The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me much pleasure today to announce the details of the 1993-'94 Municipal Capital Works Program. As we know from the Budget document, funds in the amount of $50,306,000 were approved for the 1993-'94 year.

Since this administration assumed office, capital works funding in excess of $277 million has been approved for water and sewer facilities and for road construction and paving projects.

This equates to an average of $55 million for each of the five capital works programs that this administration has approved since coming to office. These substantial expenditures include $50.3 million in 1989-'90; $63.9 million in 1990-'91; $53.1 million in 1991-'92; $59.9 million in 1992-'93 and $50.3 million for 1993-'94.

It is a considerable expenditure in view of the difficult economic conditions which have been with us in recent years.

Some $46,306,000 of the total has been approved for water and sewer and road construction and paving. The 1993-'94 Municipal Capital Works Program also includes: $1 million for waste management facilities; $1 million for emergency capital works funding, and $2 million for municipal recreational and sports facilities. This marks the first year that funds were approved in this manner for recreation facilities and this money will be utilized for the construction of new facilities and/or the upgrading and rehabilitation of existing facilities.

The 1993-'94 Municipal Capital Works Program will generate considerable employment in the construction and trades industry and it will have a positive impact on the continuing efforts by government to stimulate and accelerate economic activity throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some 149 communities will share in capital works projects in 1993-'94. Some 133 water and sewer projects were approved for 109 towns at a cost of $32,627,000. A total of sixty-two road projects were approved for forty-six communities at a cost of $13,679,000.

In all, some $179 million in capital works funding was requested for the 1993-'94 program consisting of 413 requests for water and sewer and 272 requests for road construction and paving. It does serve to illustrate the great need that still exists for this type of municipal infrastructure throughout our Province.

This year's projects are expected to create 2,300 direct jobs in the construction industry in addition to other indirect spin off jobs in the supply industry.

In addition to the jobs, which are so important, the funding also means the provision of essential municipal services for many people in our Province.

Mr. Speaker, these funds are being distributed fairly and equitably throughout the Province and they will address the most pressing problem as they relate to cost-shared municipal services.

As we know, Mr. Speaker, most financing for Capital Works is through the Newfoundland Municipal Finance Corporation. Road work is financed on a 60 per cent Province - 40 per cent municipal basis. The contribution for water and sewer is based on the cost per household or a percentage of fixed revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to be associated with such a significant and positive announcement. I am sure it will be well received by the large number of municipalities which are sharing in the program.

While we have come a long way we still have a long way to go before all residents are provided with water and sewer services. Some 497,540 of our total population of 568,474 reside in areas where there is some form of municipal government including a city, town or community council or Local Service District. In all we have a total of 295 municipalities. Some 48 of these municipalities representing 4.6 per cent of our population are still without water and 108 municipalities representing 9.7 per cent of our population are without sewer services. Our best estimate is that it would require an expenditure approximately of $900,000,000 to completely service all of our municipalities with water and sewer services.

For the information of the House, I am pleased to table the expenditure approved for all municipalities for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Projects are listed by municipality in alphabetical order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for providing me with an advance copy. A copy of which I have been waiting for since December month because the minister had indicated that if he did not have the complete list available by December, he would resign, Mr. Speaker, it is three months late so he has had lots of time to prepare it.

The minister makes mention of the fact that they've provided $277 million for water and sewer and for road construction. Mr. Speaker, that's not really the case. Some of it has been cost-shared on a 60-40 and what you've done in many cases is allowed municipalities to actually borrow. It's not that the Province has spent $277 million on these capital works. Much of that has been funded by municipalities themselves.

I note that the minister has allocated for the first time, he said, in quite a while, $2 million for recreational and sports facilities. I would assume this is a part of the regional recreational facilities program that was announced some time ago when there was - the minister indicates it is not. Perhaps the minister could indicate what heading in the Budget that appears under, that $9 million that's been allocated for regional recreational facilities in this Province.

It's passing strange that we allocate money for spending, for construction, and on the other hand the minister takes it away because he doesn't give them enough operating money to run their facilities. Slashes that have come to the hydro subsidy and now he's even thinking of tinkering with the little bit of a grant that's given to community recreation leaders.

I haven't had a chance to go through in detail to see if the last statement on the minister's page is correct, that these funds are being distributed fairly and equitably throughout the Province. Over the next days we'll get a chance to look at and see if these funds have been allocated on an equitable basis. I doubt very much if they are. What we'd like to see is the minister provide the ranking sheets. How he determined who was going to get water and sewer or capital works, because it's important for municipalities. If you've been excluded this year you have no chance to get it next year if you don't know what you have to do. So I think it's incumbent on the minister to provide municipalities with their ranking sheet.

The minister in announcing his statement doesn't talk about the difficult hardships. He talks about the problem the Province faces. He doesn't mention the hardships that municipalities have faced as a result of this administration downloading, particularly on capital works, when they're now requiring most communities to pay in excess of $300-plus per household for debt charges that all accrued as a result of capital works, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling the next item the Chair would, on behalf of hon. members, like to welcome to the galleries today five students from Long Island Academy in the district of Green Bay. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Lorne Roach.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Your Honour tabled in this House a special report of the Auditor General concerning the refusal of Memorial University to allow the Auditor General to examine the University's records and accounts pursuant to the statutory authority vested in her under the Auditor General's Act. This is the second special report to the House on this matter. Hon. members will recall that the Auditor General reported the objections of the University to the House on 30 November 1992. At that time, she also reported that she had retained legal counsel to seek an appropriate determination from the courts.

Mr. Speaker, the case was heard, as Your Honour knows, by Mr. Justice Noel of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, Trial Division. His judgement is attached to the Auditor General's latest report tabled by Your Honour, just yesterday. In that report, Mr. Speaker, the court has confirmed the right of the Auditor General to the information requested, and has found that Memorial University has failed to provide the information as it is required to do under the Auditor General's Act. However, according to Justice Noel, the Auditor General could not obtain remedy directly from the courts and his reasons for that are given, Mr. Speaker. I should quote section 17 of the Auditor General's Act, which: 'imposes an obligation upon the university which it does not fulfill'. This was a statement from Judge Noel in his order.

