April 25, 1991               HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS                Vol. XLI  No. 36


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget last month the Minister of Finance projected a 4.9 per cent increase in revenue from personal income tax, the same rate of increase, in fact, that he projected for the Budget year 1990. Would the Minister like to explain his optimism, in view of the fact that in those same documents, he predicts unemployment will increase in 1991 and the rate of increase in personal income, which has fallen steadily since 1988 will again fall by nearly a percentage point in 1991. Do not the Minister's own economic indicators foreshadow slower growth in income tax revenue than he has projected in his Budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are reasonably confident about these numbers. The employment rate will have increased over last year, and also wage rates generally are up a bit, and as we know the income tax depends upon the amount earned by whoever earns, and by the number of people earning, so we are quite confident about those numbers.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at the Minister's confidence but the problem is his numbers contradict themselves. Could I ask him this, Mr. Speaker, retail sales tax is the single largest source of revenue from provincial tax sources and last year there was no growth in retail sales tax revenue, and the Minister is projecting this year a growth of nearly 5 per cent in 1991, a year which we obviously know is going to be much worse than last year. With no growth last year he is predicting 5 per cent this year. Will he again, Mr. Speaker, explain his optimism? Why does he think growth in the value of retail sales will turn around from a negative 1.2 per cent in 1990 to a positive 0.7 per cent in 1991, when in the same Budget documents, Mr. Speaker, he predicts growth in personal disposable income will change from a positive 1.2 per cent in 1990 to a negative 0.5 per cent? What will cause consumers to spend more when they have less disposable income?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the economy of Newfoundland is on the upswing, or it will be. We are the single Province in Canada, with the possible exception of Prince Edward Island, for which everyone is forecasting an upswing in our gross domestic product, so the explanation lies in that.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the forecasts are indicating that in the future, during the rest of the year, we may well see better; but if the Minister thinks that the economy is on the upswing today, he had better get outside the Confederation Building and see what is going on in the real world.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. WINDSOR: But, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: - let me ask the Minister this: Will he admit that revenue forecasts for 1991 are out of whack with economic indicators contained in his own Budget documents; will the Minister admit that he deliberately manipulated revenue projections at the last minute, in order to show a lower deficit in his Budget then otherwise would have been the case?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this charge of deliberate manipulation of the Budget figures, this may have been what Members Opposite used to do, but I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, it is not something that I do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Forestry and Agriculture.

In view of the fact that the newsprint industry over the last year or so has been experiencing a down-turn so to speak, and especially because Abitibi-Price has started restructuring of its operations in North America, could the Minister inform the House, if he has had any discussions with Abitibi-Price concerning its operations in Newfoundland, recently?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for his question and, in answer to his question, yes, I have had considerable discussions with Abitibi-Price over the past months.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister be able to inform the House then, in the course of those discussions, if the possibility of any down-time in the two mills in Newfoundland, namely Grand Falls and Stephenville, or the possibility of their shutting of a mill altogether came up in those discussions?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Everything, Mr. Speaker, relative to newsprint production in Newfoundland or Forestry in Newfoundland came up during those discussions and I could tell the hon. Member to the extend that it can be determined, Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls or in Stephenville will not necessarily be affected by the down-turn as you say in the industry.

Abitibi-Price is taking 200,000 tons of newsprint out of the system and that may include the shutting of a mill; but the best information I have and the advice I get from the management is that the Grand Falls mill or the Stephenville mill will not be affected by that particular decision.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Would the Minister tell the House, if he has been advised that because of the down-turn in the industry and the restructuring of the Abitibi mills, especially in and around Atlantic Canada, would have any effect on the commitment to develop a new Hydro Power Project at the Grand Falls mill announced in November of 1989?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the situation in the industry is having any effect on Abitibi's plans to develop a power project on the Exploits River. That project is subject to an environmental assessment study. It is subject, as we were told in the first instance, to Abitibi-Price's doing the feasibility studies, identifying a joint partner and on and on. But in as far as the hydro project itself is concerned, Newfoundland Hydro is involved, it is under the auspices of the Minister of Mines and Energy and specific questions with regards to the development of that particular project should, in my opinion, be directed to the Minister of Energy.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Pertaining to the special committee of Cabinet that was set up in November of 1989 concerning the cuts to Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls at that time, could the Minister tell the House the last time they met with Abitibi-Price, this total committee, concerning the closure at that time in Grand Falls?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot be date specific as to when the last time the committee met. The committee itself, the committee of Ministers that was struck to deal with the close down of number six and to help soften the blow and to help work out a redundancy package and to see that the economy of central Newfoundland was - the blow was - that it did not hurt anymore than possible, and in identifying things that could happen in the central area that would help take up some of the slack as a result of closing down number six. I cannot tell the Member - I will find out and advise him as to when the committee last met with them, but I can tell him that as Chairman of the committee, and that committee at some point wound up as far as the committee itself is concerned, but I, as Chairman of the committee and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, have met continuously with Abitibi-Price whenever the need arose from the time the committee was struck until the present day.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Premier said, with reference to the huge retro-active increases given to the Chairman and Members of the Social Assistance Appeals Board, that the inference suggested by the Opposition that it was a political favour being done by the Minister of Social Services for friends, that that had not been made out. How can the Premier justify that statement in view of the fact that of the five boards under the Minister's jurisdiction, only one, the Social Assistance Appeals Board, was the subject of appeal by the Minister of Social Services, that the President of Treasury Board made an oral presentation to Treasury Board to reverse the earlier decision, that was following representations by the Minister, that the present Chairman and the former Chairman were campaign workers of the Minister, and finally, that the former Chairman had publicly stated that the Minister promised to have the rate of pay increased. What further evidence does the Premier require that it was a political favour? I still do not understand that from all the questions that have been asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it appears the hon. Member is putting things that are not necessarily connected, together. I have not yet heard from Mr. Noseworthy. If the former Chairman has something that he wants to say I have indicated my door is open, and it is open and available to him and I will hear anything he wants to say at any time. Now the President of Treasury Board has also done a complete assessment of the manner in which that appeal against the decision of Treasury Board was heard, and I heard the President of Treasury Board himself stand in this House and say: I disagreed with the original decision, it should have been a Level II. That was his opinion personally.

So when the appeal was raised he had no trouble making an argument because that is what he himself believed. And it was Treasury Board which decided that classification to Level II ought to be changed, and they decided in the case of at least two other boards that I know of. I am not sure whether there were any others or not. But there were at least two others.

Whether or not Mr. Noseworthy says he was promised this by the Minister, I will wait until I hear from Mr. Noseworthy, if he is going to contact me. I am however assured by the Minister that he made no such undertakings or promises and I accept that. I have no reason to believe otherwise, as of yet, at least, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Noseworthy's comments were quite public. But I will ask the question. On last Friday the Premier said: it may well be that the credibility of the Board has been greatly diminished or destroyed and we will have a look at replacing it. Those are his exact words.

Is the Premier aware that this view is one of course that is shared by us in the Opposition, much of the public and by editorial writers in this Province? Has the Premier now instructed the Minister to come forward with a new list of nominees for the Social Assistance Appeal Board? And has he instructed the Minister, or all Ministers, to bring forward names of qualified people rather than political cronies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two question, Mr. Speaker. Have I instructed the Minister of Social Services to bring forward a new list of names? The answer to that is no. I am not finished with the overall matter yet and I will make a decision then when I am finished with it.

The second question, have I asked Ministers to bring forward new lists for all boards to replace the appointment of political cronies? Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is, the assumption is incorrect in the first place. One of the things that we did when we took office was stop the practice of appointing virtually exclusively political cronies as the former government did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We -

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

I ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl to withdraw the phrase that he just used.

MR. WINDSOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly withdraw it. I was provoked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member for Mount Pearl should be moved to objective assessment of the public good instead of his political propagation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, is, we set about deliberately to put in place a policy that would provide for balanced appointments to boards, and every time the Opposition sees somebody that had some connection with the Liberal Party they claim patronage. Well, let me restate to the House, and for the public of this Province once again, this Government will continue to appoint to boards people from all walks of life and all political persuasions, and we will not refuse, or shrink from appointing persons who had connections with the Liberal Party merely because they are Liberals and because the opposite side, even if we appoint only one, will claim it as being patronage. We will continue the fairness and balance we have established from the beginning, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the system is now worse than it ever was, and it was the Premier who got elected on a promise to clean things up. That is why the Premier got elected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member is on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree as well to have the Public Service Commission make recommendations to Government on appointments to boards which exercise powers of decision about benefits to individuals, and would he do what he promised to do before the last election, to remove political patronage from Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We are removing political patronage from Government. Let me indicate to the House some of the patronage we have removed, appointments by the former Members. The Economic Council, Alec Snow, PC candidate, Newfoundland Hardwoods, Robert Verge, spouse of a Minister at the time, Teacher's Advisory Committee, Merle Vokey, PC candidate, Community College, Herb Brett, PC candidate, Community College Central, Shawn Power, PC candidate, Labour Standards, Emerson Barbour, PC candidate, Workers' Compensation, Ed Maynard, former PC Minister, and on and on. I will table the list rather than keep reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this is what I call removal of political patronage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Premier to continue.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared if Members want the other seventeen names on the list. But I guess obviously they do not. But I just use it to demonstrate the point, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I just use it to demonstrate the point, Mr. Speaker, that we have put in place a system that provides for fair and balanced management of the public affairs of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, in that process a significant number of the appointments will be people who have leanings toward the Conservative Party, a significant number will be people who have leanings or who have involvement with the Liberal Party, and there are a significant number who have support for the NDP Party; and there are a significant number who have no party affiliation. And that is the process we intend to continue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. Mr. Speaker, a week ago the Minister of Environment and Lands made a statement in the House outlawing the dumping of old wrecks, and this side of the House agreed wholeheartedly with that statement, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Minister what is the Government's policy on the cleaning up of car wrecks, what policy do you have?

MR. WARREN: A sensible question.

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

MR. KELLAND: Thank you very much. I thank the hon. Member for the question. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question, that I have great difficulty in hearing the hon. Member's question, and I do not ascribe that to just one side of the House. I have great difficulty in hearing the question and I just ask for order so I can give an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLAND: If I understand what the hon. Member said, he recognized and supports the concept of more stringent penalties for people who deposit wrecks. I have admitted that is really a deterrent for what might happen in the future. I have also indicated through the public media that we are trying to find ways and means of funding the clean up for that which is already out there. And I have had a number of discussions with people in the industry and the people in the municipalities. We have not reached a conclusion yet on how we would exactly drive a major clean up for that which is already there. But that will come in time, Mr. Speaker, with proper consultation and proper budgetary allocations.

Thank you.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is annoying to me and I am sure it is annoying to the Premier to see some of his colleagues making a joke out of the old car wrecks. But I am sure the Premier is not in that frame of mind.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, does the Government have any mechanism in place to assist local groups who want to initiate clean up activities on their own?

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

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do have mechanisms in place, I am not certain if the hon. Member is talking about funding which is always a difficult problem. But in the series of consultation meetings I have been having in recent months, we discussed in great detail with the municipalities, as I have said already, and with various industries who contribute to what goes into our landfills and what goes into the environment to find ways and means of cost sharing clean up programmes. We do have programmes to encourage communities and community groups to involve themselves in such things as recycling and we do have a fairly extensive, I would have to say, information program that goes into the schools by way of recycling contests, information under project Wild and things of that nature to try to encourage community groups to get involved themselves.

For example, in the Province right now two prime examples come to mind where communities themselves can get involved is the case of Steady Brook where they have taken it upon themselves to install a 100 Unit Blue Box Program which is working, as I understand it, fairly well. I have recently corresponded with the mayor to ask him to give me some updated information on the successes or pitfalls of his particular program so we can apply that to our ongoing consultation with other municipalities.

In Happy Valley - Goose Bay there is another type of method with respect to recycling and clean up, is a community interest group who have involved themselves with the local recycling company in the Province, and they are on a volunteer basis and for fund raising purposes as well as cleaning up the environment they have a collection bin project underway. A number of other communities have expressed an interest to act as pilot communities for various projects. And I would hope that sometime before the end of this year we will be able to make a statement to introduce legislation that would provide the Province with a Province-wide recycling program that we can all handle and live with and share responsibility and cost in. However, that is probably only 10 or 15 per cent of our total waste management problem in the Province.

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

MR. PARSONS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If Government can not assist monetarily will they at least assist by giving free permits, free directions, and advise rather than impeding and frustrating local voluntary groups?

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

MR. KELLAND: Thank you. I am not aware that Government - even the former administration, it is one I cannot lay at their doorstep - that they have impeded volunteer and interest groups in trying to clean up the environment. In fact we do everything we possibly can to encourage that kind of involvement and I have done a few visits myself personally around the Province in various locations. In fact just this week I spoke to a new environmental group in the high school in Clarenville which has come forward on their own hook and they are very interested in seeing the area cleaned up, and there are a number of problems in the Clarenville area as there are in other places in the Province.

