? It is because of the misspeak

and the double-talk that the Premier gets on with, and the Minister of

Education, when he says that he wants to be remembered as the person who did

away with denominational education in this Province - that is why - when the

Minister of Education suggests that if the church leaders or the people will not

agree with the changes that the government proposes, he will tear them up and go

and ask then for constitutional changes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that our party, the Progressive

Conservative Party, says that we support the constitutional rights of certain

religious groups in this Province and that we will not, without their consent,

ask for any constitutional changes to the denominational education rights in

this Province - that is Term 17. We will not ask, and that is the only caveat we

have to it. It is not the time, but whether the people who have the rights want

to give them up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to get up today and

support the tone of this petition.

It is almost comical to see the hon. Opposition members

scramble. They were convinced that boy, did they have an issue! Did they have an

issue! They were determined that they were going to make this Royal Commission

report, denominational education, a great big political football.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was a flop - the biggest political

flop that I have seen in my life since I have been involved in politics. I would

say, they even had their brochures printed. I would say they had their election

propaganda printed to circulate to tell the people of the Province: Look, there

is the crowd of people over there who want a godless, secular system of

education. Mr. Speaker, that was a flop. They have recognized that it was a

flop, so now they are trying to create something that they can knock down. They

are trying to create the belief in the people's minds that this administration

wants to abolish denominational education.

I don't know how they are going to rewrite their political

propaganda they have to circulate. Mr. Speaker, they're going to have one heck

of a time trying to rewrite all those brochures they had to send out in view of

this. Listen to this: "I am pleased to be able tell the House that at a meeting

between church leaders and the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet on

March 10, significant progress was made towards achieving a consensus which will

lead to major improvements of the education system in Newfoundland and

Labrador."

Hon. members don't want to hear that. What they would have

liked to have heard was to say that no progress was made. But significant

progress was made. "Government and church leaders have agreed to work

cooperatively...." That means cheek to cheek, that means hand in hand, that

means arm in arm. We're going to go arm in arm together. What for? We're going

to develop "...new approaches which will: enhance the quality of education;

achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of services; and make substantial

changes in administration that will lead to a major reorganization of school

districts."

Now when the hon. Premier read all this out do you know what

he said in the introduction? He said in the introduction that although he was

reading this statement, the statement was in fact a joint statement by

government and the heads of churches. Did any of the heads of churches get up

and deny that? Obviously they couldn't get up in the Chamber and do it. Did they

go out to the media and deny it? No, they did not go out and deny it. Because

they recognized that this government - for the first time in the last seventeen

years there's been a government which has been up front with the churches.

We told them this. Here's what we agreed on. We agreed, and

they agreed, that we are not satisfied with the status quo. We're not satisfied

with education the way it is. Church leaders said that. Because they are

involved in education on a daily basis and they have been for the last 200 years

in this Province, and they are not satisfied with the status quo. That doesn't

mean you have to throw out the baby with the bath water. That doesn't mean that

you cannot enhance the quality of education, achieve greater efficiency, and

make substantial changes to the administration. You can do all these things

within the denominational system.

So I would tell the hon. member who presented this petition

to take this statement and circulate it to every single person who wrote it.

Because it lays out clearly that this administration is not satisfied with the

status quo. It also says that the heads of churches are not satisfied with the

status quo. So we are going to see major reforms to education, the like of which

has never been seen before in the history of this Province. Major reforms. But

they're going to be made under the protection of the Terms of Union with Canada.

That is the wish of the people of this Province. Because no one wants a godless,

secular system of education. Nobody wants that.

People want sharing. People want to spend our money wisely.

People don't want to waste too much money on unnecessary administration. The

list goes on and on. The hon. members opposite, I would advise them: look, don't

flog a dead horse. All this information they had printed, all the brochures they

had printed, all the money they had spent on the next election trying to make us

like the big bad guys, Mr. Speaker, it's too bad. They wasted their money. But

look boys, don't flog a dead horse. You've lost it. Go and find another issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

to the minister: thanks but no thanks. I don't need his advice. I don't want his

advice. I listened to his advice in his speech but I can tell him I don't want

his advice. When the Minister of Education started off it showed why he's on the

wrong track. He said it himself why he's on the wrong track, when he started

referring to these petitions as the petitions of the hon. members opposite. He

suggested that the Opposition members were trying to stir up these petitions to

get people stirred up on the denominational education commission.