His reason, Mr. Speaker, is on top of page seven of his judgement and again: ' The powers and duties imposed upon the Auditor General are for the benefit of the House of Assembly. They are not for her personal benefit, they are to enable her to make reports to the House of Assembly.' Further down on page seven, Mr. Speaker, and continuing on to page eight, His Honour ruled that, the plaintiff made her report to the House of Assembly pursuant to Section 12 (1). In doing so, she exercised the only remedy available to her with respect to the university's failure to fulfill its obligation under the act. His Honour is backed up, Mr. Speaker, by Erskine May, 19th Edition, page 136. and I quote: " It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offense."

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General now seeks a direction of the House of Assembly on this matter. What the Justice of the Supreme Court has said is that the university's failure to fulfill its obligation under the Auditor General's Act is not an infringement of the rights of the Auditor General, but something much more serious. It is an infringement, a denial of the rights of the House of Assembly, a breach of the privileges of the entire House and of every member who sits in this House. We have a clear breach of the law, the Auditor General's Act, which is fundamental to the House being able to carry out one of its most basic functions. That is to be able to examine fully the expenditure of public monies appropriated in the Budget and approved by the House. If we can't do that, Mr. Speaker, there is little value in our being here in this hon. House. Holding the executive and its agents accountable for the expenditure of public funds is the first and most cherished right of free Parliaments under the British Parliamentary system, particularly at a time, Mr. Speaker, when the President of the University is talking about increasing tuition fees for students. His Honour has told us that the remedy is in the House. We can allow the University to run roughshod over the rights and privileges of this Parliament or we can insist, as I believe we should, and as other Parliaments have had to do in the past, that the University obey the orders of this House, as clearly expressed in the Auditor General's Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling that the University has violated the privileges of the House of Assembly and if you do so I will be pleased to move the appropriate motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader and the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not at all certain that what the hon. gentleman has raised amounts to a prima facie case of privilege but, that point made, I would like to say, if I may, that does not mean his concern is not justified or substantial, but I want to draw a distinction. There is before the House now for second reading - the order stands for second reading but the bill has not been distributed - "An Act To Amend The Memorial University Act," (Bill No. 7), and that addresses the situation dealt with in the litigation and the situation dealt with in the Auditor General's initial report to the House, which was before Christmas. I forget the date, but that is beside the point.

That point made, let me go on to say that the decision of Mr. Justice Noel in the Trial Division which is appended to the Auditor General's Report and which was delivered, as I recollect, about two or three weeks ago - I think it was filed on March 12 from my recollection, and we saw it shortly after that. I assume anybody who was interested saw it shortly after that. It does not say what the hon. gentleman said it says. Again, I don't want to get into a debate with him because I do not think that is the point of the question of privilege, but what I do want to say is that the remedy lies within the House. The government proposed to bring before the House legislation which will address it and the House will decide what happens to that legislation. That is where the remedy is, here in this House. Let me tell the House, if I may, Mr. Speaker, where we are with the legislation because it has not yet been distributed. We developed a bill after meetings between the Premier and a number of his colleagues on one hand, the Auditor General and one or two of her colleagues, and the President of the University and one or two of his colleagues, there was a discussion. The government then took it upon ourselves, as I believe is our duty, to develop a bill to address the problem. There is a problem; it is quite real; it has to be dealt with.

The draft legislation was then sent, at the Premier's direction, to both the Auditor General and Dr. May, the President of the University, for whatever comments, if any, they wish to make - not for approval or disapproval, but for comments. We got comments back, subsequently.

We then, with permission of each of the other - we had to go to each and ask permission to send to the Auditor General the University's comments, and to the University the Auditor General's comments, and ask them to respond to that. So we had, if you wish, all of the arguments before we bring a bill before the House.

That process is not yet completed. I believe we are expecting this week the responses from Mrs. Marshall, the Auditor General, from Dr. May, or whoever speaks for the University - I think Mrs. Gardiner -

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

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

When that is done, and we have those, we will bring a bill before the House. The House will then decide what is to come of the bill. If the bill addresses the matter adequately, in the opinion of the House, it will be adopted. If it does not address it adequately, it will not be adopted. It will be changed.

We are also prepared to refer the bill to a committee, should there be a need for hearings. Now I do not know, to be quite candid, whether it should be the public accounts committee, which has taken a position on this matter, or whether it should go to a select committee, or whether it should go to one of the legislation review committees. That is again a decision which is yet to be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition, has a point of view. He may well be right. I am not quarrelling. I am just simply saying that we have not come to a decision on our side. We have not asked the House to come to any decision consequently.

So what I do say to the House is that the matter is in hand. It is being dealt with on an urgent basis. It is important and it will be dealt with as quickly as we can.

I doubt if we will get the bill debated before the House rises for the Easter recess but I would anticipate, unless there is something untoward, we will have it here in the House.

There is a draft bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

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

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may look after a great deal after the election. That is for the electors to decide. He may be looking after his severance pay and his pension after the election.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that in my submission there is no point of privilege, but I do appreciate the opportunity to deal with what is an important matter which ought to be of concern to every member of this House and to every person in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: I will take another submission from the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the comments from the hon. gentleman opposite. Let me point out to him that regardless of what the government might intend to do, it is not the government's prerogative to prejudge what this hon. House may choose to do when a bill is brought forward before this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: Neither, Mr. Speaker, is it the prerogative of this House to change a law retroactively to make legal what was not legal at the time that an infringement of the law took place. That is clearly what has taken place, and His Honour has ruled, and I believe ruled quite correctly, that the University is in violation of that law. Now the only remedy available to the Auditor General is through this hon. House and I believe this hon. House - every hon. member in it - has had his or her rights infringed upon, and I think it is our obligation and our duty and our responsibility to order the University immediately to comply with the requests of the Auditor General.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have read the decision of Mr. Justice Noel and I think I have to reach the same conclusion that it does not appear that this is necessarily a breach of the privileges of the House of Assembly, but it is very clear that the only remedy available to the Auditor General must come from this House. So I do agree to the point that this has to be something dealt with on the floor of the House and not necessarily by the government going to having negotiations with the Auditor General and negotiations with the University. If there is draft legislation it should be before this House and a committee of this House, perhaps, should hear what the Auditor General has to say and what the University has to say before any negotiations are going on, because this House is the only body that can provide a remedy.