And that is the kind of thing we encourage. I personally encourage it, my Department encourages it, and the Government as a whole encourages cleanups, and would do anything we could. Money if we had it, when we have it, and to the extent that we have it, and if not any kind of professional or other advice that we can give. Only too willing.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Justice. Early this month a young man who was at the St. John's Penitentiary awaiting trial died at the Penitentiary. The news media reported that the young man took his own life. Does the Minister have any concerns that the death of this inmate was related to understaffing at the Penitentiary, was due to deficient procedures or due to any negligence? And secondly, will the Minister be ordering a judicial enquiry into the death of the inmate?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to the questions, first of all, I am satisfied that it was not due to understaffing. There were two people in that particular wing of the Penitentiary and there were two security guards on duty and there was a television camera in the cell. So I am first of all satisfied that there was nothing in the staffing that would indicate or contribute to any problem.

Secondly, the Penitentiary people are in the process of reviewing the procedures and we will be looking at that. Thirdly, as to whether or not there was any negligence, I do not think I can say with any certainty because as of yet we have not completed the police investigation. And as to her fourth question, we should have in hand the police report on the investigation tomorrow. Following that we will be in a position to give a very quick answer as to whether or not there will be a judicial enquiry.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Avalon Community College which has been providing a very effective, basic education programme at the Penitentiary in St. John's has had to cut that programme recently.

In view of the fact that the St. John's Penitentiary is by far the largest adult correctional centre in the province, and in view of the fact that the vast majority of inmates in all the adult correctional centres are young men, men in their late 'teens and early twenties, many of whom lack basic education, and most of whom, according to studies, with a bit of help, education and training can go on to lead useful lives, will the Minister take steps to reverse the reduction in the Avalon Community College education programme at the Penitentiary? Will the Minister look at supplementing the Avalon Community College resources either from Provincial coffers or possibly from the Federal Government, since the Penitentiary houses inmates serving Federal terms?

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

MR. DICKS: Just a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker. First of all, and I think it is fairly well acknowledged that a lot of the people in our penitentiary system do not have good literacy skills. One of the things that has been done in the past year or so since this administration came into effect was that we did procure a plato learning system which is a computerized learning aid to those who are not as well implemented in other ways. One of our concerns is, and the Minister of Education has been very concerned about this, is to see how we can preserve the current level of access by inmates to that system. He and I are in the process of determining how what, if any, of these cuts may have an effect on that.

As to the third question, I would certainly like to be able to open up the federal coffers, not only for the Department of Justice but for all of the Provincial programs which have been effected, but one of the things suggested by the hon. Minister is that we might be able to approach the Federal Government for funding as well just to preserve the programs as they contribute significantly to the acquisition of equipment. So it is a problem that has been recognized. The Minister of Education particularly is very concerned that we enhance the literacy skills of those in the penitentiary. That is something that we are looking at right at this time.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final question to the Minister of Justice. What steps is the Minister of Justice taking to provide for the penitentiary in St. John's, number one: psychiatric services; number two: guards against the over prescription of drugs to inmates; and number three: controls on the administration of prescription drugs?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows the penitentiary itself is not large enough to warrant a full in house medical system. There have been nurses stationed there at times and a different level of on sight medical services, but first of all, with respect to psychiatric services, for instance, one of the inmates was recently out at the Waterford. There are psychiatric services that are provided from the private practitioners, and as well I think that there is one in particular who goes and tends prisoners needs.

The question of prescriptions is one that is generally of concern, particularly where people are confined. This is something that I know Mr. McNutt, who is in charge of the penitentiary system, has been monitoring. What controls we place on them, Mr. Speaker, I guess are subject to much the same as the general populations. We rely on the medical professionals who deal with the inmate problems, psychiatric and otherwise to determine the appropriate medication that should be given to treat a particular illness. Beyond that I do not really think it is for lay people, including those who run our penitentiary system, to be in a position to second guess doctors on it.

So, I guess, in essence to the hon. Members question, we as much as any other part of Government or any other individual in the Province rely on doctors who are experts in these areas to provide these services and to prescribe the necessary medications. In terms of how we hand them out, the guards, the ones who are prescribed, do play a role in making sure that the prisoners do not have a whole prescription at one time so that they do not take too much or anything like that. But beyond that we certainly do not make the prescriptions.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In light of the recent negative advertising that we have seen pertaining to the effect the increasing seal population is having on some of our fish products. I am wondering if the Minister has given consideration to or will he be taking action to counter those negative ads in view of the fact of the damage that could be done to our most important industry, the fishing industry?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker. We do not plan on doing anything in any public way to focus still more attention on that very unfortunate incident. The officials in my department have talked to the author of that ad, the person who put it together who was obviously planning on placing more such ads around the world. It is unfortunate that it happened. I am told, by the way, this morning that one Mr. Brian Davies who was well known years ago for spearheading the anti-seal hunt campaign has been in contact with some local people hear involved in the seal fishery, who is threatening, if those people continue to press for the right to re-instate the large ship hunt, that Mr. Davies and company are threatening to make another appearance on the Island and to pick up where they left off some years ago, protesting the seal fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Departmental Salary Details for the 1991-92 fiscal year.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling petitions I would like on behalf of hon. Members to welcome to the gallery representation from the town of Lewisporte in the persons of His Worship Mayor Janes, Deputy Mayor Powell, and five councillors from Change Islands in the district of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

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

I have a petition I would like to present on behalf of 736 people from the community of Southeast Bight and the surrounding communities supporting the people of Southeast Bight, Mr. Speaker. The prayer of the petition is: the petition of the undersigned fully support the citizens of Southeast Bight. They are concerned about the proposal for a ferry terminal, and the community fully supports the efforts of the residents in trying to obtain a road connection to the community of Southeast Bight. Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the petition, probably I should say from the beginning, and I present it in terms that it is from the people of Southeast Bight, what they have said is, we the undersigned fully support the residents of Southeast Bight in their efforts to obtain a road connection connecting them to the Burin Peninsula Highway, or some other source, so that is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that some 736 people have signed it.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe this falls within the intent of presenting petitions in the House. Unlike some previous petitions the hon. Member presented, they were not petitions but this one in fact is.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister has a change of heart because he has never been as gracious as he has been today in accepting petitions that were not formally -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker is suppose to make that ruling, not him.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of South East Bight have asked me to present this petition in the House of Assembly. I have a letter that was sent to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They have tried now on several occasions to arrange a meeting. On three occasions it was cancelled at the last moment, but to be fair to the Minister I think the last time it was cancelled was for a personal reason that was certainly understandable to me at least, and I am sure by the other people. We understand that and accept it. The people would also like, in a letter he sent to the Minister, for him or his senior officials, but hopefully the Minister because he has a tremendous knowledge as it relates to Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker, hopefully he will be able to go down and see firsthand what the people are talking about. For my colleagues in the House who are not familiar with South East Bight, and most of them probably are not, it is a community at the bottom of Placentia Bay, one of three communities in Placentia Bay that has resisted the resettlement program of the 60s. The people of South East Bight, like the people of Petit Forte, and the people of Monkstown, decided back in the 60s that when the Liberal Government of the day were trying to destroy their way of life, trying to drive them from their homes, Mr. Speaker, destroy their school and do whatever else they could to remove rural Newfoundland to urban Newfoundland, which is something we are basically seeing again today, the people of South East Bight, like the people of Petit Forte and Monkstown, resisted that type of treatment by the elected Government. What has happened since then is that the people of Monkstown have received a road connecting them to the Burin Peninsula Highway. A former Leader of the Opposition who was a Member of the Conservative Government at the time, Mr. Barry, played a very significant role in having that road constructed for the people of Monkstown, and the Conservative Government, again, sighed an agreement with the Federal Government in Ottawa that saw, and hopefully this year will see the completion of a road to Petit Forte.

Mr. Speaker for the people of Petit Forte, a good deal for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and a good deal for the Government of Canada. Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not agree with that and I can understand that he does not agree with it because the Premier has never demonstrated a lot of faith and commitment to the people of Placentia Bay, particularly in that area, even though he has visited there.

The people of South East Bight, Mr. Speaker, are now the only people in that area who do not have a road connection and while a ferry service was something that was planned to be put into place on a temporary basis, and what would not be a significant amount of money, in terms of the money that Government spends in other areas of this Province, the people of South East Bight could have a road connecting them to the people of Monkstown and that is not asking for a lot.

Now, I know that area very well; I have worked there for nineteen years altogether, I spent ten years there as a social worker going back and forth to that area of the Province and the people of South East Bight are hard-working, dedicated, committed Newfoundlanders, who deserve no less, no more, Mr. Speaker, but they deserve no less than other people living in Newfoundland and it is time that the people living in these communities be granted and given the same type of services that other (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave to finish my petition as there was an interjection and support from the President of Treasury Board? I would ask the President of Treasury Board, if I could have leave to clue up, based on the fact that there was an interjection between both of us in terms of whether or not my petition was ready to be presented?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for giving me a couple of minutes to clue-up. I want to say that the people of South East Bight, and I say this very sincerely; I say it without any political motive, that the people of South East Bight, have lived there and no doubt will continue to live there. They believe, and I believe, that they have a right to the services that the people in other parts of the Province have taken for granted.

They do not get a lot, Mr. Speaker, as there is not very much Government money spent in South East Bight in the last fifty, hundred years or however long you want to go; it is only in the past few years that they had electricity; they do not have any road connections and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, is probably the person in the House more familiar with it than probably I would be - Placentia Bay, being a native of Placentia Bay and having travelled the area, and I am sure that when he gets up to speak to the petition, which I know he will, that he would probably do what he can to try and request or secure the necessary Government fundings, whether it is an agreement with the Federal Government, whatever it can be, I can assure the Minister of Transportation that if he goes to try to secure federal funding, that it will be supported by myself and the people of South East Bight, but I would hope that somehow, somewhere the necessary funding will be put in place to secure road connection between the people of South East Bight and the people of Monkstown and I sincerely hope that the Minister, before he makes a final decision, on the type of ferry service which will be used, hopefully on a temporary basis, and the type of terminal which will be installed in South East Bight, that the Minister will, if he cannot make it himself because there are times when Ministers' schedules are such that they cannot make it, but if he cannot make it himself, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he will send his senior officials, whom I would be glad to accompany to South East Bight, to look at what they may do, and I believe that if they sit down together with the people of South East Bight, they may be able to resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction, so, I submit that, Mr. Speaker, and I support the petition.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to rise in my place and support the petition so ably presented by the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on behalf of the residents of South East Bight. Mr. Speaker, I was fortunate when I was Minister of Rural Development to visit South East Bight on two different occasions while dealing with the Rural Development Movement in that area and I happened to be able to visit once in early spring and once in summer time.

I found, especially in early spring, that it was extremely difficult, to get to that area because of the weather conditions at the time. Now, I do not think in the 1990s, 1992, I do not think it is a very unreasonable request for a group of people, who are making a living in a certain region of our Province to request a reasonable transportation system and I would say that most of us in this Province today, would expect a reasonable transportation system to be some type of a road link.

Almost all of the communities in our Province now are linked by road, and we would expect, most of us, in the rest of the other parts of the Province, to have at least a road link; some of us might want it paved, some of us might want sidewalks, some of us might want a lot of other things, but I mean, just a gravel road to a community is what the people in South East Bight and their supporters are requesting in this petition.

Mr. Speaker, at the time I was in South East Bight I visited Petit Forte. And the Petit Forte people at that time made a presentation, and a very passionate presentation, I might say, on a road link for their community. And granted it is expensive. But as the Member of resource policy committee at the time, when I went to the community and listened to their presentation I found it to be a reasonable presentation. They did not want extra services that someone else is getting, they were not looking for pavement to make it more comfortable to drive over their road, they were not looking for anything exceptional. It was just: if you can give me the regular services that Government would ordinarily provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I will make a living in Petit Forte and I will be able to stay there and educate and raise my children. That was basically their request.

Now the people in South East Bight now are making a similar request. And on their behalf, the people who signed this petition also seem to believe that it is a fairly reasonable request. It is a rather unusual request, I suppose, in this day and age for people to be asking for a road link into a community that they have lived in for hundreds of years. Certainly we would have thought that consideration would have been given to upgrade all of these communities so that they would at least have the minimum of transportation, such as a gravel road.

I support the petitioners in this case and I would request too - and I know the Minister is familiar with the area, with South East Bight and Petit Forte and Haystack where he originally came from no doubt, he is familiar with that area - that when he gets the opportunity that he will go to the community and speak with the people in that area who very desperately would like a road link but they also need to stay in their community so that they can provide a living for their family. And if the Minister gets a chance some time in the spring or early summer when the House closes, I would advise, that he take a trip to that area. And go there by boat, and then it would be the comfortable time to go there in the summertime. If he really wants to see how tough it can be to get back and forth there, go there in the wintertime. But I do not expect that and I know the Minister is busy. But it certainly would not be impossible for him to visit that area sometime this late spring or summer and listen to what the people in that area are saying.