I presented a petition here today, some 600 names, that I

didn't even know was being collected in my way. It was collected before I even

knew it was asked for. So I had no involvement. I didn't try to get people to

present that petition or collect a petition. They did it themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not try to get the people to

present that petition or collect a petition, Mr. Speaker, they did it themselves

and they did it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: No, I do not. They did it themselves, Mr.

Speaker, and the reason they did it is because the Minister of Education we have

now is not trustworthy, as they say, they feel that. The Minister of Education

who will come out in the paper and suggest that he wants to be remembered, he

wants his grandchildren to remember him as the person who did away with the

denominational education system, that upset the people. That upset the people in

the parish that sent in the last petition that was just read from Menihek and

the petition that came in from Kilbride and the petition that came in from St.

Mary's - The Capes, from Ferryland and from other areas in this Province. It was

the minister himself who upset the people enough so that they went to take up a

petition. It was the minister who said that if they do not accept the

constitutional changes, he said these changes will require constitutional

changes and if they do not accept them we will force these changes on them. That

is what the minister said before the Premier pulled the rug out from under him

again, as he did with several of his ministers recently.

The Premier sat down with the ministers and people in charge

of the churches throughout the Province and came up with a deal, a deal that

will get him through the next election. A deal that will keep people down, keep

people happy as much as possible until the election is over. The statement that

the Premier made, and he is always very careful of what he says, I will give him

credit for that, he is always very careful. We had an example today in a

petition that he presented where he stuck right to the letter of the law on the

rules of paper where he signed it. He claimed that there were no distortions in

it to his knowledge and whatever the rules say but, Mr. Speaker, when you read

the sentence in his statement that says this government is not seeking to change

the Constitution that would remove constitutional protected rights of classes of

people significantly provided for.

Mr. Speaker, he says; the government it is not seeking, it is

not seeking now, these changes. It does not say he will not in the future seek

the changes. That, Mr. Speaker, if he had put it in there would have been

security for people who send in these petitions. One bit of advice the minister

did give, well I had been doing it anyway before the minister gave me the

advice, Mr. Speaker, it is taking this statement and sending it out to people

who I know are interested and underlining that clause in the paper with a little

explanatory note, asking them do they believe that this Premier who brought in

their Bill 17 and Bill 18 and promised wage increases one year, changed them the

next day, do you think that Premier, when he worded this to say the government

is not seeking change to the constitution and he would not say the government

will not seek changes to the constitution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) past tense.

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

my constituents -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: - and I have only sent it out to a very

small number yet and I have gotten some reaction from it. Today there will be a

copy go to the parish priest in Corpus Christi, Father Molloy, and I will talk

it over with him and explain to him what he thinks about the statement that the

government is not seeking change today.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: And I will ask him, at the time, if he

thinks it would be more secure, if he would feel more secure if the government

said it will not seek these constitutional changes.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from six

communities on the Isthmus of Avalon concerning Newfoundland Power's proposal to

store PCBs on the Isthmus of Avalon. It is not in the proper form as presented

to the House, so I will ask leave of the House so that these petitions can be

presented at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have not seen the petition,

has the hon. member showed it to the Chair?

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave of the House

to present the petition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. BARRETT: This particular petition is signed by 654

people in the communities of Thornlea, Bellevue, Bellevue Beach, Chance Cove

Little Harbour and Fair Haven in the District of Placentia East. The prayer of

the petition is that we, the undersigned, are against Newfoundland Power's

proposal for a PCB storage facility near Chance Cove. We strongly advise

government to reject this proposal.

Now the history of Newfoundland Power's attempts in

Newfoundland to find a storage facility for these PCB's goes back some time.

They have tried in the City of Mount Pearl to expand the warehouse where they

now presently have PCB's stored, but this particular proposal was rejected by

the city council in Mount Pearl. They then put in a proposal to store these

PCB's, expand on their industrial facilities in Paradise, and the town council

of Paradise, of course, would not issue them a building permit. As a result,

they had to cancel putting these PCB's in Paradise and in Mount Pearl.