I do not necessarily think that it is a breach of the privilege of the House, but it is quite clear that this House has to deal with it. I do not think that the government should be dealing with it before the House. If they have draft legislation, put it before the House. Let a committee of this House listen to the Auditor General and listen to what the University has to say and then pass the legislation.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I find that the hon. gentleman for St. John's East and I, I think, are singing from the same hymn book. We may be perhaps on different lines of the same stanza.

PREMIER WELLS: He's slightly off-key.

MR. ROBERTS: He's a little off-key, my friend the Premier says. The Premier has never heard me sing, obviously, or he wouldn't make that remark.

Mr. Speaker, the comment I do want to make in response to what I take as being a substantial concern of the hon. gentleman is that we are not attempting to preclude or to foreclose any discussion by the House. I have said we intend to ask the House, if it wishes, to deal with it through a committee. The committee may hear whomever they wish and presumably will hear whomever wishes to come forward. Consulting with the University and with the Auditor General doesn't preclude any of them. We're not asking for their approval for draft legislation. We believe it's our job as a government to take it upon ourselves to bring legislation before the House. That's our job. That's the Premier's job as First Minister, and all of us as members of the present Ministry. The House will decide.

The issue now before the House is my hon. friend for Mount Pearl says there is a point of privilege. It is my submission that there isn't. It is my submission there's nothing in Mr. Justice Noel's decision or in what can be said arising from that decision that founds a prima facie case of privilege. That's the matter which is before Your Honour right now. We'll deal with the legislation as soon as we can get it here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would not want to make a quick decision on that and would like to take it under advisement, with the indulgence of hon. members.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday I questioned the Minister of Fisheries for an update on the status of the Roddickton crab plant. In his response to my question - I refer the minister to Hansard of that day - he said: "In fact it would be extremely difficult to justify providing government funding for a plant in Roddickton, given the fact that we already have more than enough crab processing capability around the Province now."

I want to ask the minister: is that the real reason why the Roddickton crab plant issue has not progressed? Is that the reason why the crab plant is still idle and the people unemployed? Further, I want to ask the minister: how could he make such a statement that you could not justify providing government funding when I have here a copy of an agreement entered into between the Minister of Fisheries and the Roddickton crab plant workers committee funding that particular plant?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the main reason I suppose is that the building, as the hon. gentleman knows, burned down some years ago and it's been rebuilt. There's now a legal dispute as to the ownership. I understand the matter is now before the courts. Until that issue has been settled then of course nothing can be done in Roddickton with respect to that licence.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister didn't answer the question. I ask him, is that the real reason why he and the member have been leading the people of Roddickton down the garden path? Is the real reason that there is too much processing capacity and that's why you haven't reactivated the Roddickton plant? How can the minister justify saying that he couldn't provide government funding when he's already entered into an agreement with the crab plant committee to provide funding, and the copy of the agreement is here? How can he justify that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I know there's a committee in Roddickton that's forming themselves into a cooperative and that they are contemplating re-opening the plant. But again, until the legal matter has been resolved that can't happen. I don't know what agreement the hon. gentleman is talking about but certainly there's been no - not to my knowledge anyway - any funding from my department to that committee to enable them to reactivate the plant.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to refer the minister to the same Hansard where he said: "...[M]aybe the more important qualification, will be that the outstanding legal issues regarding the ownership of the building must be satisfied." Was the minister saying on Tuesday that he was not aware that a legal opinion had already been passed on on that particular issue? That there indeed was a legal opinion on that lease situation in Roddickton? Is the minister saying that as of Tuesday he was not aware of a legal opinion?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the matter to the best of my knowledge is either in the courts or it's about to go before the courts. I'm not aware of there being any opinion given as to the ownership. In fact, no later than two weeks ago I talked to the former operator of the plant in Roddickton and up to that time the matter had not been resolved.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious the Minister of Fisheries is not aware. A supplementary to the Minister of Education: who paid for the legal opinion that was submitted to the Minister of Education on February 2, 1993 by the firm Martin, Whalen, Hennebury and Stamp, the opinion given by one Norman J. Whalen Q.C. former president of the Liberal Party? Let me ask the minister who paid for that legal opinion? Did he pay for it personally or did the Department of Education pay for the legal opinion? I would like to table the letter, by the way.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary conventions and precedents are that minister's may be questioned only for the departments for which they are responsible, so in that sense I rise to - it is not an education -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - it's asked about a legal opinion unless something has changed the Auditor - the Department of Justice -

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice Act says that the Attorney General is responsible for all legal advice. The answer is, that nobody in the government, no public money was used to pay for that opinion. I do not know who paid for it, if it was paid for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: If the hon. lady would control herself, I will answer one question at a time. I do not know anything about that opinion, what I can say is I am the only person or my officials, are the only -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Again, if the hon. gentleman for Kilbride would try to be polite - the Department of Justice, the Attorney General's office, is the only part of the government that commissions legal opinion's or legal advice. Some of them we do with our own staff lawyers, others we do through retaining outside counsel. I do not know who paid for that opinion. I can tell you that the government did not pay for it. I can go on and say the Minister of Education is not responsible for answering anything other than matters that fall within his portfolio, it is that simple.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The procedure is we tried to adopt that a point of privilege would come at the end of Question Period. Although the Chair, if the member insists, cannot stop the hon. member. But for the last couple of years, the last three or four years, I have been trying to discourage points of privilege during the Question Period but if the hon. member insists than there is not much I can do about it.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I insist on a point of privilege. There are insinuations being made here and there is innuendo being put forward here, Mr. Speaker, which certainly does insinuate that I did something wrong. Now, there is no government money paying for that legal opinion, none whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of privilege with respect to an allegation made, the hon. member should know that that is not a point of privilege.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. DECKER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been recognized, Mr. Speaker, sit the bully down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognized the hon. member, the only thing is if the member is on a point of privilege, well then the Chair has to go back but the Chair recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, my honour is at stake here and I am not going to allow any insinuations to stand in this House without having the ability to address them.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been working with a group of people in Roddickton to try to get 200 jobs in place -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - I have asked a company for a legal opinion and I am personally responsible for any cost which is involved in that legal opinion. I do not know anything about the Department of Education, unless he used the address as the place to find me. There is no way in this world, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to allow any sleazy, slimy, insinuations that hon. members are putting forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, to repeat the supplementary, I have a letter here addressed to the Hon. Chris Decker, Minister of Education, Confederation Building, St. John's, Newfoundland, re: Canada Bay Seafood Plant in Roddickton, signed by one; Norman J. Whalen, Q.C. I ask the Minister of Education, who paid for the legal opinion? Did he pay for it personally? Did the Department of Education or the government pay for it? The crab plant committee did not pay for it. I want the question answered, Mr. Speaker. Now, the minister can rant and roar and squirm all he likes, if he is guilty he should admit it.