And with that I support the petitioners and I would request that the Minister also support them and make plans. I mean, they want you to make plans to get a road into their community sometime. I am sure if you went to the community and said: alright, well we will start to do some design work or we will see if we can get a route picked out, that in itself would be beneficial to the people of South East Bight, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few minutes to speak on this with a moderate degree of knowledge, having gone to both Petit Forte and South East Bight and knocked on every single door in both communities some three years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: So I have a little bit of knowledge of what the situation is. And it may be true. The Liberal Party may have gotten one vote in Petit Forte. But it cost this Province millions upon millions of unnecessary dollars to do it. And let me tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to what happened in the last action when the hon. Members were in power, the Government of Canada provided the transportation to Petit Forte and South East Bight, paid the full cost of it as part of the terms of union. Now, the hon. Member wanted to make sure that he was re-elected so the government of this Province undertook to take on - instead of getting the Federal Government to pay the cost of the road and provide the cost of operating it - the former government in this Province agreed to put up $2 million of Provincial funds to build a road, the Federal putting up $6 million or $7 million altogether. Then the Provincial Government of that day undertook to operate the ferry from Petit Forte to South East Bight at a cost of about another $350,000 a year to operate, besides the cost of putting the terminal there, which we were not paying before, which the Federal Government was paying.

The government, in order to get votes for the hon. Member, the government of that day made the taxpayers of this Province undertake that responsibility. And it is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province - unnecessarily - millions and millions and millions of dollars in the future, when it was really a Federal responsibility.

I do not say the road should not have been built there. I say the Federal Government had its responsibility and if it wanted to change it from operating a ferry - which was costing the Federal Government, I believe, about $500,000 or $600,000 a year. So in a few years they are out of it scot-free with no more responsibility, and we have transferred the burden to the taxpayers of this Province. Just so the hon. Member could get his handful of votes in Petite Forte and South East Bight. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member comes back before this House again saying, 'we should have roads for the people of South East Bight.' I agree, Mr. Speaker. I support the fact that we should have roads for the people of South East Bight, but it is a federal responsibility. They skinned out of the financial responsibility under the terms of union and the people of this Province should not be saddled with it. We, Mr. Speaker, have more concern for the people of this Province than to enter into that kind of political deal, which is exactly what the hon. Members did and cost the tax payers of this Province more millions and millions not only to build a road there, but millions more to continue to operate the two roads to Petite Forte and South East Bight. It is not that we disagree with the road, Mr. Speaker, we disagree with saddling the tax payers of this Province with responsibility to take the federal government off the hook for their proper responsibility under the terms of union. We will not do that, Mr. Speaker. We will do everything that we can to co-operate to ensure that the federal government properly discharges its responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

This petition is over. I recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege to rise and present a petition to this House on behalf of a number of residents of various communities in Newfoundland, mostly from southern Labrador from Charlottetown, Williams Harbour, Pensons Arm, also some residents of Roddickton and various residents in and around St. John's. These petitioners, Mr. Speaker, are of the undersigned Friends of MUN Extension who state that: whereas MUN Extension has provided and continues to provide an essential service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and whereas no other agency is capable of providing that service, MUN Extension should be re-instated. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House take such action as may be necessary to ensure that Memorial University re-instates its Extension Services and that it be funded and equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition is one of literally dozens that have been presented in this House, all of which have the same prayer, but they come from different parts of the Province and all around, particularly from rural Newfoundland, expressing the same sentiment, Mr. Speaker. That sentiment is embodied in the prayer of the petition, but it is also in many other places.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Government Members are getting a bit tired of hearing from their constituents, they are getting a bit tired of hearing from rural Newfoundlanders about what it is that this Government is not doing to help MUN Extension. Now some of the comments of the people of this Province are expressed quite eloquently themselves in letters that they have written, some to this Government and some to Dr. May of the University where I am sure the Government would be quite happy to see them all directed.

I want to read from a couple of these letters that have recently been published that expressed the feelings of these people which are quite contrary to those expressed by the Minister of Education, by the Member for Eagle River, by other Government Members in responding to petitions and responding to this issue. These people, Mr. Speaker, are quite praiseworthy of MUN Extension and what it has been able to accomplish for them. One, for example, that appeared recently in the Evening Telegram was a letter sent from the Inshore Fisherman's Improvement Committee and signed by the secretary of that organization. This committee, Mr. Speaker, represents 2,000 fisherpeople in Bonavista, Trinity and Placentia Bay which recently met, and they expressed their considerable anger and disappointment in the university and the Government towards what has happened. They say that MUN Extension was an important friend and teacher to their group since it began five years ago. They had the support from three different field workers from the department, the Extension Services helped them with research, their annual conference doing various jobs while their members were busy fishing. An important part was making videos from our conferences that we used all over the Province and in Ottawa to help educate people in Governments and Governments about the fishery.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, they were presented with an award from the Provincial Adult Education Association for their efforts in promoting fishery education. Mr. Speaker, what they say in this letter is that you or the Government people may say there are other agencies in rural Newfoundland and Labrador to help us, but that is not true. That is what they say, that is not true. We have gotten the type of service from Mun Extension that is not available anywhere else. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government may say that it has failed, but there services available elsewhere, but that is not true and these are the people who use the service of Mun Extension.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I gather the Member for Eagle River is not too happy to hear that some of his constituents have to present petitions to this House through other Members. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of his constituents, in fact, have had to write him, to take him to task for being unwilling to present petitions in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, they have sent a letter. They had to send it around to other Members and to the media to make sure that it received public attention. Mr. Speaker, they are not happy with the fact that the Member for Eagle River is only representing part of his constituents. They say, they are ignoring the petitioners from Mary's Harbour who say that they need Mun Extension and that they would like to see it continued.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all over this Province there are constituents of these Members over here, and of other Members who are unhappy with this Government's decision to let Mun Extension die. The Fogo Island Development Association, Mr. Speaker, has also written to the Editor of The Sunday Express, and to the President of the University, and they say to Fogo Islanders: Mun Extension can be looked on as a parent in the rebirth of our Island community. We were nurtured through our problems. We were fed information and training to allow for self-sufficiency and like all parents do we were watched over with a keen eye of concern now you have killed it. Well, Mr. Speaker, that expresses very eloquently what has happened here. This Government has killed Mun Extension and they should try and revive it and change their minds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition put forth by my colleague for St. John's East on behalf of Mun Extension. And this is not the first or second or third or fourth time that this has occurred. I too received numerous letters from constituents. Last week I read a part of one that came from the Fogo Island Development Association where they asked the President of the University and asked this Government to reverse a wrong decision that affected the lives of so many people in rural Newfoundland. And this particular petition from the people of coastal Labrador, as the papers have indicated in the last number of days, that have been sent to their Member, but for some reason he has been muzzled and not allowed to speak on their behave to represent the best interest of the people, I think, of Mary's Harbour, Charlottetown and numerous places, and I think the Member has been told that in spades in the last number of days what has happened.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think last week one day the national day of mourning I think it was called, a national day of protest because of the death of Mun Extension, the papers, without exception, talk about the unforgivable decision to abolish Mun Extension. Mr. Speaker, we on this side concur with this, the role that Mun Extension has played in the development of rural Newfoundland can never be overlooked, never underestimated and indeed it should have been enhanced if rural Newfoundland is to survive.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the very agency that the Minister of Education referred to who would do the job, the development associations. He said, the development associations are out there and they will do the job. Now, Mr. Speaker, the letter is from the development association imploring the Minister to keep Mun Extension because of its role. The other agency he referred to was the community colleges, and we already know the fact of the community colleges in this Province. Their role has been diminished, and some of them are in danger of closing next year when the Minister does his re-adjustments. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just passed me a letter, I will not read it all, but it is signed by Yvonne Rumbolt, Dorothy Earle, and Glennis Butt. I do not know if they are from the district of the Member for Eagle River or not. 'Dear Mr. Dumaresque, We were disappointed and upset when you the elected Member for our district '-

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I must rise to my feet again on a point of order because Members opposite obviously have nothing to say about the petition. In speaking to a petition they are suppose to deal with the individuals whose names are on the petition, and the prayer of the petition and once again they are into a situation where all they are trying to do is trying to make slanderous comments about a Member on this side. Now. Mr. Speaker, if they have nothing in their heads to say about MUN Extension they should not get up and start getting on with these irrelevancies.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on the point of order.

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. Hon. Members know when they are speaking to a petition they should keep themselves to the prayer of the petition, the material allegations of the petition, signatures, so on and so forth, so I ask hon. Members to please keep that in mind. It is the job of the Chair to enforce the rules but it is also an equal responsibility and obligation on the part of Members to follow the rules.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: A good ruling, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is we are addressing the petition and the concerns of Newfoundlanders out there about the loss of MUN Extension and the inability of Members to articulate these concerns in this House of Assembly as they have been asked to, Mr. Speaker, because these people of Coastal Labrador recognize the value of the contribution that MUN Extension has made and they have asked this House to ask us, through this House, to ask Government to reinstate funding for MUN Extension so that they can continue to do the work. Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on this administration to accede to the request of rural Newfoundlanders by the thousands who want to have MUN Extension reinstated.

Thank you.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since a number of my constituents have been named in this petition, and dealing with the issue that I am on the public record for, I would just like to take a couple of minutes to outline again my position on this issue, and to indicate to this House in a rational way what the issue is all about. As the Member for Fogo was going to be reading in his letter on MUN Extension he said there were a number of statements being made in that letter regarding my position on MUN Extension. Mr. Speaker, what the letter said in a number of ways obviously had nothing to do with MUN Extension staying. As a matter of fact there was one sentence, I think, in the whole letter that said, we want you to keep MUN Extension for doing the things for south eastern Labrador that they did for the Labrador Straits. As I have responded to these particular individuals in my riding, Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Labrador Straits, I grew up when MUN Extension came to the Labrador Straits and I saw what they did, and they did an excellent job. They came into the Labrador Straits with a community development role in mind. They were the impetus that got a number of people in the community into leadership positions and they were the impetus in being able to get the community organized in community councils, development associations, fishermen's committees, and other ad hoc committees that reacted to different issues of the day. They did a good job in that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to assure the Members opposite and all the people of this Province that I commend them for what they have done. But as I indicated earlier to this House, for seven years now there has been no presence of the MUN Extension in the Labrador Straits except for a three month contract position, simply because of the fact that MUN Extension themselves realize they had fulfilled their mandate in that particular area. They had done their job. They came and they went happy enough. Same thing as they have always done in northern Labrador. There was never a MUN Extension office stationed in northern Labrador.

And when you look at the community development role and the impetus that they were in providing leadership to various members of that community, in southeastern Labrador they are saying: do what we did in the Labrador Straits. Well, in southeastern Labrador we have three development associations where there was only one in the Labrador Straits. We have three outreach workers in offices in that area where there is only one in the Labrador Straits. We have full councils operating in all these communities and local service districts. Very active fishermens' committees that are doing a wonderful job of being able to promote our area and our future in the fishery in that area. And the community colleges, very prevalent all along the coast.

So let's be fair in all of this. If this Government, or if any government, had money to really go out and put into whatever whim were to come to their minds, I am sure nobody would on this side want to see anybody lose their job, whether they work for MUN Extension or for any other part of this Government and any service that can be provided. But when we have to make judgements, when we have to reflect upon ourselves and say: is this going to be the way it is? I would submit that if the MUN Extension was not taken away by the University, then I know that the MUN Extension was planning to take their office away from Mary's Harbour as it was. Because again they were realizing that their mandate had been fulfilled. So all along the Labrador coast there would not have been one person working for MUN Extension in six months' time. That is the reality.

And I find it a little bit unbecoming of hon. Members to continue to try and patronize Labrador, to continue to stand up here and say: you have to need these types of things because we believe that you are undeveloped, immature, you do not have the ability to stand up for yourselves and speak for yourselves. But let's be rational, let's be fair. We have done I believe what is right and proper on the coast of Labrador, and we pay particular gratitude to MUN Extension. They were really beneficial to our community and we will always remember their contribution to us. But at this point in time, priorities have to be established and I believe we are doing just fine in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Will we agree to revert to Petitions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,143 residents of Labrador City and Wabush -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven hundred?

MR. A. SNOW: Eleven hundred and forty-three residents of Labrador City and Wabush, who petition this House of Assembly. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, is: We, the concerned citizens of Labrador West, present this petition against the cutbacks at the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador City.

Mr. Speaker, the 1,143 people who have signed this petition have grave concerns over the cutbacks at the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador City. The administration of the Hospital Board has suggested that the level of cutbacks that the people of Western Labrador are going to have to live with is adequate, that is their term not mine, adequate.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House adequate health care in Western Labrador is not good enough. It is not enough for this Government to provide merely adequate health care. They should provide a good quality of health care that had been provided over the previous thirty years in Western Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this cutback of $870,000 represents about 12 per cent of the Budget, which I am led to believe is one of the larger cuts of any Hospital Board in this Province, to an area, Mr. Speaker, that is very much isolated in northern Labrador. An area that in order for a patient to get to an alternate hospital here in St. John's it takes eight hours, an eight hour turnaround time for a patient to get from an accident in Labrador to a hospital in St. John's. So can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the amount of fear that is in the peoples minds in Western Labrador with the fact that this cutback in the quality of health care in Western Labrador is going to do. Can you imagine what this is doing to the people living in Labrador, the fear that is in the people and the families of the people residing in Western Labrador.

We are now getting to have an older population. We need more, we need an improved health care in Western Labrador. We are getting an older population, and we also have an increased population, I say an increased population in relationship to what the population had been three or four years ago because of the layoffs and during the global recession of the early 1980s created 3,000 to 4,000 people reduction in our population, now these people have come back to work in Western Labrador and they need an improved health care. And, Mr. Speaker, the closure of eight beds is not fair to the people of Western Labrador. The 40 per cent reduction in physiotherapy services represents about 3,500 patient visits, Mr. Speaker, for patients going to visit the physiotherapists in Western Labrador. The reduction in this service is not fair to the people who contribute the most to this Provincial economy.