The documents that have been registered with the Department

of Environment and Lands, the site that they have chosen to store these, to

build a facility, is just yards away from the boundary of Chance Cove - just a

few yards outside the boundaries of the Town of Chance Cove. I think it was a

deliberate attempt to make sure they were not inside the municipal boundaries of

any community, so they would not have to go through the municipal authority.

The people in the area are very concerned about this, and I

think one member of the Newfoundland Power Company said that it would go there

whether the people wanted it or not; that they could not care less what the

people felt about it.

I think in this particular area there is a grave concern

about the pollution and, of course, in this particular area we have one of the

most scenic spots within Newfoundland. We have a provincial park - the Bellevue

Beach Provincial Park - and all that particular area there.

What they propose is to put up a building that would have a

twenty-four hour surveillance by cameras, remotely controlled from St. John's.

Inspections would take place on a monthly basis, and some of the concerns that

people have expressed are: What happens if the power goes off? It is also in an

area where there is a great deal of hunting. People would probably just take

potshots at the cameras, at the building, and we all know the dangers of PCB's

if they are let go into the environment, particularly if there is a fire, if

there is a forest fire and this building is burned, and all these other

concerns.

The people in this area request this government - which can

stop this proposal in two different ways - it can stop it in terms of the hazard

to the environment and the other control is that the people in this area have

trusted their faith in the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs in

that in this whole area right now there is a freeze on construction. It is in

the Hibernia impact area, and all building permits have to go through the

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and through developmental

control.

Since Newfoundland Power were so deliberate and went directly

outside the boundary of Chance Cove so that the town council in Chance Cove

would not have a say in this, even though they participated in circulating the

petition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

I would request that the -

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

leave of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. BARRETT: I request that the way to stop this is to

make sure that our provincial government does not issue a building permit, as

the town council of Chance Cove would do if it had the authority.

Thank you very much.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak today to that petition signed

by people in the area of the Isthmus on an issue that is certainly very

important to the Province. It is more important now, I guess, to the people in

the Isthmus area than anywhere else, but I cannot understand for the life of me

what Newfoundland Light and Power is doing, going around the Province looking

for places to store this PCB. Get rid of it. Deal with it finally, permanently.

It is going to cost money. Whatever you have to do to get rid of this stuff, get

rid of it - and it might mean transporting it as far away as Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Minister of Environment and

Lands to speak on this today, and the Minister of Environment and Lands should

stand in her place and say that there will be no PCB storage in the Come By

Chance area. It is bad enough out in that area now with the smoke and the acid

rain and the refinery mess that is going on, that the minister ignored for two

years. The minister, when asked by the Mayor of Sunnyside: What is going on out

there? The minister said that the company is looking after all of that. The

company is doing all of these tests. What's the company going to do, come back

to you and give you a report and tell you that they're polluting the country?

I'm sure they're going to come back to you and tell you something like that.

Yes, run out of the House like you always do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I must stick

to the petition. I am very supportive of the hon. member's petition, the people

who sent in the petition. I know the PC candidate in the area, Fred Drover, is

very supportive. He has a copy of the petition also. He is out there as I

understand it almost daily working with these people to try to make sure that

this storage facility is not allowed to proceed.

The member for the district, if there was any solidarity over

there, all the member for the district would have to do would be phone the

minister and say: Madam Minister, I do not want this in my district and the

people in my district do not want this. That minister should say right off the

bat to Light and Power: there will be no permit issued for that. That should

have been taken care of the day after the meeting when they went out - I saw the

meeting on television. I saw Light and Power out there trying to smooth things

over, to - they figure it's a bit barren out there, a bit rocky. Who cares about

this little bit of rock that they're going to pollute and put PCBs in?

Even worse, it's bad enough trying to put it in Mount Pearl,

I guess, and Paradise. At least these are built up areas. They're areas where

you can see vandalism going on if it's going to happen. You stick one of those

things out in the middle of nowhere and it's an invitation for vandalism. It's

an invitation for people to try to break into them and maybe destroy the

barrels, the storage areas that they're in.

I know in my area for all of my life - it would never be

allowed to happen now and most of them are closed - but up in Petty Harbour/Long

Pond area, Kilbride, there were six dynamite houses up there all the time I grew

up. I was as evil when I was young as I am now. I was mischievous at the time.