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

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, there is the insinuation. There is the sleaziness, there is the gutter, there is the muck. The Department of Education did not pay for that legal opinion. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador did not pay for that opinion. No one paid for that opinion who is in any way, Mr. Speaker, affiliated with government funds. Now let us put a stop to this preposterous nonsense which hon. members have been getting on with over the last few days, where they have been coming forth with half-truths and insinuations and they are doing a disservice, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. institution known as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education is saying it is free. Let me ask the Minister of Education, what did he promise that particular gentleman to get a free legal opinion? What did he promise the former President of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, to get a free legal opinion, Mr. Speaker? Let him answer that one.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary to the Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, if he did not pay for it I guess it was free, I mean that is how most things are in the world, if you do not pay for them, they are free, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

I want to ask the Minister of Tourism and Culture, did he commit money to the Roddickton Crab Plant Committee, if so, has it been paid? And since Your Honour has said it is a final supplementary I guess I have to ask three things - I will let him answer the first two, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully aware of all the commitments that may have been made by the department. I will take the question under advisement, although I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the department has given $5,000 to the museum in Grand Bank, $800,000 towards the Seamen's Museum in Grand Bank and $500 towards a " Come Home Year" festival in Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. MATTHEWS: I have another question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the money from the minister but they are not-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - but they are not yet processing crab at the Seamen's Museum, I say to the minister, they are not yet processing crab. Now I would like to refer the minister to a letter of September 25, '92, written to one hon. Chris Decker:

Dear Chris: I am pleased to be able to assist the Roddickton Crab Plant Committee in its feasibility study. I must agree that this is an opportune time to explore the tourism potential for the Roddickton area -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: - the department will provide the Committee with the $5,000 necessary to complete the study. Signed, one: James P. Walsh. I will table the letter.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member obviously did not hear the Chair or he would have taken his place. I want to remind hon. members of our own Standing Orders, they are not rules that I have made, they are rules made by this House, and I have, to the best of my ability, to try to enforce them and members have, to the best of their ability, to try to follow them. We are not supposed to be reading letters when we are in Oral Question Period. I think hon. members are quite familiar with that and I shall find the appropriate quotation, but I know it is clearly in our own Standing Orders.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. Oral Questions must not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspapers, extracts or preambles of any kind, so hon. members should abide by that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member to finish his question please.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for reading the letter but it seems so obvious that I wanted to put - let me ask the minister, the Minister of Tourism and Culture, a final supplementary, as to where he could $5,000, as badly as it is needed by the way by the people of Roddickton to get this crab plant going, where could he find $5,000 in the allocation subheads of the Department of Tourism and Culture to fund a $5,000 study for the Roddickton Crab Plant Committee?

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, if, in fact, we did find the money, it might have been the exact same place we found $2,500 to send Stogger Tight to Europe to represent us last week or where we found it for other things. He may be very well referring to it because he is only giving me one part of the information. The actual letter sent to the department could very well have covered the crab festival that they may want to put off. The same committee may be looking to do some other work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, as in most small communities, a group of people may be involved in ten, twenty, or thirty different activities. If he would like to submit also the report, the recommendation that came in, or the letter that came in, we can deal with it. I will go back to my original comment, Mr. Speaker, and take it under advisement and table it before the day is out.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions I would like to ask the Premier relating to the issue that was raised in the Legislature in the last day or so. I must say, I was kind of surprised to hear the Premier on radio this morning, while being interviewed, saying that if he had known a year ago that the Province was going to be in the financial mess it is in now, he wouldn't have ordered the $120,000 worth of furniture for the Premier's office and the Cabinet room. I want to ask him: Does he honestly think that the people of this Province are willing to believe that lame excuse? Doesn't he think that is a little bit too hard to swallow?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: It may be if it were a true statement of what I said but it is a statement of what the radio reporter attributed to me. My recollection of what I, in fact, said was if we had known a year ago what we know now, would it have been ordered? No, I don't think so. I am quite sure it would not have been. In fact, and I suppose I have to take ultimate responsibility for this, exactly what was ordered and what was being done I personally didn't know. If I had known a year ago what I know now, would it have been ordered? No, it wouldn't. I didn't say anything about the financial state - if I had known the financial state. That is my recollection of it. If I had known a year ago what I know now, no, I don't think it would have been ordered at all.

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

MR. SIMMS: That is certainly the way the story came across and he is now trying to wiggle out of it and trying to say if he had known about it a year ago. He said yesterday in defence of this accusation that he tabled the information in the House last November. Well, that is four or five months ago, for sure, but the story clearly is that because of the financial situation, if he had known about it a year ago he wouldn't have ordered it. Now, that is a strange statement when you consider two years ago the Premier brought in Bill 16, and then again last year Bill 17. Over the past couple of years they have eliminated hundreds of jobs. They have increased taxes in this Province by a whopping $150 million or more, all because of the fiscal problems and the financial situation, then he has the gall to say that if he knew about it last year he would have cancelled the order. Now, I want to ask him, who he is trying to kid? Is it not true that the Premier really knew about this and despite the fact they are in the middle of this kind of situation it was still okay from his perspective to allow the furniture order to proceed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it isn't true at all. As a matter of fact, the amount spent on my furniture in my personal office was $8,548. That is $3,000 less than that government gave Brian Peckford to set up his personal office on Newfoundland Drive, $3,000 less, in addition to $13,000 for rent, in addition to $20-odd thousand for a secretary. Good Heavens! The Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for Humber East, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, and the Member for Kilbride sat there and signed the order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Treated every Premier the same.

PREMIER WELLS: No, that isn't right, treated every Premier the same. They turned over cash to him.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Every member is to be extended courtesy when speaking. I observe that the Leader of the Opposition had a rather long question and I think he was able to do it without being interfered with, and I believe the same courtesy should extend to the Premier in answering the question.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious truth makes him very uncomfortable.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the amount that I tabled in the House last fall, for the eleventh floor - the Cabinet floor, and the eighth floor - my office, and the offices around my office, was a total, I believe, of $118,000. In fact, last fall, they cancelled what they could cancel and the amount was reduced to $105,000; but they couldn't cancel any more. The orders were placed and it was there, and the furniture is just now being delivered. That is what was done last fall.