The 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction in surgery is not fair, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested the fact that the 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction in elective surgery, the present resident surgeon may leave the area, Mr. Speaker, and that would leave our area of Labrador without any surgeon, and again I emphasize the isolation of Labrador that we are eight hours away from a hospital if indeed we cannot get the services in Western Labrador.

The reduction in the specialists visits, Mr. Speaker, a 15 per cent reduction has been recommended by the Board. This is not fair to the people of Western Labrador. And we are going to see that people are going to spend more money to travel to places such as St. John's or to another province, maybe they would have to go to Quebec City or Montreal. The fact that our hospital will not have a speech therapist, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine 20,000 people will not have the use of a speech therapist now. These people will not be able to jump in their car and drive an hour or fifty minutes to another community, to another hospital. They will have to spend almost $1,000 to come out here to the Island to get to see a speech therapist, Mr. Speaker. That is tremendously unfair.

Mr. Speaker, these cutbacks are very real cutbacks, and another thing that concerns the people of Western Labrador is the fact that there may be further cuts that the Board may have to institute in the hospital because of the lack of funds -

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

MR. A. SNOW: May I have a few seconds to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, there may be further cutbacks that the board may have to recommend because of a lack of funds provided by this Government. I would certainly hope that the Minister and his colleagues in Cabinet would reconsider and give further grants of monies to the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in western Labrador to provide a good quality health care in western Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition of 1,143 residents of Labrador City and Wabush protesting the Provincial Government cuts in funding to the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital there. My colleague presented the petition ably. The reason I am rising to support the petition is that first of all, I have a concern about the health care of people in Labrador West. I believe residents of Labrador City and Wabush deserve good hospital service. It is the same as residents of other parts of our Province.

The second reason I am speaking in support of this petition is that I believe the recent reduction in Provincial support for the hospital in Labrador West amounts to a threat to the unity of the Province, a unity of the island with the mainland portion of the Province. Many of us are now worried about the future shape of Canada, about the future relationship between Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of Canada. Some people are worried about the survival of Canada through all this. I would say to the Premier and the Members opposite that they should never make the mistake of taking for granted the unity of Newfoundland and Labrador. Geographically there is the division of the Strait of Belle Isle. At the same time, of course, Labrador shares a huge boarder with the Province of Quebec. Labrador City and Wabush, the area we are now addressing, is in close proximity by road to Fermont and to other parts of Quebec. And as the Island part of the Province. As the Provincial Government alienates Labrador more than it has been alienated in the past as it withdraws provincial funding for vital services in Labrador West, there will be a natural tendency for the citizens of that part of Labrador to look for replacement services in Quebec. What could be more natural.

My colleague from Menihek, in speaking earlier in the House of Assembly made the point that the residents of Fermont, Quebec have used the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador City and the Government of Quebec has compensated the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for those services. I understand the compensation is such that our Provincial Government actually gains through services to people from Quebec. But if the Jackman Hospital budget is cut, as it has been, if the Jackman Hospital downgrades it services, then not only are residents of Labrador West, residents of our Provinces going to look for alternatives in Quebec, but the Government of Quebec is probably going to be there to provide those services, and the people of Fermont will no longer be using our hospital services.

So, I think it is extremely important not only for the Provincial Government to provide a good level of health care and other public services to all residents of the Province, but also for the Government to pay particular attention to the residents of Labrador to try to cement the bonds between the Island and mainland parts of the Province, to signal an attitude of appreciating the contribution of people in Labrador, and of understanding their basic needs. If the Government fails to do that, I am afraid we may pay dearly. We may basically exacerbate the feelings of alienation between the two parts of the Province, we may undo much of the bonding that has happened over the last twenty years, and we may, in effect, drive the people of Labrador to look at alternatives such as independence or such as some kind of association with Quebec, either a sovereign Quebec, an independent Quebec, or we hope a Quebec in a revitalized Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to address this petition which was presented by the hon. Member for Menihek, and which contained, I understand, 1100 names of people in the Labrador city area. Mr. Speaker, we are getting conflicting messages from Labrador West. On the one hand a group of people can go and get 1100 names on a petition of people who are concerned about the health care cuts in Labrador, and then we listen to the media carrying stories about citizens groups who attempted to have a public meeting, invited everyone to wear arm-bands, but they could not get anyone who were not members of the committee to even wear an arm-band, Mr. Speaker, so the message is a bit conflicting. I realize that, and that is why, as soon as the House closes this session, I am going up to talk with the people of Labrador City. I know, Mr. Speaker, that people in Labrador City are no different from people in the Strait of Bell Isle, people in St. John's, or people anywhere else, they want an adequate health care system which is better than we had in this Province before this administration took over. We had a health care system which was totally unorganized, and which was going off in fifty different directions, with no correlation between primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care. Everything was allowed to go off in different directions but we took control of the health care system and we are putting in place an integrated health care system which applies to the people in Labrador City, the people in Nain and the people in Coastal Labrador. It is the first time in recent history that the health care system has been taken over and we are attempting to take over a system and make it adequate for Labrador West and for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Jackman Hospital in Labrador last year had forty-three beds in operation. Do you know the occupancy level? It was 50 per cent, one half of the beds were utilized. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that nine of them were occupied by chronic care patients. We are restructuring the hospital in Labrador West so that it meets the needs that are required. One of the problems in Labrador City was the mental health department. When we took over the people who were there were overworked. There was inappropriate use of that centre. We sent up consultants from the Department of Health and we closed it down for a month so that we could bring it back better than it ever was before. That unit is now open and that is where the need is. You see, Mr. Speaker, health care is not a few bricks and some mortar, health care is services, services which meet the needs of our people and that is what we are doing. We are going about this Province and we are matching services to the needs that are there. We are not one bit torn up about building new buildings, we are more concerned with meeting the needs of our people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member, when he presented this petition on behalf of his constituents, talked about the fear of the people in Labrador City. I want to address the fear of the people in Labrador City, and the fear of the people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, because what we have witnessed in the past number of weeks is a group of people who are trying to instill fear, fearmongering with the people of this Province, fearmongering, for nothing only purely political reasons, the lowest basis of reasons. They are trying to fearmonger the people of this Province who know that this Government is entrusted with a sacred trust of delivering a health care system and we take that very seriously, Mr. Speaker. We have to prepare for a day in fifteen years time when this Province will have to pay the total cost, and we have to put in place a system that we can afford, a system which is better than we ever had because it will be adequate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Humber East, when she addressed the petition, raised a rather noble approach. She talked about the unity of Canada. Now, she has taken the emphasis totally away from health care and she has taken it to the unity of Canada. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that she would make a presentation to the Spicer Commission at the earliest possible date to see if there is something that can be done with this situation in Labrador City so that we do not have to have anything to do with the unity of Canada. It is a rather unique interpretation she has given to this petition, and I do not particularly share her concerns that the unity of Canada, or the unity of Newfoundland, is somehow threatened by this, nevertheless it is a novel approach and I certainly will give it some thought over the weekend and see if she has any points on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, to consider Certain Resolutions and a Certain Bill related thereto, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I got carried away, diverted by some comments made by the Premier and the Government House Leader, which I will not get into at this point in time, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Two points behind the Reform Party, nationally, Federal Tories you are talking about, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SIMMS: You are talking about the Federal Tories?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, sorry, oh, I thought you were talking about us; we are gone down below the GST, are we? That was the saying anyway, one thing about that, Mr. Chairman, you have nowhere to go, but up, when you are down like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, the interest rate, okay. Anyway, Mr. Chairman, we are back on; the issue and the topic today is Bill 15, " An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act", for those who may be interested in knowing what we are debating today: "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act".

Now we debated this on Tuesday for a full day pretty well and during that debate of course, what the Minister is attempting to do with this legislation I think, was made known to the people of the Province, hopefully through the press; now, I am not sure that the press did much justice to the arguments which were being made to this legislation by Members on this side of the House, that is not unusual but, I am not sure that they really have shown the people of the Province exactly what it is the Government is intending to do, by bringing in this legislation.

The argument was made and it was pointed out that what is happening with this legislation in a nutshell, is that the Minister has decided to freeze the tax rate, so that, if the taxed gasoline price actually drops, then the tax that used to drop with it, which was an ad valorem tax, will not now drop, if the price of gasoline drops, it will stay high, so, if the price of gas up here and the provincial gasoline tax is up here, in the past, it was an ad valorem tax, and if the price of gas went up, the tax went up, if the price of gas came down, the tax came down.

But what has happened now with this legislation that the Minister of Finance is bringing in, he is bringing in this kind of a tax, that if the price of gasoline drops, the tax does not drop, the tax stays up, so as long as everybody understands what it is we were saying, it is unfortunate that the press has not sent that message out there, but that is what the Minister is trying to do. Once again, trying to gouge the taxpayers of the Province, trying to rip them off and trying to grab as much as he can in the way of taxes.

Now I suppose, that goes without saying for any Minister of Finance; that is expected of a Minister of Finance I suppose, to grab as much taxation as he can, and this Minister makes no bones about it; he is not one bit embarrassed by it, he is not one bit shy about confessing and admitting. He said when he introduced the bill on Tuesday I believe, words to the effect that I am doing this because we want revenues and that is it; we are protecting our revenues, protecting our revenues. Never mind protecting the consumer, never mind giving the consumer a little break, we are protecting our revenues.

Now I want to ask the Minister of Finance, since this debate is one that can go back and forth, we can feel comfortable in asking the odd question here and there, and sitting down, because you can get up, you do not have to speak for ten, two minutes or whatever.

On Tuesday past, just towards adjournment, I say to the Minister, my friend from Menihek, put forth an amendment, and he will recall what the amendment is supposed to do, I am sure he will recall the amendment, in fact I think he indicated he had some interest in it. It seemed that it was a sensible amendment to propose and essentially what the Member for Menihek was suggesting, that there be an amendment which would provide that the tax rate border communities, Labrador border communities, gasoline tax rate will essentially not be discriminatory towards Labradorians; in other words, the tax rate would be as close to the Quebec tax rate at all times, because in Quebec, it is only across the border, it is only a few miles, the price of gas and the tax is lower, so what is happening, is that people in Labrador are going to Quebec, a few miles away across the border to buy their gas, so that does not help -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the Minister of Finance, I am hoping will get up and tell us. People in Labrador are not that stunned. If that is the way he feels now it is certainly a change in philosophy, if that is the way the Minister of Finance feels. Because for the last two years, with all the pricing and gouging he has been doing, it is pretty clear his philosophy has been to rip off the Newfoundlander and suspecting that the Newfoundlander is stunned. Because that is what he has been doing to them, or trying to do to them.

Now maybe he can get up and tell us. I am just trying to say to the Minister that that was the purpose of the amendment put forward by the Member for Menihek.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now a (Inaudible) - it was not? How do you know what the purpose was for him putting forth his amendment? You do not know, for God's sake. You have no clues at all. You do not know if that is the reason he put forth the amendment. How do you know the reason? You just said no, that is not the reason he put forth the amendment. How do you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you. Wonders never cease. Anyway, maybe the Minister can get up and perhaps tell us what his response is to the amendment. I do not have to go into detail. He knows what the Member put forward. All I was saying - and the Member for Eagle River was nodding with what I was saying. The intent of the amendment was to try to have the tax rate as close to the Quebec tax rate, right? For Labrador border towns. That was the purpose of the amendment. Now, it is a bit broader than that, and a little bit more complicated, but that was the purpose of the amendment. So I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would give us - before we proceed debating the amendment any further - if he could give us his initial reaction to the amendment. I think we would all appreciate it. Certainly I would, and I know the Member for Menihek would.

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

MR. SIMMS: Is the Minister of Finance not going to respond to it?

MR. DECKER: Oh, I am sure the Minister of Finance will later, but, Mr. Chairman, I just want to address this issue. Because it is an important matter. And I want to say that this ad valorem tax which the hon. Member talked about is quite accurate. When we took over government there was an ad valorem tax on gasoline prices. And as the price of gasoline went up the tax went up. Now, that has been around for x number of years when the previous administration had it. And that is when we took over. If the price of gasoline had gone to $1 million a gallon then the tax would have gone up proportionately as well.

Now, the hon. Members on the opposite side for weeks and weeks on end when this House was in session were up attacking the hon. Minister of Finance and they were saying: do away with this ad valorem tax. Freeze the tax, stabilize the tax. The hon. Members on the other side were saying: stabilize this tax, so that the consumers of the Province will know what the tax is, whether it is 10 cents or 20 cents, so people will know. So the hon. Members for weeks were lambasting the hon. Minister of Finance, trying to get him to freeze the tax.