We'd go up and try to get into those places. That was something to do. I

couldn't get into them because they were smarter than I was, I guess, they made

them strong enough. But just to make the point, I was not there to destroy the

place, I just wanted to get in and see what was in there. Had I ever gotten in I

guess there would have been - well, I wouldn't be here to talk about it most

likely, because I would have been curious enough to try whatever I could try.

That's why I say to Light and Power to forget trying to put

this facility, this storage area, in a remote area. It's bad enough trying to

put it in a populated area where you can have a look at it. But don't put it in

a remote area where it is a prime target for vandalism. If Light and Power is

serious about getting rid of the PCBs that they brought into this Province,

unaware I suppose at the time that they were going to pollute, not many people

knew the problems with PCBS. By the way, I get conflicting reports on PCBs. I

know of some people in the Argentia area who used to go down to the American

base and get it for their arthritis, and rub it on their hands and their knees,

or their elbows and their knees. Maybe they all died by the time they were

twenty or thirty. I don't know.

I just say to Light and Power, if you have a problem, if you

have PCBs - the problem has to be dealt with - take it and deal with it finally.

Take those PCBS and get them wherever they can be destroyed. They should have

tried to get them to Goose Bay when we had the temporary incinerator in Goose

Bay and do it at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave!

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

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise

and support the petition as presented by my colleague.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

something?

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

(Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. HOGAN: I would like to rise and support the substance

of the prayer of the petition that was presented by my hon. friend for Bellevue

and so eloquently supported by my colleague opposite, the Member for Kilbride.

The part of his presentation that we can't support, that is

the Member for Kilbride, is that the intent of this company is to store this

particular toxic substance in the so-called boonies in an isolated area, where

it is subject to vandalism and subject to the elements and subject to anything

that might come along that could make it a hazardous product in that particular

area. So, Mr. Speaker, what the developer must do and, I might also add that our

friend is quite right over there, that PCBs may or may not be the fearful toxic

substance that some of us believe it to be.

I happen to be one of the proponents that PCBs can be handled

safely, there are lots more hazardous products around our environment that are

not being handled properly, PCBs are ones that can be, and I would suggest to

anybody who is dealing with this issue that the proponent, Newfoundland Light

and Power, take this particular product, store it in an area in a proper

facility, provide it with the proper security, provide it with the proper guards

that the Member for Kilbride has suggested, put the proper security around it

and it would be accepted by anybody.

Those of us who are legislators, have to be sensible in

applying our laws in this particular regard and permit such products to be

stored in areas where they can be secured, and be under constant surveillance

and the witness of people. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for any proponent

to say that a particular site will be visited once a month, it has to be under

constant surveillance and that can be mechanical, it can be electrical, there

are 101 ways in this modern age. If the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West

does not want me to finish supporting this petition, very ably presented and

supported by his own party, well then, he does not have to stay here and listen,

he can always leave - but the petition is worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, and I am

delighted to be able to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling Orders of the Day, the Chair

would like to make a ruling on the point of privilege raised by the hon.

Opposition House Leader. In his submission, the hon. member referred to

Beauchesne, and I would like to say, Beauchesne, paragraph 979 pertains to the

Ottawa procedure relating to the Budget debate which is governed by Standing

Order 84.

Our procedure and custom are different. For example, in

Ottawa the Opposition response begins on the day the Budget Speech is delivered

and the Opposition critic adjourns the debate. In our case, the debate is

adjourned on Budget Day by the finance minister and resumed on another day.

There is no requirement that the Budget debate be taken up on the next sitting

day. We have had in our quick research this afternoon, found out that the exact

procedure was done in 1983, when the Budget debate was delivered on March 17th,

and the House closed as normal, the same as we did here, and when the House

resumed on March 21st, the Interim Supply debate began and finished as the

Interim Supply was passed on March 29, 1983.

In 1984, the same procedure was adopted. On Tuesday, March

20th, 1984, the Budget Speech was delivered, the House recessed for Wednesday,

on Thursday, March 22nd, when the House resumed, it was the Interim Supply that

was debated and was debated until it was passed on March 30th, and again, the

same procedure was used in the Budget of 1990. Therefore, our procedure and our

practise permit the procedure with respect to the Budget debate, therefore, no

primae facie case was established and no point of privilege established at this

point in time.

Orders of the Day

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, 2 (a), Resolution and Bill No.