Mr. Speaker, I tabled the information, explained it all. I am quite prepared to table it and explain it again, but I am not prepared to have to shout because members opposite don't like to hear the truth. It is not what they want to hear, so they keep babbling to prevent the truth from being heard.

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

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

I say to the Premier, that is a very clever political tactic to try to divert attention away from the issue, and that is all he is trying to do here.

He says they couldn't cancel the contract. Well, I want to ask him: Does he not really think that the people of this Province are going to be very hard-pressed to believe that kind of a statement because, after all, he and his own government have twice broken legal contracts in this Legislature with the public service, and they are about to do it for the third time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Isn't the real fact, the reason you didn't break this contract was because you thought you would get away with it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, it had nothing to do with it. This Legislature decided what it would do with its funding, and this Legislature made its determination, by an act of this Legislature, determined what it would do with the public sector collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't start, nor did this government start, the renovation process. The former government started the renovation process with this $24 million House. Now, there was an argument for it because the Fire Safety Code on the ninth and tenth floors, as Your Honour knows, was questionable. You couldn't have people in the gallery up there. We were breaking our own laws. So I understand that.

The same thing applied with respect to the rest of the building. That is why they spent millions putting up walls up the side, right up through to the tower in the building. That is why they came in and took over, three months after I took office, and took the entire corner of the eighth floor, blocked it out, eliminated an office, eliminated half a hallway, eliminated half my secretary's office, to put a concrete well and stairwell in there, because the fire safety and life safety regulations required it. I didn't start that, the former government did.

Mr. Speaker, I didn't do the temporary renovations in 1985. They were in office then. They couldn't wait until the basic work was done, they had to go and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on temporary renovations, knowing that this other work would still have to be done in the future. They couldn't wait - an incredible waste of money.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if anybody is prepared to read what was tabled here in November - and if you want me to, I will table it again, and I will check and make sure that it is completely up-to-date, and if it isn't, I will revise it and table a completely up-to-date position - you will see very clearly why this work had to be done. I didn't start it. We stopped what we could stop of it on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

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

MR. SIMMS: Let me ask the Premier this question - once again he likes to try to be clever and divert attention away from the issue. Let me ask him a very straight question: Who ordered the furniture?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know who did, but I will find out and let the House know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: Does the Premier have -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

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

MR. SIMMS: I ask the Premier: Has he had a chance in the last day or so to at least find out when the furniture was ordered? Could he tell us that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am told, July, 1992, Mr. Speaker, but I will check and make sure.

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

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this Premier is quick to put his own principles and behaviour way above those of his ministers on many occasions, especially when they get caught with their hands in the cookie jar. He said that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, just last week, because of the briefcase issue, was irresponsible or showed poor judgement, an error in judgement.

I want to ask the Premier: What is the difference between this kind of a situation when one of his ministers gets caught and the situation that the Premier's in now, where he, his government, ordered this furniture, in the middle of a financial crisis situation? What is the difference?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, these funds are expended for public purposes and presumably what is there will be there long after I cease to be Premier, when some other member from this side is Premier - perhaps even some distant time in the future when some member presently on the opposite side of the House might be Premier.

What I will commit to is that we will not do what the former government did - bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of Gibbard mahogany furniture, crystal, silverware, clothes, bed linens, cookie sheets, pots, pans and turn it all over to the departing Premier for a pittance. We will provide that information, too.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the office of Premier - not because I occupy it personally - but the office of Premier is an important office in this Province. It sees people from every community in the Province. There are fishermen's groups, there are municipal councils, there are Red Cross societies, there are sports groups, there are ambassadors, there are presidents, there are prime ministers - everybody comes to this office - not because I am there, they come because it is the office of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. They will come in the future when I cease to be.

The Premier has a responsibility to make sure that he performs in a proper way, that he accommodates people in a proper way, in reasonably acceptable circumstances and, Mr. Speaker, patched up, worn out, saturated, soaked walls and carpeting is not an appropriate way to do that. So some redecoration and some renovation was necessary. But, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, Sir, that this government will not take and abuse that privilege and then take the thing for their personal property, as was done before.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Premier.

Last night, the people of this Province were startled when they got their first glimpse on the television news of the palatial renovations the Premier is having done to the Cabinet room in this building. They saw expensive wooden cabinets and glass block partitions. The people still haven't had their first look at the extravagant renovations the Premier has had done in his own office. Why did the Premier order those expensive renovations, those renovations costing $1.5 million, in the middle of what the Premier, himself, calls the worst recession since the 1930s?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I told the House that the former government did temporary renovations - and they did. One of the things they did was remove the Cabinet room from the eighth floor. It was totally removed to make more space for the Premier, who felt he needed more space. They removed the Cabinet room totally. They put it up, temporarily -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

PREMIER WELLS: - temporarily -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true!

PREMIER WELLS: - the old military museum space that had been previously slightly renovated to accommodate press conferences and so on. That was its original purpose. When they then took the Cabinet room off the premier's floor so that they could renovate on a temporary basis, and give that premier the palatial space that he wanted, they moved the Cabinet room up then to the eleventh floor, without any proper preparation of it as a Cabinet room. That was before the fundamental restructuring was done in the building.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when the engineers were coming up through with the changes that they were making, and when the House was moved down to these palatial new surroundings that they put in place, that it was too late for us to stop, when we then moved down and started to renovate the ninth and tenth floors, the renovations were done for the eighth and eleventh floors at the same time because they were adjacent to those two floors.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there were a moderate amount of renovations done to make it an acceptable Cabinet room. Some of it -

MS. VERGE: Over $1 million worth.