Now, we are a Government which listens. The hon. Minister of Finance is the most listening Minister of Finance that we have had over the last seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance listened to Opposition Members when they wanted the tax frozen. So he came to his colleagues in cabinet and Government and he got permission to freeze the tax. Now, that was done right when the war was on the Gulf. We had no way of knowing that that war was not going to go on for years. The price of gasoline could have gone through the roof. It could have gone to $25 a gallon. Yet right in the middle of that Gulf War we listened to hon. Members in the Opposition. We listened to them when they said to us that the people want the tax rate frozen. And we listened and we froze the tax. We cancelled the ad valorem tax, we gave the consumers a break, now the hon. Members on the other side, what are they doing? They are up saying: you should not freeze it, you should have kept the ad valorem tax.

Now what kind of Opposition is that? I am beginning to think more and more that the people of my district are right when they are telling me that all hon. Members want to do over there is be against everything. If we were to give every person in this Province a million dollars as a free gift, hon. Members would say: no, do not do it, no matter what we want to do as a Government, because they are not concerned at all. They are not concerned about the people of this Province. All they are concerned with is getting over here where we are. But if they do not change their tactics they have no worry about getting over where we are. Because they are going to be over there for a good many years.

You see, the role of the Opposition - and I hate to have to lecture my friends on the opposite side - the role of the Opposition is to look at what Government is doing and criticizing, but there is such a thing as constructive criticism, Mr. Chairman. Criticism is not always negative. You just have not got to be against something because this Government puts it forward. The hon. Member spent days and weeks and months, Mr. Chairman, lambasting the hon. Minister of Finance, asking him to stabilize the tax on gasoline. The hon. the Minister of Finance in his open way listened to the Opposition Members and stabilized the tax, now they are getting up and telling us we should not have done that. So, Mr. Chairman, I am getting to the stage where I am soon going to stop paying any attention at all to the Members opposite. That is what the vast majority of this Province have done. They have stopped paying attention to them. I think I am going to join the other people in this Province and stop paying attention to them too, Mr. Chairman, because they are not coming forward with one constructive suggestion, to put it in the vernacular, they are agin everything, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened with quite a bit of interest to the Minister of Health in his discourse in the debate on Bill 15. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we were discussing the amendment. The amendment is a suggestion, if you will, that he just criticized the official Opposition for not having provided any alternative, we are just against everything. But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment that we are suppose to be debating, that he did not even mention is a suggestion, it is an alternative. We have provided one. But the problem is the hon. Minister of Health reminds me an awful lot of another Cabinet Minister over there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well here he goes again. He is suggesting now that if they accept this amendment they are scared that we will have another good suggestion tomorrow, and lo and behold, you will be using all of our good ideas. Now would not that be a terrible thing for this Minister or this Government to be coming up with new and good and innovative ideas. Now would that not be something. What a tragedy to the people of this Province.

But he reminds me, Mr. Chairman, to get back on track, very much of another Member of the Cabinet, and they always, always, always never put forward the idea of how something is good. They have to attack. They cannot forget that they are now the Government. They cannot remember they are Government. They cannot forget that they are Opposition. As soon as they get to their feet they have to say oh, went I was in Opposition. I used to do this. They remind me again, Mr. Chairman, of a Federal Member who many people, many politicians, many columnists, many journalists in Ottawa suggested that this gentleman was probably the best Member of Opposition that ever sat in a seat in Ottawa. And when he got to be in Government in 1984 a lot of people have suggested since then that he was a dismal failure as a Member of Government. And I am speaking about a Member from Northern Canada, the hon. Eric Nielsen. That man, he said, could not adjust to being in Government. Two Members on this side have not yet adjusted or on that side, excuse me, in this level of Government, the Provincial Government have not adjusted to being in Government. They cannot get to their feet and argue the merit of what they are doing, of what they ought to do when they stand up in this House is to say it is somebody else's fault. It is always their fault. Not once did that hon. Minister get to his feet to discuss the amendment which I have proposed, which is to make a level playing field with gasoline operators or gasoline service stations on border areas of this Province. Would make a level playing field between people selling gasoline in southern Labrador, would make a level playing field or give the opportunity to the Minister of Finance to make a level playing field for the people selling gasoline in Western Labrador or the towns of Labrador City and Wabush and the Town of Fermont. That is what the amendment would do. Now that is a constructive piece of legislation. This is to promote Newfoundland and Labrador business. It is not to detract. I am not out saying I am going to lay off, shut down, blame it on other people. I am suggesting a constructive amendment to a piece of legislation that this Government is bringing in that is going to be a benefit to this Province. Because I firmly believe that we can, by lowering the taxes in this Province on a liter of gasoline, in the border communities we will collect more from those border communities.

Because what is happening in western Labrador is that the people are leaving Labrador City and Wabush and driving to the Province of Quebec and buying their gasoline because it is 7.5 cents cheaper per liter. That is the difference in price. Now if we can bring that down through our tax system to a little more even. Maybe we will not be able to bring it right down to equal, but a little more even. That is what we should do.

Now we recognize the principle, this administration recognizes the principle, of doing that. But what do they do? They left out western Labrador, they included southern Labrador. This administration that talks about being innovative, imaginative and creative, they forgot all about western Labrador, the area that produces the most wealth of any electoral district in this Province. The district of Menihek provides more wealth to this Province than any other electoral district in this Province. And they forgot about it. They included it in this bill, in Bill 15, they recognize that they should level up the playing field, they did recognize it. The hon. Minister of Finance suggested it, that they did recognize it. In Section 3. But they forgot western Labrador.

And that is what I am saying. I am offering an amendment to suggest that you can include western Labrador and not only that, you do not fix it, you give the opportunity to the Minister to correct it. That is what this amendment would do. And that can help businesses in western Labrador and southern Labrador to compete more closely to or with their competitors in the border communities.

I am pleased to see that the Government recognized and agreed with the principle. Now we just have to ensure that they have done their research and I hope that they have. I mean, they would not suggest that they would pass a piece of legislation without researching the effects of it. So I am sure that when they consider it, now that I have proposed the amendment - and I am hoping that they have had the opportunity of looking at it, and I see the Minister of Finance nodding in an affirmative manner - so I am hoping that he is going to stand and explain how he can live with this amendment. And that hopefully he can convince his colleagues to support the amendment. Because it can be a benefit. Not only to the residents of Labrador. I am not just thinking of the people who are going to have the opportunity of paying fewer cents for a liter of gasoline in western Labrador. I am thinking of the opportunity that is going to be there to promote more business. Generate more commerce in western Labrador and southern Labrador.

I am hoping that the Minister of Finance - he is nodding in an affirmative manner - that he is going to stand and convince his colleagues to support my amendment, and I know that the people of western Labrador will think favourably of him of course if he does do this, and, well, think that it is a good amendment and recognize that this Government does do some good things. You are not always wrong. Some of the things that you have done I agree with. A lot of the things you are doing I do not agree with.

But one of the things a lot of the people are suggesting to me is that you have to have a plan. And the simplistic economics that is being applied is not a plan. The fact that you are shutting down hospitals is just a knee-jerk reaction to a lack of revenue on the other side, and it is dangerous. Because I think that some of the things that you have done, such as massive layoffs in the public sector, are going to have a more devastating effect on the other side of knocking your revenues down again. And then what are you going to be stuck with on the other side next year? Again your knee-jerk reaction will possibly be more layoffs in the public sector, and that is not going to work.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that this amendment will go through. I hope that the people on the other side of the House will support it. Because it can benefit businesses and individuals working in businesses, and individuals purchasing gasoline and other products in western Labrador. Now, the principle as I suggested you adhere to, you believe in, because you proposed it in the bill. You also believe in it in other sectors.

In the sales tax. In western Labrador there is no sales tax on clothing. Because of the border community again. And that is something I am pleased to suggest, and I played an important role in having the previous administration, I think, removing the sales tax on clothing in western Labrador. Because of the border community. And it was while I was the mayor of Labrador City that I lobbied the previous administration. Other people in southern Labrador, as an example -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It may have been. Yes, I was also a member of the economic council that was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Where I used to get paid $300. That patronage appointment? Three hundred bucks.

AN HON. MEMBER: A day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation suggested -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: - I got paid $300 a day!

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

MR. A. SNOW: For my appointment. That patronage appointment that I received -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: - five or six years ago.

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

MR. A. SNOW: May I have leave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. A. SNOW: Let me finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

MR. A. SNOW: I will get up again.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a few words based on this resolution -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - this piece of legislation that is before the House dealing with the gasoline tax. And there are a few comments that I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, if you can keep the Member for Eagle River quiet while I try to speak.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

The hon. the Member for Eagle River on a point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I rose to enter into the debate after the Member for Menihek sat down, and then he asked for leave and I assumed that the leave was given to the Member for Menihek, so I sat down. But I think you probably were distracted. So I would like to have an opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are just a couple of very brief remarks I would like to make to the point of order brought up by the Member for Eagle River. First of all, obviously it is not a point of order. While it is traditional that the Chair will recognize a speaker back and forth across the House, the Chair I guess only observed one person standing and recognized that person. And so therefore the Member for Burin - Placentia West is recognized and has ten minutes to speak. Secondly, there is no rule saying that that must be done, that is just a tradition. And thirdly, the hon. Member did not take his seat, he continued to stand and continued to stand long after the Member for Burin - Placentia West was recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

To that point of order. Yes, I guess it is a tradition of the House to alternate back and forth. However, when the hon. Member for Menihek asked for leave and leave was not granted the only Member I saw standing was the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. However, if he wishes to yield to the hon. Member for Eagle River than the Chair has no objections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty in yielding to the Member for Eagle River if he so wants to speak. Because I am sure that he wants to speak on the fact that he refused to present a petition on behalf of his constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I am glad, Mr. Chairman, I am able to stand here and not be knocked by such a vicious attack by the Member for Burin - Placentia West. And I thank him for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chairman, on this amendment. And as I indicated on Tuesday I cannot help but support the principle involved in the amendment that the hon. the Member for Menihek puts forward. I know after living in a coastal Labrador community, on the Border, that the difference in taxation can have an impact upon the local economy and indeed his Government has recognized that.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that while the principle is great and while we will seek to do what we can to harmonize things, we just cannot be throwing figures open flagrantly about and have people expect that they are going to be automatically accepted and confirmed and then implanted in a piece of legislation forever. That is not the way, Mr. Chairman, to do things. And since I am familiar and have dealt with this issue at some length, I would just like to inform hon. Members I think it was about ten days ago that the Minister of Finance accompanied me to my riding in L'Anse-au-Clair and met with the business community there, and this is one of the issues that we talked about. And as I pointed out and as we readily can appreciate that sometimes there is a difference between the tax rates, and in this particular case gasoline. There does not always have to be a difference in price at the pump. There is a difference between what you charge at the pump and what the taxes are for the respective provinces. And in our case in the Labrador Straits, Mr. Chairman, while there is a difference of 2.02 cents per liter on the respective Government's taxes. We at the present time have the same price within half a cent or so of the gas price from Blanc Salbon to L'Anse-au-Clair because it just happens to be that the supplier is acknowledging the fact that they have to be competitive, and they are providing a differential to the retailer and, therefore, they are able to give the people of southern Labrador and the people on the Quebec North Shore the same price for gasoline. And in the instance of the hon. Member for Menihek in Labrador West, the price difference again is 10.8 cents Quebec rate and the Newfoundland rate is 13.7 for a difference of 3.5 cents per liter.

Mr. Chairman, also being very familiar with the Labrador West area I know that Fermont is some twenty-seven kilometers away from Labrador City. So you know, Mr. Chairman, if you looked at getting a forty liter of gas up at Fermont you would be talking about $1.20, Mr. Chairman, for travelling over that twenty-seven or so kilometers and back. So, Mr. Chairman, there is really no big differential.

MR. A. SNOW: That is seven and a half cents.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now while the hon. Member might say it is seven and a half cents, that seven and a half cents is not due to the taxation policies of the respective Government. That may be due to what the retailer is prepared to accept as a profit margin or what the supplier is prepared to give to the retailer.

MR. A. SNOW: (Inaudible) what is the Quebec tax (inaudible)?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Ten point eight. And the Newfoundland rate is 13.7. I have had these figures confirmed by the Department of Finance, the hon. Minister provided that to us in our discussions.

MR. A. SNOW: It is not true.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman. So while the hon. Member has the right to debate and the right to differ I think what is mature and responsible at this stage, Mr. Chairman, and the other reason why I wanted to rise here today was to extend congratulations to the Minister of Finance for initiating a comprehensive review of the tax structure on the border communities between Quebec and Newfoundland. I think that is a very, very important initiative and one that is long overdue and I am sure will result in a changed tax structure between the two provinces and the communities concerned, and I am sure, Mr. Chairman, we will have a very much streamlined tax structure in the future. But obviously the way to do it is to look at the overall package and be able to see that the full benefits not be parochial and just pick one thing out over the other because there has to be a comprehensive package put together and I am very pleased to see this Government has initiated that and I look forward to seeing the results of that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. A. SNOW: That is not true. (Inaudible).

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I ask the hon. the Member for Menihek to withdraw that remark.

MR. A. SNOW: If the remark was unparliamentary, I withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to say to the Member for Eagle River who I gave leave to speak in the Assembly, I let him go ahead and speak for his ten minutes, but when he stands in this House, what he says should be factual. It is important that the truth be told to the Members of this legislature, and what the Member for Eagle River said today was not so, Mr. Chairman. It was not so. What the Member for Menihek said in this legislature was the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

MR. TOBIN: The Member got up and he was going to support the amendment. By the time he got down he was not going to support the amendment. The Member is either from Labrador or he is not from Labrador. He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. He either supports the people of Labrador or he does not support the people of Labrador. The test will come whenever we take the vote on this piece of legislation. That is when the test will come, whether or not the Member supports the people of his riding, the people of Labrador, or whether he does not.