12 respecting the granting of Interim Supply to Her Majesty.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

Supply to debate Bill No. 12 and a resolution relating thereto, Mr. Speaker left

the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill 12.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak too

often on this particular Interim Supply Bill because eventually, I am sure, we

will have a Budget debate. I suppose we will, I assume we will. I may be making

a foolish assumption but I do not think we need to take all our time debating

the Supply Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

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

with this Budget.

MR. WINDSOR: That stands. That is depending, of course,

on when we finish the Interim Supply debate. We may just chose to let the

Interim Supply go through, which is what the House Leader would like, or we may

decide to keep the Interim Supply Bill going for a long period of time. We are

going to think about that a little bit more. We have not yet decided on that

issue. What I said yesterday was that I do not think the government wants to

bring this particular Budget up for debate, and that if they do not bring it up

before Easter there will not be an opportunity. As I said yesterday this Budget

will never see the light of day anyway. It really does not matter. That was

quoted on at least two radio stations this morning. That clip was used from what

I said yesterday, and I stand by it, because there is nothing in this Budget of

any consequence. All of the tax implications were done in December so what we

have is just something that is window dressing for the election, simply window

dressing. I do not think the government really wants this Budget to be debated.

They do not want to defend what they know will never be put into effect so they

have come forward with a Budget that on the surface shows a $51 million deficit,

but actually it is $121 million. That is by the government's own prediction, and

I am predicting that the deficit, the real deficit, is closer to $200 million

unless this government deals with it.

MR. WINSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Of course. My friend for Fogo points out

that the numbers in relation to the Department of Social Services are fictitious

numbers and the government has done it consistently in every Budget this

government has brought before the House of Assembly. They have brought in

unrealistic predictions and then later on in the year they say: well, things

have not worked as well as we thought they would. The federal government is not

sending down as much money as we thought. I am familiar with the system. The

federal government does it's estimates and tells us what they think revenues

from that source will be for the coming year. It is done on a regular basis. It

is nonsense for the Minister of Finance to come in this House toward the end of

the year and say: we had no idea of the numbers we were given before the Budget

had changed. These are updated on a regular basis and adjusted accordingly.

economy of Canada, that transfer payments have decreased.

The real problem is the absolute failure of this government

to do anything to stimulate the economy of this Province. This Budget is no

different from ones we have seen before. If ever I get an opportunity to address

the Budget itself I will take some time and go through the weaknesses in the

Budget which does not provide any stimulus for the economy. The approach of this

government is one of taxing people to try to raise more money at a time when

people can ill afford to pay taxes, and particularly at a time when businesses

can ill afford to pay more taxes. It is just not there. Businesses are having a

hard time and instead of trying to help them this government increases taxation

on them, businesses that try to employ people, which is good for the economy,

which is good for government and for the finances of the Province, this

government imposes a payroll tax on them. A penalty for employing people.

Instead of trying to help them to try to employ more people, instead of putting

in place incentives for business to employ people, this government penalizes

anybody who employs anybody. It has to be the worst example of a

counter-productive tax measure ever instituted anywhere in Canada, Mr. Chairman.

In this Budget there are a couple of little tidbits there of

trying to create some job creation money through Enterprise Newfoundland, all

these sorts of things. How can we be competitive with other provinces of Canada

as long as we have a tax regime which makes it impossible for any business in

Newfoundland to compete with other parts of Canada, particularly other parts of

Atlantic Canada?

So the whole policy, the whole approach of this government,

is in error. That's the fatal flaw. When you have a financial problem in a

province you don't solve it by taxing the people more and by providing less

services. It's not the answer. The answer is investing in the future. You have

to invest in education. That's a long-term answer but it has to be done. This

government came to office with cries of all kinds of priority on education.

Where is the priority now? We've cut back from $20 million or $22 million to $8

million, or $12 million for school construction. Twelve million dollars for

school construction. We've been spending $22 million and $23 million for the

last ten years, a year. What is $12 million in 1993 dollars compared to $22

million in 1983 dollars? It's worth about $6 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

year.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Twenty-seven million dollars four years ago,

my good friend reminds me. Now we're going to spend $12 million to finish up

basically what was already started. No new construction. My friend for Fogo was

in his district last week meeting with people. The needs of schools on Fogo

Island, desperate need for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Gander Bay.