PREMIER WELLS: No, it wasn't over $1 million worth, it was $335,000. The figures are there, $335,000, I think. I will get the exact figures and table them, Mr. Speaker. The renovations were done to make it an acceptable Cabinet room. I have no quarrel with that. I think it is a reasonable thing to do. Had we known the kinds of circumstances, we probably would not have done it last year. But it was in progress and it is done. We did what was underway and we completed what was underway. We stopped the fifth, sixth and seventh floors because no contracts were let in respect of them.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East. We have time for a short supplementary and an appropriately short answer.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How can the Premier look at me, a person who was in the Cabinet, who used to meet in the Cabinet room from 1986 until 1989, and say that it was not permanently and expensively renovated and refurnished in 1985. The Premier is lying, I say. How can the Premier do this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair thought it heard the member make an unparliamentary - of course, the Chair can't be certain, the Chair can check it, but the hon. member can do the appropriate thing.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unparliamentary word. I was so upset hearing the Premier say what he said -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - that I couldn't help myself, but I do withdraw the term 'lie'.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the truth is very simple. What I stated is accurate and is clear to be seen. Before the fundamental renovations could be done, the former government jumped in, hired a minister's wife to do the interior decorating and made an utter mess of it, covered the lights with 3/4 inch thick pine slats so that the light couldn't even get through, made a complete mess of it, did this expensive temporary renovation before the fundamental renovations were done. It is very easy, Mr. Speaker, to stand and look at any hon. member opposite, the Member for Humber East, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the Member for Grand Bank or any member and tell them clearly what happened.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question period has expired.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would just like the Premier to clarify. He made an accusation here that some minister's wife was hired to do the interior decorating. Would the Premier like to clarify whose minister's wife he is talking about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That is what I have been told, but I will check and make sure in detail before making a statement on it.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the Premier, before he spits his venom out any further, in case he is referring to my former wife, who was an interior decorator, and the only minister's wife, that I am aware of, who is a professional interior decorator, that she at no time worked for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. You will find that Miss Suzanne Campbell, in fact, did the decorating in that office - who is now still employed by this government.

The Premier should withdraw any innuendoes that he wants to make. Try somebody else next time.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will happily withdraw any innuendo and check the detail and make it known to the House exactly what is the situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we have leave to revert to Notices of Motion? My colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I guess, was a little slow getting to his feet, but he does have a Notice of Motion, I believe.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act", Bill No. 16.

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, to a question by the Member for Grand Bank, in Question Period, I don't have the full details but the basic gist is -

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

MR. WALSH: I don't have the full details but I can advise the hon. House, my department has informed me that no funds were given to the committee referred to in your question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) letter.

MR. WALSH: In my letter, in the question. If it is my letter, I haven't seen it. He has not provided me with a copy to look at.

No funds have been given to the committee.

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

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

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 664 residents of the district of Fortune - Hermitage, from communities of St. Bernard's, English Harbour East, Grand Le Pierre, Terrenceville and Bay L'Argent.

This is one of those petitions that I was presented with last Sunday in Marystown when church leaders and parishioners from various parishes in the districts of Grand Bank, Burin - Placentia West, and Fortune - Hermitage were there to give the petitions to myself and my colleague, the Member for -

MR. TOBIN: There is some noise here!

MR. MATTHEWS: They are awfully touchy, Mr. Speaker, and I can understand why. The time for a lot of them is drawing nigh.

Six hundred and sixty-four people asked us to express their views to this House. To the members of the House of Assembly:

'We, the undersigned, are committed to the highest quality education in this Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them. In the same way, we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed.

We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representatives, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.'

This is the petition that I am presenting today. I support the petition. I am signing the petition and supporting it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, I say to the minister, I did not instigate it. This action was taken by church leaders and parishioners from my area of the Province who felt very strongly that their school system was being threatened by the Wells Government, I say to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, felt that their system of education was on the brink of being destroyed by Premier Wells and his Administration, Mr. Speaker. That is why they got those petitions, that is why they held public meetings in Marystown where 400 to 500 people showed up to express their concern, I say to the minister; that is what this is about.

My colleague and I are only doing the same as the Premier did a few days ago, when he presented petitions from his area. Now, he may have done it reluctantly, but I am not doing it reluctantly, I am doing it because I want to do it, Mr. Speaker, because I support those people and what they desire. So I am calling on the government to consider those people's wishes, to listen to what they are saying to you, and, Mr. Speaker, I present the petition and want to inform the House that I support the petition.

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

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition of my colleague on behalf of the constituents of Fortune - Hermitage district. I was with the Member for Grand Bank when representatives from the Fortune - Hermitage district asked us - well, actually, the member was invited to the meeting, but my colleague and I were present and, in the absence of the member, it was presented to us, and we were asked to present it in the House of Assembly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say after listening to the people who were at that meeting that day, and who represented the 500 or 600 who attended the public meeting in Marystown, that there is a tremendous mistrust of this administration as to how they propose to handle the educational system in this Province. It was made quite clear at the meeting that people agree with and support many of the recommendations in the Williams Report, but they believe that their constitutional rights to the denominational school system should not be tampered with.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you can understand why people would be concerned when you have the Minister of Education for this Province - not for his district but the Minister of Education for this Province - stating that he would like his grandchildren to remember their grandfather as the man who destroyed the denominational education system in this Province. When these types of statements are being made by the person responsible for education, then it is no wonder that the masses in this Province are concerned about their rights which have been enshrined in the Constitution.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) what people like you will do if you get a chance, like you are doing now.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He had a chance. When we were there, we gave the Pentecostal (inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: What is wrong with the Member for Windsor - Buchans? He is awfully defensive.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad they are closing out the hog farms, because there is a future for the minister -

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

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, what a contribution! Now, Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Member for Windsor - Buchans that I stand to support the petition on behalf of the people from Fortune - Hermitage district, and if he lacks the courage to bring petitions into this House on behalf of his constituents, like some of his colleagues, then stand up and admit it. We will present the petitions and we will stand up for what we believe in, not when it is politically expedient to do so. Our Leader and our party have articulated our position on this from day one, and I say that we support the petition that was presented by the people of Fortune - Hermitage. We ask the government to be definitive in their stand and position relating to the protection of people's constitutional rights and let the people of Fortune - Hermitage and the other people who have presented petitions in this Province know that their dreams and aspirations, their wishes, will be adhered to.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Further petitions?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

I would like to present a petition on behalf of 1,343 parishioners of St. Kevin's parish in the Goulds, who have requested that I present this petition. It is a petition similar to others that we have had in this House of Assembly over the last little while, a petition similar to one that I believe the Premier presented just a little while ago. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why members over there, like the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, are afraid to present their petitions, when the Premier presented his.

I am here supporting this petition today, and I will stand on my record as a former minister in this House of Assembly, when we gave the Pentecostal Assemblies of this Province the constitutional right to denominational education. That is my record, That is what I tried to do when I was in there.