A few years ago he was down there trying to be the Member for Labrador West, and now all of a sudden does he support the people for Labrador West or doesn't he. The test will come. When we see you standing in voting on this we will see how you vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: His own district too.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, his own district. I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that he probably will not even show for the vote. Do not be surprised if the Member for Eagle River has not got the courage to be in the House for the vote. Do not be surprised, Mr. Chairman, like he was not allowed to speak yesterday on the resolution for the fisheries.

Now I can say one thing, that after the Premier's statement today when I presented my petition on the roads to South East Bight, it was going to be a long time before the people of South East Bight are going to be effected by gasoline taxes as it relates to driving to their community. I found it insulting today for the people of Placentia Bay that the Premier of this Province would stand and talk about the responsibility of the Canadian Government and the constitutional right to provide transportation. Mr. Chairman, where have you been for the past forty years.

When this country became a province of Canada, there were coastal boat services going from one end of the Province to the other end. The people of the northern peninsula and the northeast coast, the people of Ming's Bight, do they have a road today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right, they have a road today. Before they had a road, what did they have?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, but before they had a road, what did they have? They had a coastal boat service. Did the feds pay, Mr. Chairman, did the feds pay for the coastal boat service? They did. And who paid for the road?

AN HON. MEMBER: We did.

MR. TOBIN: It is insulting. It is insulting to the people of Placentia Bay and every man, woman and child who lived or have relatives living in Placentia Bay should take exception to what the Premier said today. The people of Fortune Bay, Placentia Bay and the northeast coast and the south coast, and all over this Province for years operated on coastal boat services, but with progression, Mr. Chairman, with time the Liberal Government of Mr. Smallwood, roads were built. Roads were constructed without federal money. I can say to the parliamentary system from the Premier I will not sit down, and I find it insulting what the Premier said today. There are roads in his district that were serviced by coastal boats for years and the federal Government did not pay for the roads that were there, it was done by the Province. Why is the Premier attacking the people of Placentia Bay? Why, Mr. Chairman? There is a coastal boat service that went to Monkstown paid by the Federal Government, but it was the Province that put the road to Monkstown. The Provincial Government of the day did not complain. And I can tell the Member opposite that at the time it went there, there was a Liberal Government in Ottawa, and a Conservative Government in Newfoundland.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

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

MR. TOBIN: Sure, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question number one: I wish to advise that I am not satisfied with the answer to my question re: school bus contracts by the Minister of Education - the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

Question number two: I would like to give notice that I am not satisfied with the answer to my question by the Minister of Education re: the layoffs at school board level - the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

Question number three: I am dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Finance to my question relating to the Budget - the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman. And as I was saying, I find it insulting today that the Premier of this Province would make such a statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the President of Treasury Board, I am delighted, is listening. Because there was coastal boat service throughout this Province for years before there were roads. But successive governments - the Smallwood Government, the Moores Government and the Peckford Government - removed the coastal boat services and used Provincial money to build roads. And the Premier stood up today and said it cannot be done any more. Why? Why is he attacking the people of South East Bight? What does he have against the people of Petit Forte?

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the price of gas in Labrador?

MR. TOBIN: It has a lot to do with the price of gas. Because the people of South East Bight will not have cars to put gas in because of this Minister of Finance. It has a lot to do with it. Why do you not stand up and tell us where your position is as it relates to the people of South East Bight and Petit Forte? No, Mr. Chairman, the people of his district, the people of St. John's Centre, can get in their car and drive to their homes. But why is he denying it to the people of South East Bight? That is the question that has to be answered. What has he got against rural Newfoundland? Why are they attacking rural Newfoundland at every corner? Why? Why?

The people of South East Bight are taxpayers in this Province, as are the people of Petit Forte, as well as your constituents in St. John's Centre. And they deserve to be treated as people. And I find it distasteful that the Minister of Finance would make such a joke out of the fact that the people of South East Bight cannot buy gas for their cars. I will defend them as long as I am in this Legislature. And long after if I can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Government - yes, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bell Island should hang his head in shame. Mr. Chairman, they cut a ferry service from the people of Bell Island and you have not got the courage to stand in this Legislature and support your constituents. You lack whatever it takes to be a good Member, that is what your problem is.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the people from Monkstown, as I was saying before I was interrupted, received the road while there was a Conservative government in this Province and a Liberal government in Ottawa. With Provincial money. And you did not hear the premiers of the day - it started under Moores and finished under Peckford - say the people of Monkstown cannot have a road because of the Federal responsibility. No, they cared about rural Newfoundland, they cared about the people of Monkstown. And this Government cares about nobody in rural Newfoundland in particular, and in the Province in general. That is the problem we have.

Why? Why the Premier had to take that attitude today in addressing the needs in the petition of the people of rural Newfoundland. The Government has a responsibility for transportation in this Province. Not the Federal Government. The Provincial Government has the responsibility for transportation. And it is incumbent upon them to provide transportation services. They are not looking for a road paved in gold. They are looking for a dirt road, a gravel road, so that at least they can drive from their homes to another community. Do you know how far you are talking about? I do not know, probably eight, nine miles, something like that. Probably not even that far. Something in that area.

And I can tell the Premier of this Province one thing. That after the next elections when we form the Government, which we will, that people of South East Bight will get a road. I can assure you that. The same as the people of Monkstown got a road under the Conservative government, the same as the people of Petit Forte got a road under Conservative government, the people of South East Bight will have a road after the next elections. Because this crowd of uncaring people who have betrayed rural Newfoundland from the day of the elections, who elected people like the Member for Bell Island who lacks the courage to stand and support his constituents, who have seen them betrayed day after day, who have seen the people of Bell Island betrayed day after day, and does not have the courage to stand and support them, that is what is going to cause this crowd to get the boot when the Premier has the courage to go to the Lieutenant-Governor and issue the writ. And the sooner the better.

Because that Premier was part of the Smallwood regime that tried to resettle rural Newfoundland. He was a member of the Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, that put the boot to rural Newfoundland and he is trying to continue it again today. That is what is taking place in this Province, but when the Premier issues the writ, Mr. Speaker, the people of Southeast Bight will no longer have to have petitions presented in the House for a road because I can make the commitment today that we will pave the road. We will build the road, Mr. Speaker, and we will pave the roads if we have to. I can tell you we will be able to drive to Southeast Bight and it will not be long, only two years. We will not say that it is the Government of Canada who has the responsibility. We will say what Frank Moores said, and we will say what Brian Peckford said to the people of Monkstown, we will say the same thing to the people of South East Bight, we have the responsibility for roads and we will build the roads. I can say on behalf of the people of South East Bight that we were insulted today. The Premier had no difficulty when he went to South East Bight and Petit Forte talking about the need for a road when he was Leader of the Opposition. He was going to build everything then. There were going to be roads everywhere when he went down there, but what has happened? When you see people on the picket lines those days what do their posters say? Clyde lied. How true, Mr. Speaker. Every time you turn around there are posters stuck up everywhere, Clyde lied, and he lied to the people of South East Bight and Petit Forte as well. Why are we going to be increasing gasoline taxes? Why are we going to be increasing taxes on gasoline when they are not prepared to give certain people in this Province, because of where they live, the right to drive a car? Why did he want to have them placed in boats for the rest of their lives, to be ferried back and forth in open boats in the middle of the Winter? As a matter of fact the boat that is now on coming from Argentia to South East Bight could not get in there the Winter because of ice conditions, yet this Government wants to give them an old wooden liner for a ferry service on a temporary basis. What a disgrace. It is utterly ridiculous that they would show such contempt for the people of South East Bight, and indeed the people of rural Newfoundland. There are no harder workers than the people of South East Bight anywhere in this Province, nor any finer people anywhere in this Province who have worked for their living as hard working dedicated fishermen and fisherwomen, paying taxes. They may not pay gas taxes, Mr. Speaker, but it is because of this Government that they will not pay gas taxes, because of this Minister of Finance. He continues to deny them the right to, not a paved road, Mr. Speaker, but the right to an access. The Premier gets up and says that is the Federal Government's responsibility, the constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, what a sham. And the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations should laugh. She should go to South East Bight and then she would know why I am standing in this House. She should go to South East Bight and find out why I am so upset today. The Premier showed contempt for the people of South East Bight, decent people. If this Government showed any care and concern for the people of South East Bight they would not - the Member for Bell Island is over there yapping constantly. He lacks the courage to stand. I challenge the Member for Bell Island to put his money where his mouth is, to stand when I sit down and tell us about the people of Bell Island. If he wants to yap, Mr. Speaker, when someone else is speaking take the floor and tell us why he supports the cutting of the ferry service to the people of Bell Island. And tell us what you have done. You have hid from the people of Bell Island, that is what you have done. (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

MR. TOBIN: You are a traitor to your constituents, that is what you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, my colleagues. The Member for Placentia, Mr. Chairman, understands Bell Island.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: I thank my colleagues, Mr. Chairman.

The Member for Placentia understands South East Bight, Petite Forte and Monkstown. He understands it, and I believe he supports the petition today and if he had the opportunity he would probably be up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I only wish that the visitor in the gallery was the Minister of Development today in this Province or the Minister of Finance. I can say that if the Member for Mount Pearl today was the Minister of Finance, I would not be here today arguing for a road. I would not be here arguing for a road because the Minister of Finance would have given us the money to build it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIMMS: Remind him he is on the Late Show just in case he did not hear it.

MR. TOBIN: No, I will not remind him he is on the Late Show, Mr. Chairman.

But in any case, I know that my time is up. I thank my hon. colleagues for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, if he wants me to keep going, I will keep going. The Minister of Finance brings in this piece of legislation and expects it to be approved. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I shall - Jack Harris wants to get up. The Minister of Finance wants to get up. They all want to get up, Mr. Chairman. Well I hope that when he takes his place and addresses the needs of South East Bight and not insult them like the Premier did today, but assure them that they will get a road, and tear up this piece of legislation, never increase taxation on gasoline again until all the people in Newfoundland have the right to have a car and drive to their own home to their own community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been trying to get to my feet, but there has been so much enthusiasm about the particular topic that I though I would wait until pretty well everybody had an opportunity to speak. I want to say that I have listened and read the amendment quite carefully and find that I do not think we should vote in favour of this amendment for the reasons that the Member for Eagle River set forth. But basically, we are conducting a review of taxation in the Province, a thorough review of taxation in the Province as announced in the Budget Speech, and particularly as it applies to the Goods and Services Tax and other matters as well. We will look at this whole question of border taxes in that review. We will make a special effort to look at all these because there are many things to be said. For example, just look at Quebec, Quebec is the highest taxed Province in Canada, much higher than we are. Their personal income tax is much higher than ours, their corporate tax is higher than ours, their property tax is higher than ours, and they have a payroll tax over 3 per cent with no exceptions. So these things have to be taken into account as well. But at the same time, I know that border businesses do say that sometimes the Quebec businesses have the advantage, and we look at these things in our review of the taxation system this fall.

So, rather than go through with a hurriedly worded amendment, which does not take into account all things, we prefer to go with the current version of the Bill, and then in the fall when we bring in our reform package if any need exists to make any changes, we will bring in a point. But what has happened is Quebec has decided to fully harmonize with the Goods and Service Tax, and as a result of that their retail sales tax goes on gasoline. In our Province it does not. So Quebec has a general rate of 10 cents a litre as their gasoline tax, and when their retail sales tax in Quebec is added it drives up the cost per litre to 14.6 cents a litre.

However, for outlying regions, border regions they have taken a 4.42 cents reduction, which means that the effective rate in cents per liters is 10.1/8 cents, and that applies in the Straits and it applies in Labrador West and it applies in other border areas. That means that the differential between us and them, in Labrador West, is about 3.52 cents. And as the Member for Eagle River said because of the distance involved between Fermont and Labrador City it really does not pay anyone to make a special trip to Fermont to buy gas to make that saving. Now perhaps if they are over there they will do it. Perhaps if they are over our way for a reason, they will fill up here depending on if they need gas or not. But we do not think that makes any particular difference in the sale of gasoline at this point. However, we will look at the whole situation very carefully in the intervening months and if any adjustment is necessary we will bring it in.

I think that is all I want to say at this point, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to speak to this amendment because I think it is an attempt by the hon. the Member for Menihek to do something that is a very useful tool at least for the Minister of Finance to protect the people of this Province and indeed the Government from a revenue point of view, and as the Minister has indicated he is certainly sensitive to the issue. Although without an amendment such as this, I am not sure he would have the power, he might have to come back to the House and make another amendment. So I think the hon. Member for Menihek is really helping out the Minister of Finance by giving him a tool to be able to implement a very desirable policy objective.