MR. WINDSOR: In Gander Bay? In Gander Bay it was, in his

district. Crying out for a new school in that area. They'll not get it this year

for sure. No new construction this year. So is that a commitment to education, I

ask, Mr. Chairman? Obviously not. It's no wonder the former minister resigned.

He knew the approach that was being taken by government. He couldn't stand it

any longer. Because I think he honestly wanted to do something in education. He

couldn't stand it any longer. He was a good minister. I didn't totally agree

with everything he did, but he was sincere and he was trying hard.

MS. VERGE: He didn't accomplish anything.

MR. WINDSOR: Well, he didn't accomplish a heck of a lot.

That wasn't his fault. I think it was more the fault of his colleagues over

there. He was stifled. He was not able to move forward and so he quit. At least

he had the intestinal fortitude to do that.

Mr. Chairman, this Budget doesn't do anything for education.

Tried to say: we're going to spend $24 million on education construction. You

had to dig into it to find out it was only $12 million for schools and $12

million for the universities and the community colleges and all the rest of it.

Very deceiving statement. So if you're not going to put money into education so

that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will be better able to support themselves

and to contribute to our economy and society, if you're going to tax businesses

more, tax people more, if you're going to provide less services, how do you

propose to stimulate the economy?

The number of dollars that's there for job creation or

stimulating the economy are almost negligible by comparison. It's a drop in the

bucket. When you counteract that by a tax regime which makes any Newfoundland

business less competitive than their counterparts in the Maritimes, how do you

expect that to work?

We all know we are in a difficult financial situation in

Canada - not only in Newfoundland, but in Canada as well. We all recognize that,

and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been asked by this government four

times in the last four years to rally to the cause, to rally around the flag, to

make concessions, to pay more taxes, to work harder, give more and accept less,

and they have done that, and they have done it willingly. Certainly the public

service has taken the brunt of it. They have taken the brunt of it from this

government.

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

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

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

West.

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

I would like to have a few words in this debate as well - the

Interim Supply Bill - if I had a copy of it.

Mr. Chairman, it is rather unique that the government would

present to this House a request for Interim Supply before they would bring the

Budget into the Legislature. It is rather unusual for the government to come in,

looking for a billion dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

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

about doing it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know from where this government is

coming. Looking for money throughout this Budget in different areas such as -

you know, when this government has to come in for Interim Supply, and you look

at the Budget that they brought in a few days later as it relates to what was

actually budgeted and then the revised Budget, it would make you wonder what is

happening.

It is time that this government started taking a few things

seriously. It is time that this government started dealing with the real issues

of the people of this Province. It is time that this government started dealing

with the real issues.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did have a word with my

colleague because it was an important issue.

I guess the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology must

have gotten the call to go to the Premier's office first. We were wondering

which one of you were going to get the call first to go to the Premier's office,

whether it was you or the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Is that right? I must say that the Minister of

Industry, Trade and Technology did not come in and go on his knees. He did not

do that. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did come - one thing is

apologizing to the Premier and saying: Mr. Premier, I am sorry if I offended

you; but apologizing to the Minister of Education -

MR. MATTHEWS: That took the cake.

MR. TOBIN: That took the cake. When you have to come into

this Legislature and apologize to the Minister of Education - a man who ruined

the health care system -

MR. R. AYLWARD: He had to apologize to me for calling me

a liar, sure, didn't he?

MR. TOBIN: The Member for Kilbride got up in the

Legislature today and told the Minister of Education of his statement whereby he

categorically stated that he would like for his grandchildren to remember him as

the man who destroyed denominational education in this Province, and he had to

get up and apologize to the Member for Kilbride and withdraw his comments that

it was not true. He confirmed that what the Member for Kilbride said was true.

That is what we had here today - a confirmation that it was true.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what he did not do to the health care

system, will be done in the next little while by the present minister, no doubt

about that, no doubt about that. The minister of destruction -

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

again.

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

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

can make it better again.

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking of issuing

apologies in this legislature to the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: - the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations was not the first one to get up in this Legislature and state

publicly: I am sorry Mr. Premier, if I have caused you problems. I am sorry, Mr.

Premier, if I have caused you problems. The first one to stand up in this

Legislature and say I am sorry Mr. Premier if