The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture wants to abolish the denominational education system. The Minister of Education that we have now has said, at least has been reported on one occasion as saying, that he wants to be remembered by his grandchildren as the person who did away with denominational education in this Province. He may be proud of that - there may be some reason for him to take pride in that. I am not sure why he would.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take that same position, I take the opposite position. I know of provinces in Canada which are moving towards religious affiliation in their education system. Places which have public school systems are now financing - as of five or six years ago, I guess, Ontario was one province which started to finance the Catholic education system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Bill Davis was defeated for doing it, so that is some time ago the Tories went.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: They did - yes, Mr. Speaker, and the people in that province who are looking for the financing of the Catholic education system. That is what we should stay with in this Province. We should stick with it in this Province and not allow the present Minister of Education and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture to get their own way. The former Minister of Education, now the Member for St. John's North, also supported the abolition of the denominational education system.

We are told it is too expensive, Mr. Speaker. I haven't seen the figures. The only figures I have seen, of late, were some figures in a Letter to the Editor within the last month or so. They gave some comparisons between the Newfoundland system, which is the denominational education system, and systems like those in PEI, New Brunswick, and I think Nova Scotia was in it. There were three or four others. We were as cheap as or cheaper than any of them. So I don't know why our system is blamed for being so expensive when the provinces with public systems, on a per capita basis, whatever the per capita basis they were looking for, showed that our system, on a per capita basis, was not spending any more than other provinces in Eastern Canada. Actually, we were spending less than two of them. I didn't get a copy of that Letter to the Editor but I am having it researched and when I present another petition here in the next day or so, I hope to be able to read out those figures.

Mr. Speaker, our system is not more expensive per capita than others, not outlandishly so. We have a hard province to service, period, no matter what the system is, whether it is water and sewer, or a highway system or our education system. We have a population that is spread out over a large area, so we are going to have some extra expenses because of our locations, but our per capita expenditures, or cost of education, are not out of line with the rest of Canada. So the expense or waste of money is not a reason for the Minister of Education to proceed with what he wants to do, which is to abolish the denominational education system in this Province.

When the person who asked me to present this petition called me two night ago, I explained to him that the Premier and the churches had made a deal. There is an arrangement signed by the Premier and agreed to by heads of the churches suggesting that this government is not presently looking for a constitutional change concerning the denominational education system. I explained that to that person and he asked right away: 'The Premier and the government are not - or they will not? What actually does it say?' I said, the statement says: 'The government is not presently looking for any constitutional change.' And he said: Well, that doesn't mean very much to me, because what the government, any government, should say is that they will not look for that constitutional change.'

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Sir.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was another member who wanted to speak to the petition. Of course the Chair has no idea what members want to do.

The hon. the Member for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support my colleague for Kilbride on behalf of St. Kevin's Parish in the Goulds. The churches have shown a great deal of co-operation over the past number of years into joint service schools and in sharing facilities and instruction, and so on, in areas where it is not economically feasible to operate separate schools. This co-operation has accelerated over the past few years and when denominational education, I guess, raised its head in the minister's statement it did more really to cause anxiety levels to increase. Denominational education would have certainly continued and the rate of acceleration of combined efforts would have continued.

Now, the adherents and the representatives of the different churches are really concerned with government's true motive with reference to denominational education. Churches over the years have invested heavily, financially and time-wise, in the education system in this Province and the rights were entrenched constitutionally to give churches authority to be able to have a say in how education is delivered in this Province. Nobody questioned that and progress was being made, and hopefully progress will continue to be made because I am sure rational minds will prevail and they will see what is best for the education of their children or the children in the communities if they be of a different religion.

That is not the question here at all. The question is that they have a constitutional right entrenched and it is important for these churches and their adherents in the faith to have a say in the type and quality of education that is provided to their children. They have an entrenched right and it is only appropriate for them to be able to exercise that right. After all parents should have that right, a prior right to have a say in the future of their children. It is unfortunate that the minister had to make those statements back in November 1, about his desire to have the denominational system eliminated during his term as minister. I think that is very unfortunate and it has done a lot of damage to the progress and to education over the past several months and the direction people are following. It has raised the public sentiment to, I guess, unprecedented levels in terms of denominational education.

I feel a Minister of Education should be more concerned and be trying to allay those concerns and encourage denominations to work co-operatively in introducing efficiences in the education system, to have efficiences in the transportation of students, in the sharing of schools, programs and services in education. The department had a good opportunity just a couple of years ago to be able to improve on efficiencies in this system and the minister exercised his powers under Section 61 of the School Act to stop that process where the minister, I guess, took away the opportunity of parents to be able to send their kids to the schools of their choice. Yes, the minister did exercise his powers. If they want to respect parents' rights in education they should be concerned with Section 61, an amendment to that section of the Schools Act, if they have a great concern.

Mr. Speaker, I support the petition. They have every right to request to have their voices heard and their kids educated under the system they desire and that was constitutionally given to them. It is not too much to ask and it is only fair that this government should proceed and carry out the wishes that were given to them in 1949 in the Terms of Union with this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on this same subject. It is on behalf of St. Theresa's Parish, Mundy Pond, St. John's, within my district but also overlapping some adjacent districts. It is signed by about 2000 perishioners of the parish. I would like to read the prayer of the petition: To the hon. the House of Assembly in Legislative Session Assembled the petition of the undersigned humbly showeth that we the undersigned are committed to the highest quality of education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic Schools and want to keep them, in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support cooperation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we ask you as our representative not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada, and your parishioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present and support this petition, I thank you very much.

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which I very proudly support. A petition addressed to the House of Assembly. The prayer of the petition is: We the undersigned are committed to the highest quality of education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic Schools and we want to keep them, in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support cooperation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we ask you as our representative not to tamper with the rights we have now under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this is signed by 1013 people originating in the Parish of St. Pius X, where a meeting was held on January 11, 1993, which I attended and where the issue was discussed. Mr. Speaker, no one in their right mind would have anything negative to say about the Roman Catholic Schools in St. John's Centre. Some of these schools are the finest schools in this Province, the finest schools in Canada and I submit, amongst the finest schools in this world. I speak of Gonzaga High School, where Father Altilia is principal. Brother Rice Regional High School, Holy Heart of Mary Regional High School, St. Pius X Elementary, St. Pius X Junior High, St. Patrick's Hall and Ecole St. Patrick. Mr. Speaker, these schools are the finest schools that have ever been established. They are a light to all of us and no one ever suggested or will ever suggest that these schools be done away with, and neither should they.