As the Minister has indicated and also based on information just provided to me by the Minister of Mines and Energy, for which I thank him, the Province of Quebec has itself a policy to change its gasoline tax by reducing it by varying amounts depending on remote areas or certain areas within twenty kilometers of the Provincial Border and the U.S Border in order to do the very thing that the Member for Menihek wants the Government to do which is try to protect not only the Government revenues, but also to protect the retailers, and the distributors in their province from people border shopping or crossing over to get a cheaper price. We all know, Mr. Chairman, what a great problem we have in Canada right now with the cross border shopping that is going on, it is causing serious problems to the economy of Canada, in particular obviously in border cities and towns where Canadians for obvious financial reasons because of a recession, because of the economic advantages are doing their shopping in the United States where goods may be cheaper because there are less Government services that have to be paid for by the people that need them, and by the people of Canada who pay for the services and get them from their Government whereas the people from the United States may be able to have cheaper prices because they have fewer Government services and few taxes that go with that.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is a very helpful one, and one which will protect the residents of southern Labrador who happen to be in the gas distribution business or be able to make money from that and also in western Labrador.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say something generally about the cost of fuel and the high cost of fuel since we are talking about Labrador. I know the Member for Eagle River will be very interested in the concerns that have been expressed about the cost in southern Labrador and I am sure they have been expressed to him as well that there is a great variation in the cost of fuel in this Province and a very serious problem particularly on the Labrador Coast when this time of year people are still buying gasoline at last year's prices, and that is a particular problem in some of the parts of the Member for Eagle River's District. In fact, some people have called me, they have said, they are very concerned about the price of gasoline particularly in Mary's Harbour where there is only one distributor, Mr. Chairman, and they did not want to call the Member for Eagle River because they were afraid he would not say anything in the House about it, that is what I was told. They said also, Mr. Chairman, there was a concern that the price of gas was unduly high. There seemed to be a monopoly in place particularly in Mary's Harbour and in some of the communities north there where there is only one distributor. I am told, Mr. Chairman, that they even call it Liberal gas in Mary's Harbour, and some places north because the distributor is a well known and prominent supporter of the party in power.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have problems like that in certain areas where there is only one distributor, where the cost of gas is very, very high and the Government ought to have the power to be able to do something about it. Distributors I understand where there is competition, there is competition in other parts of southern Labrador, the distributors are able to ameliorate the price of gas by averaging out the price over all of the areas and able to, thereby make the price more favourable even though they may have some old stock and some new stock at old and new prices, so, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a problem in this area just as I believe there is a problem in gasoline prices generally in this Province as they relate to other provinces in the Atlantic.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a subject of much discussion and debate over the last number of years, and I understand from the Member for St. John's West, the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy, that there is still discussion about this within Cabinet and a paper being prepared for Cabinet on this; I know that this may be a sensitive area for competition purposes and things like that, but, Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deserve to know whether or not this Government is going to address concerns on this issue because it is something that Newfoundlanders have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that they are being treated differently; that the large oil companies over which, of course this Government does not seem to have any control, do have together, a monopoly and there is a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that Newfoundland is being treated differently.

We do not have access to the facts and I understand that the Minister of Mines and Energy does have some access to them and perhaps he would be kind enough to share some of this information with the House. I know last fall the Minister was quite concerned that the oil companies might be taking advantage of the rising world price of oil to perhaps gouge Newfoundland consumers and I think he waved his big stick around and frightened away some of them, or maybe he thinks he did, frightened some of them into lowering their prices.

I would be a lot happier, Mr. Speaker, if the public were aware of the findings of the Minister and the Minister's appointees into these pricing practices and profit practices of the oil companies, because there is a sense that ordinary Newfoundlanders do not have access to that information and are not going to be given that by their Government, and when we do see such very high prices and great diversity in price such as in the Member for Eagle River's district, it causes great concern that consumers maybe, being taken advantage of, not only by the big oil companies where they have together, a monopoly control over pricing and over distribution, but also in areas such as coastal Labrador, where, for much of coastal Labrador there is only one distributor at work.

So I would ask the Minister the Minister of Mines and Energy to share some of this information with the House - The Member for Eagle River wants to get up and tell us how many other distributors there are from Mary's Harbour North and how many other distributors are actively distributing gasoline and oil in that area, so I guess he will take his place now and tell us that and tell us that there is not any differential in prices between one part of his district and another. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I listened with quite a bit of interest when the hon. Member for Eagle River was speaking. In the beginning he talked about how he supported my amendment, an amendment that I proposed in principle, and then in the end he talked about - then he started saying how he could not support it because of the figures that I had in the amendment; now, in the amendment there are no figures; there are not any.

What the amendment does, is, it empowers the Minister of Finance to be able to adjust, to be consistent; to adjust the tax to be consistent with the Quebec tax. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Minister of Finance, privately and the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: I beg your pardon?

MR. A. SNOW: - the Minister of Finance now is shaking his head, negatively; I do not know why he is doing that, Mr. Speaker, I did speak to him privately and told him the figures that the Member for Eagle River, was suggesting, that ten cents is wrong, it is not, there are three ranks of taxes on gasoline in the Province of Quebec. Three, not two, but three. Now yesterday when the Minister of Finance talked to me he said there was one. Another Member gets up and says there are two. I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, that there are three. Now that is what really bothers me about this type of administration that has occurring. If is were planned, you would undoubtedly know there were three. You would have to know if you researched it. How much research went into this Bill, Mr. Chairman?

Here is a Bill that was suggested it was going to be put in place in the Budget, they did not even include Western Labrador, as a boarder community has to be exempted (?) in taxes as in article three of this Bill. They did not include it. Now he is going to say that it was not included before, why should we include it. Well, Mr. Chairman, it was not included before because in 1978 while the community of Labrador City was still close to the Quebec boarder there was neither adjoining community in the Province of Quebec. That is why -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Now I do not know if he realizes that. While he was over there at the university there was another community built in the Province of Quebec. Now that indicates to me and to the people of this Province the lack of research that these people are doing and any financial administration or suggestion that is coming out of this Government. Absolutely nothing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: I have never seen anything so hypocritical in all my life, to suggest that you are going to exclude one area of the Province, southern Labrador up to Red Bay, which I think is about 60 to 70 kilometres, and the Member for Eagle River suggested that this is okay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: I guess I am shouting because I am upset, Mr. Chairman. Now I apologize for shouting. I sure hope that the reason for my being upset will be apologized for, too.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has upset me because I think it is fundamentally wrong -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Who does?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mine. (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Chairman, we are seeing the true hypocrisy of all this coming out now. This is the short and curlies in action again, Mr. Chairman. We are seeing the try hypocrisy coming out now.

Mr. Chairman, part three of this Bill suggests that there should be a differential in tax rate in this Province. Now he admitted - He put this Bill forward, Mr. Chairman! He suggested that there should be a difference. Now he is saying, 'but it should not apply to a Tory district. It should not apply to a Tory district,' he suggested.

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. A. SNOW: Just then. He just suggested that the only differential should apply in Liberal districts. Only Liberal districts should get a gasoline break. Now, Mr. Chairman, this has absolutely nothing to do with fairness and balance. It is unfair, it is not researched. This Government has proven again that they do not know what they are doing with regard to the financial matters of this Province, and I request, Mr. Chairman, that I move that Committee rise and report progress. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

Debate on the Adjournment

[Late Show]

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

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

I understand I have a couple of questions on the Late Show. The first one deals with my dissatisfaction with an answer given by the Minister of Education in relation to the number of layoffs that will occur at the board level. The Minister, earlier this year when he was talking about layoffs at the school board level indicated that approximately 133 people would be affected. He spelled out at the time that they would include so many teachers, all of whom, I think he said, would be affected because of redundancy because they failed to put back into the classroom any teachers who would lose their positions because of the declining enrollments, as we had done in the past. On top of that a number of people at the school board office level would be affected. Some of these moves may not necessarily hurt the board but some will, depending on the boards. What the Minister failed to do at the time, and what we pointed out immediately when we saw the Budget, was that school boards themselves would have to lay off a number of employees. The school board funding this year has been cut, the Minister will say frozen. A freeze is a cut in the sense that the inflation is not factored in. A 5.7 per cent inflation rate is predicted for this coming year, which means boards will have 5.7 percent fewer dollars to operate with this coming year than they had last year, which means it is a cut in what they can do. On top of that, if we want to call that a freeze, and you cannot call a freeze a cut, let me say to the Minister that if you get fewer dollars this year than you did last year, forgetting about inflation, then that is a cut, and boards will, because boards are funded based upon the number of students and because there are fewer students in our schools this year the boards will receive fewer dollars. Now, in the meantime you still have the same plant. You cannot cut a little piece off the school. If you have fifteen students in one classroom and fifteen in another you cannot do very much, you still have to have your two teachers. You can go on and on and on, the light bills are the same, the heating costs are the same, the janitorial work is the same, but what is not the same is the amount of money you have to pay these bills. So where is your flexibility? Your flexibility is how you deal with the personnel, your secretary, how many hours she works or how many secretaries work, how long the maintenance personnel work or how many work. That is becoming a real concern out there because many parents are concerned that as far as the maintenance goes in particular there will not be enough people around to keep the schools properly cleaned. The Minister of Health should be very concerned with that also. While the Minister is looking at what is happening at the school board level, because he will slough it off on the school boards. He said we give them the money and they make the decisions. That is true, but somebody has to be accountable for what happens at school board levels, The Minister knows that right now around the Province there are a number of school boards who are very concerned about this very topic, and also about the fact that boards in order to meet the demands that are put on them by the Government to live within their means are trying to come up with new ways of saving money in school consolidation. That is causing problems and we have a number of school boards right now who are trying to make decisions which are against the wishes of the people in their area, they are sort of in a box where they have to try to do that. We have examples up the Southern Shore, we have examples out in Conception Bay Centre, and in other places in the Province. The Minister is going to see some action in St. John's tomorrow, I would say, where the parents are very concerned about the decisions boards are making. Boards will say, our hands are tied because of the funding we are getting and we have to try to live within our means. Maybe the Minister will tell us what are his plans to deal with all these concerns? Is he going to talk to the parent's groups? Is he going to sit down with school boards? Is he going to admit that he has made a real mess of it and that it is about time he took another look at how they are handling the funding of education? Especially, when during the election, they promised to increase school funding, to full equalization.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: I think I have given the Minister enough information, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure he will elaborate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: See if he can tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you my friend. Mr. Speaker, yes, when we were talking about the Budget we did make an estimate of the number of people affected as a result of fiscal restraint. And perhaps we made two or three errors. I think, we did underestimate the number in education, we said in colleges, we said it was an estimate, we underestimated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: I do not think I am wrong. We underestimated a number, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps in the college system and in the institutes there are more than we anticipated. We do not have the final figures yet, but we will get them.

I would say I made another error. I indicated to this House that 133 teaching units will be lost. And I think the inference was that this was as a result of fiscal restraint. That is not so. One hundred and twenty-two of those one hundred and thirty-three are being lost to the system because of declining enrollments. So that is another error I made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: You understood that perhaps the 350 was much higher in one sense than we should have. Even with the underestimate in the colleges and the universities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will not go on to that because I want to get on to the essence of my friend's question.

AN HON. MEMBER: The crux of the matter.

DR. WARREN: The crux of the matter. We did freeze operational grants to school boards per pupils. And the hon. Member is right, when you freeze per pupil grants, you know, you do not often save money in proportion to the decline in student numbers, because students are spread out through school systems. We did freeze the operational grants to school boards. But we also froze the salaries of school board employees. So boards will not be increasing their expenditures in the area of salaries of support staff by 5 per cent or 4 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. WARREN: The hon. Member should give me a chance, I was just going to say that there have been increases in the cost of heat and light and instructional materials, but not in support staff. Salaries are frozen. So the 5 per cent increase is not at all levels in the school system, it is only for selected items.

Now let me talk a little bit about school taxes. School taxes are estimated to increase this coming year by 12 per cent for the Province as a whole, between 1990-91 and 1991-92. Most of that increase will be in the larger urban areas. The St. John's School Boards are expected to get from school taxes 10 per cent to 12 per cent more next year. So they are going to have that extra money, they have a frozen operational grant, but they are going to have extra money from school taxes. Even in many rural districts where schools taxes do not produce the revenues that they do in the urban areas boards will get perhaps 5 per cent to 6 per cent to 7 per cent increase. So school boards, as I said to the hon. Member, are going to have available to them from school taxes and from operational grants frozen, a little more money next year. Not enough, but a little more money than they had. And they have frozen salaries for support staff. So they are not devastated.

In fact, last night I was in Corner Brook and I talked to a school board chairman who told me without doubt that next year he was okay. His board was going to be able to operate and provide all of the services. I spoke with another chairperson yesterday morning in my office and he said the same thing. So many boards are going to be able to deal with their fiscal problems in a reasonably adequate way next year. Mr. Speaker, some school boards have had long-term debts for some time. The hon. Member knows that. And some of them are dealing with debt right now by restructuring their schools. Now the former Minister asked me was I going to get involved in those disputes? And how was I going to deal with the parents who were complaining? About restructuring and some have very legitimate protests, but he knows that this is a school board decision. These are school boards decisions. When he was the Minister, I can go back and find letters which he wrote to school boards and said, look, when it comes to restructuring schools that is your choice. I have met with them, I have met with the Avondale people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

DR. WARREN: Just - by leave?

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get another chance to do that.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Second round. The Minister once again is doing what he does best, sit on the fence. He should be playing with Canada's hockey team, they might have won the game today, the way he can skate around issues.

I will just tell the Minister that when this Member was the Minister there was never one committee he did not meet with. If he could not do anything he sat down and he told them that, but he met with them and he listened. And sometimes you can find ways. If the will is there a way can be found.

Second answer I believe I was dissatisfied with, was in relation to school busing. The Minister - I am not sure whether he has done any research since I raised the question or not - but a grave concern creeping around the Province is in relation to large companies, some of them from outside the Province, who have been trying to get a foothold in to the school bus transportation business. Last year there were a couple of, or at least one, major seminar where a major trucking firm had individuals involved talking about refining school busing. And about how you can save dollars, and consolidation, and all of that. And the same company by the way, picked up a few runs around the Province.

When you see a major company moving in to certain areas and picking up bus runs, you wonder why. And of course the reason is, to get a feel of it, to see the operation costs, and then - because these companies have a lot of money behind them - they can come in in one fell swoop, wipe out all the existing small operators, take over the system, maybe even for a year or two at a loss. Because once the small local operators are put out of business and their buses have to be discarded or turned into campers or brought to the dumps or perhaps bought up if they are any good by the big company, then, down the road, the company has a complete monopoly in respective areas and can charge what they like. They know they will not lose down the road.

So as I asked the other day to the Minister, is he aware that some companies are doing that? That some boards are looking at calling tenders for a block of runs. And the Minister said in his answer that: oh, small operators can get together. He knows full well that the small operators, when you look at the number of runs, some of them are bidding on two and three runs. It is impossible for the small operators to combine to take on the large corporations or maybe even large businesses in the Province which might want to jump in. If the runs are called as they always have been, individually or in small groups depending on selected areas, then the average small business person around the Province - and I say to Members on both sides of the House that this is a concern, they are all going to be faced with it if it happens, and hopefully it will not - but the signs are there. And now is the time to start paying attention to the signs. That a few large companies are looking at moving in to selected areas, bidding on the total number of bus runs that a board or boards put out, and consequently eliminating all the small, individual operators, a lot of bus operators around the Province - because competition within boards is pretty stiff. The Minister can get up and tell us that the school busing system in this Province, transportation, is a pretty good bargain. There are very few areas where there are rip-offs, where the local bus operator is making a mint at bringing kids to school. Usually there is stiff competition at the local end of the bidding process. And consequently the school boards get a relatively good bargain. In many areas of course school boards run their own system. But where they do not we find many small operators, with a bus, some of them, some with five or six, some with significantly more, but still small businessmen, who are having the job, especially in light of the new conditions put upon them and the more stringent inspections and so on -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: - consequently, consequently -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: - they can easily be wiped out. Their whole living depends on this and I hope the Minister will intercede and make sure this does not happen.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tie a comment now with a previous comment. I do meet regularly with groups all over this Province. I met last night in Corner Brook with groups of parents, and I have met bus drivers, operators, bus companies, and I smiled all the time, my hon. friend says when I meet. But I do meet and I talk with them, and I do explain the current situation, and most of the groups understand that this Government is doing what it has to do. And in school busing we are looking at the possibility of providing an efficient, effective, safe bus system for our students.

Perhaps a little bit of background information. Maybe Members of the House are not aware that we transport approximately 80,000 students every day in the Province. We have 127,000 or 130,000 student right now. About 80,000 are transported by bus. Mr. Speaker, we have approximately 1000 (?) buses operating in the Province, 400 of these are operated by school board owned bus systems, so they have co-ordinated school boards in the case of about 7 or 8 boards. They have already consolidated their buses because they have old school board owned buses, and then we have, of course, about 600 buses operated by private operators.

We have, Mr. Speaker, I am told approximately 800 private contracts. Now that kind of astounded me. We have about 800 independent contracts. We have 230 or 240 contractors. So the system is a big system, and what we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to provide an efficient, effective school busing system that guarantees safety for our students.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member must have heard of public tendering. I mean this idea that some big company is going to come in and take it all over automatically, and we are going to jump because they want to take over. I mean surely he understands that all busing, bus contracts must be tendered and people have an opportunity, and the smaller bus companies have been able to compete. The smaller bus companies, Mr. Speaker, have been able to compete. I agree. They provide a good service at a very reasonable price and some of them are going to get together with their friends and perhaps bid on a number of contracts with boards because they may be able to provide a better service. We are not going to just grant bus contracts to anybody irrespective of the price. That has to be tendered so that everybody will have the opportunity to bid. And, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of good bus companies, larger ones in this Province, who have been here for many years. He is talking about one bus company coming in, and there is one. I admit, there is one larger one operating in New Brunswick, and I gather they have a number of contracts in the Clarenville area and, I think, in Port aux Basque, they have contracts. They are a national firm. They came in and they bid and they were successful in getting the contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the boards are going to do what is best in terms of effectiveness in school busing, in terms of efficiency getting the best return for their dollars, and the primary concern has to be safety, and they are going to do that, and I have every confidence that boards are going to do us right. Boards call the tenders, and boards ensure effective systems. The boards are going to do what is right for the students of this Province, and I have every confidence that our bus operators are able to compete, and they will compete successfully with some of the bigger companies. Again, I say we are looking at the whole busing system. It is a big operation. School boards are looking at it, and we are going to be working with them over the next year to ensure that the busing system is as efficient as it can be. In many areas of the Province it is very efficient at the present time, but it other areas perhaps we can do better, with a little less busing and perhaps with fewer contracts.

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

MR. WINDSOR: I have indicated earlier if you look at Table 1, Page 6 in the Minister's Budget, real personal income in 1990 actually went up by 1.7 per cent, the growth in 1990 and it is projected this year to go down by 0.3 per cent. That is a 2 per cent difference, Mr. Speaker, in real personal income. Personal disposable income is in fact going down by l.7 per cent. Those are two big indicators of the amount of money that is available for consumers to spend and it seems strange that in light of that the Minister is predicting a 5 per cent increase in revenues from personal income tax and a retail sales tax of almost 5 per cent. My question to the Minister earlier today was how does the Minister of Finance honestly expect to reach those growths in provincial revenues? He is saying he is going to pick up 5.7 per cent in personal income tax and 5 per cent in retail sales tax, when personal income and disposable income are going to be down by about 2 per cent each. Well, if people do not have as much money to spend, Mr. Speaker, how can they spend it and how can the Government pick up on retail sales tax and on personal income tax? It just does not follow, Mr. Speaker. It is contradictory. One can only draw the conclusion that the Minister is not being accurate in the projections when he says he is going to raise an extra 5.7 per cent.

It does not hold any water, Mr. Speaker, one can only conclude that the Minister is cooking the books here; he is cooking the books, it is easy for one, Mr. Speaker. In the last days of the Budget exercise, when one is faced with a $100 million deficit again, to say, oh well, we will just change the revenue figures, they are only projections, maybe the officials were not right, maybe I do not believe what the officials are saying and if that is the game the Minister is playing, Mr. Speaker, I say to him, he is playing with fire and I suspect that is the game he played last year, when he predicted he was going to have a surplus and ended up with a $117 million deficit.

It all works very nicely, Mr. Speaker, on Budget Day and it sounds good in a Budget Speech, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and it comes out in the revised estimates which are tabled the following year, with the new Budget. The performance, the report card of the Minister of Finance and how accurate his predictions were, and also, how good a job the President of Treasury Board did, because the President of Treasury Board is the one who controls expenditure, so there are two factors, how well did the Minister of Finance predict revenues and expenditures and how well did the President of Treasury Board do in his job of trying to control expenditures to stay in line with the Budget.

Did the Tax Department actually collect all the revenue that they projected? Well, if the Minister of Finance is playing games with it, which his numbers indicate that he is, and I am simply using his own numbers; he says we are going to have 2 per cent less personal income, 2 per cent less disposable income or we are going to increase personal income tax and retail sales tax by 5 per cent. I cannot wait for the Minister of Finance to get on his feet and explain to me how he is going to do that; it must be the loaves and the fishes, it is the only explanation, Mr. Speaker, for that, the loaves and the fishes all over again.

People have less money to spend, they have less disposable income, but we are going to get more tax from them; now, this is just incredible to see that kind of growth; to see that kind of growth, Mr. Speaker. The numbers just do not add up and I can only tell you one thing: that there is an inaccuracy here, there is an inconsistency here, there is something that just does not add up here and I suspect very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has played games in the last day of Budget process again, he played games the last day of Budget process, he start putting in some figures that maybe they were or maybe they were not given to him by his officials; I suspect they were not. His officials record has always been very good at predicting the revenues and expenditures, until all of a sudden, this Government came into office -

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

MR. WINDSOR: - from the minute this Government came into office, all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, the record is not so good -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WINDSOR: - and I suspect it is the Minster's record, not theirs.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am always intrigued by the hon. Member for Mount Pearl and his predictions.

AN HON. MEMBER: And so you should be.

DR. KITCHEN: He gets this slide rule, you know, which he plays with, but he has not used it for so long he does not realize that the glass is cracked and the red line is (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DR. KITCHEN: We are almost a month into the year yet, and our figures are not really started to come back, because we usually wait until the end of the month before you can really make any comments at all about how the Budget is going to go or how the expenditures are going to go. You have to have some feedback and the feedback usually comes back in a month.

Now we have been on top of this situation and it looks very much like our predictions so far are coming on pretty well. We predicted that Newfoundland, of all of the provinces of Canada, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island would be well ahead, whereas Ontario is going down, where our Gross Domestic Product will be up this year, and only last night, I am sorry, only yesterday lunch hour I had lunch with one of the security firms in Canada who came and said to us, the chairman of the board said, Newfoundland by comparison with Ontario is going ahead tremendously.

AN HON. MEMBER: In leaps and bounds.

DR. KITCHEN: We believe that Newfoundland, and possibly Alberta will be leading the pack again this year, and that is the latest, will be leading the pack in Canada.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: Whereas Ontario is expecting a dip of 3 per cent. And I had a prominent senator from Ontario visiting us today and she too confirmed that in Ontario things were not so good. It is a pleasure, it is a refreshing change to get in Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

DR. KITCHEN: I am surprised at the Member for Mount Pearl. We now have the Minister of Fisheries from Newfoundland who no doubt will wave the magic wand and with the loaves and the fishes, naturally Crosbie is going to have a great help on our economy. We look forward to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: But what it is with the hon. Member is that he is trying to set forth a self-fulfilling prophesy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

DR. KITCHEN: He believes that if he talks doom and gloom, and doom and gloom, he will inevitably bring it about. Now there is no connection between what the Member for Mount Pearl says and how the economy will perform. And we are very glad of that. And no matter how much he looks at the entrails of the sheep and goats that he does regularly, no matter, no matter how much he goes to Greece and consults with the oracle of Delphi, and now I understand, Mr. Speaker, that he has a new idea, he is going to Rome and he is going to consult with the Vestal Virgins. But, Mr. Speaker, no matter with whom he consults I can tell him that his fears are groundless.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, by leave of the House, make a move based on a motion that I made yesterday. It has to do with the Government Services Committee and the Departments allocated to the Government Services Committee.

And I would like to suggest - and this comes because of popular demand from MHAs on this side and certainly from MHAs on the opposite side of the House, and obviously from the press gallery who want this change to take place - I would like to suggest that by leave we could move the Executive Council estimates, my estimates, into the Committee of the Whole in the House of Assembly, and be dealt with in the House of Assembly rather than with the estimates committee.

So, I wonder if we could have leave to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have leave?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Stop the clock, Mr. Speaker. I cannot speak for the Member for St. John's East but I cannot see where he would have a real problem with it. I am sure he would, like us, like to have a chance to examine the estimates of the Premier's office in the House as opposed to a committee.

But I would not want his colleagues on that side, particularly in the backbenches, to think somehow that I was behind this change and that I somehow talked the Government House Leader into it. I know how much heat they give him from time to time because he seems to play up to some of my requests. So I am not going to say that I discussed this privately with him and suggested that we do it. I am going to leave it to the people to judge as to whether or not this was -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the hon. Member could go home to his supper now, Mr. Speaker, and he would never be missed, I can assure him. Anyway, I want to assure him that we would support this initiative. And also, for the record, it should be pointed out that that will now mean that there will be approximately - according to the Clerks at the Table - eleven hours remaining for debate in the House on estimates or concurrence or whatever.

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

MR. HARRIS: I guess we are calling it 5:00 p.m., are we?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have to say something nice about the hon. the President of Treasury Board. It is not often that I am called upon to do that. I think I should congratulate him for offering to have these estimates discussed in the whole House. And I would be glad to join in the fresh air of openness that this Government is now going to take on. They are going to have it all discussed in the House, right here. And I hope that they feel the same way about certain other questions that we have been asking about other aspects of Government activity, particularly in the Public Service Commission, that would have the same openness about that as well. But I will offer my consent to this procedural change and grant leave.

Thank you.

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

MR. BAKER: I would like to thank Members opposite for their usual cooperation. It is really nice to see. And I look forward to the grilling that the Opposition House Leader assures me I am going to get in those estimates.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I intend to call the same motion that we were on today, the same bill, the gasoline tax bill. And whenever we finish that, sometime in the next couple of weeks, I intend to call the two justice bills that we already referred to yesterday.

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