Let me say this, I want to speak a word about sharing between denominations. The denominations of this Province have been sharing for many years in education. Let me say this, did you know that Newfoundland was one of the first provinces in Canada where teacher training was done jointly by all religions, done jointly at Memorial University? Alberta was the first university to have teacher training in the university and Newfoundland was second. This meant a tremendous cooperative spirit amongst denominations in the training of teachers. Some of us who taught at that university, taught side by side with nuns and brothers who were also delivering the education program.

I might also say, that our university is a university for all Newfoundlanders. In Nova Scotia the churches have not cooperated to the same extent. They have denominational universities in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick and other parts of Canada but in this Province churches have cooperated and we have one university attended by all people.

So that is, again, a symbol of tremendous cooperation between the churches in this Province. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this, that there is a need for church schools for this reason, we have problems in our country and problems in this world that have to do with the teaching of values and ethics, what is right and what is wrong. We cannot leave this to courts to decide. Courts decide matters of law, but they do not deal with what is right and what is wrong. If churches, through their schools, do not push and do not tell us, and do not indoctrinate children and tell children and discuss these matters, who then will do this? In modern society one of the problems we face is that the television seems to be dictating the morality of people, and this is what we fear.

I support the parishioners and I support the people in St. John's Centre and right throughout the Province who are with this.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, just a brief word.

Yesterday I started in support of another petition to do a little bit of a historical analysis of sharing in the Province, with my friend from St. John's Centre and St. John's West. They have provided some of this data, but I would like to stand in support of the petitions presented by my two colleagues.

We have many, many examples of sharing, but I think it is crucial for three or four reasons, for us to systematize the kind of sharing projects and to put some model in place. I think this is what the government has done, in co-operation with the churches, trying to put a model for sharing in place. I think it is a historic achievement for the government to sit with the churches and to get agreement on a kind of a model for future sharing.

I think there are three or four reasons why it is important for us to do it now. First of all we have new demands on education. These are very challenging times. If we are going to compete in an information based age, compete in the world, we need the best education that we can have, and sometimes we can't provide the best education in the kind of settings that we have in this Province. We need to promote sharing and co-operation.

We have fewer resources and we have to get the most scholar for the dollar that we can - more scholar for the dollar - and I think the people of this Province recognize that, and in some cases sharing and co-operation can produce more scholar for the dollar. The churches acknowledge that.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we have declining enrolments. I do not think the people of the Province recognize what is happening in student enrolments in this Province. In 1971-'72 we had 162,000 students in the schools of this Province. Now since that year we have added the fourth year of high school. We are now down to - perhaps the Minister of Education might confirm it - about 120,000 - even with the extended high school program - and the projections are that we are going to go down to 100,000 at the turn of the century.

That means if we continue with the traditional model of having in rural Newfoundland two, three, sometimes, when I was a teacher, four schools in the same community or set of communities, we are going to have smaller and smaller schools.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province recognize that if we are going to provide the computers and the libraries and all of the things necessary, and all of the specialist teachers, we cannot do it in the traditional framework. Declining enrolments make it essential that we look at a new model.

Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, we have a greater willingness among the denominations to share. I was criticized recently for saying that twenty-five years ago there were certain negative attitudes among the denominations that do not exist today. I do not see it today. My friend from St. John's East Extern and I have talked about it on many occasions. There is a new willingness to sit and share within the denominational framework - within the denominational framework - for the various christian denominations to share. There is a new willingness to recognize the rights of non-christians and non-religious, to guarantee that they have the right to a good education.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are about four reasons, I would suggest, why it is very timely and very important that the churches and the government work together on a new model of sharing and co-operation, and I am proud to be part of a government that has worked with the churches to get the kind of agreement and to work on the kind of proposals for the future that will make education better.

We believe, as a government, in the rights of everybody to quality education and that is where the government is heading. I'm proud to be part of a government that has signed this agreement with the churches to move forward on these fronts. I'm pleased also to support the petitions that are presented today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a few words following the remarks of the Members for St. John's Centre and North concerning the quality of schools in the City of St. John's, particularly in St. John's Centre. I'm familiar with a number of these schools, having attended Brother Rice High School and St. Bon's college. Not in the member's district but in my own district, across the street from St. Pat's, which is in the Member for St. John's Centre's district.

These are fine schools. I don't know if I'd go so far as the Member for St. John's Centre and say that they're the best schools in the world. I haven't been all over the world. Perhaps the hon. minister has, having been a professor of education at Memorial, no doubt he has had opportunity to travel all over the world and visit schools all over the world. I take it as a great compliment that the Member for St. John's Centre, having travelled all over the world, as a member of the Faculty of Education, can come back with that judgement, that these schools are the finest schools in the world. I think that's a fine compliment to our education system.

I wouldn't go so far, but I'd accept the judgement of the hon. member. I'm sure his constituents, when he has that Hansard printed up and passed out to every resident in St. John's Centre in the upcoming election campaign, which I'm sure he will, would also be flattered to know that a man of such eminence in the field of education has judged these schools to be the finest in the world.

I too support the desire of the petitioners to ensure that our schools continue to provide the kind of moral education that's required in our society. It is a concern to all parents and it should be a concern to all society, if children are expected to get their morality from the television set, from the kind of information that's available to children today, and the difficulties that parents have in being able to pass on to their children the kind of moral needs that they have in a very complex world. So the desire of the parents in this case is very highly regarded and should be continued to be guaranteed.

I have a concern though because it seems that this issue is raising itself during this particular time because of a fear that seems to be spread about that somebody is about to put all the religious denominations up against the wall and perform some sort of execution on the cause of religion and religion in the schools and religious education. I think that's a very false notion. I haven't heard anybody say that they want to do away with the cause of religious education and religion in the schools. To try and put forth the suggestion that any working together or trying to find a better way immediately involves a threat to all that's gone on in the past I think is a big mistake.

There does need to be some assurance to the peoples whose rights are contained in the Constitution, in the Terms of Union, will not be tampered with without their consent. I think that there has to be continued constitutional protection to ensure that those who are concerned that any change would involve a removal of the right to teach religion, religious education, in the school system, is going to be lost. I think that has to continue to be assured. Whatever constitutional protection is required to do that must of course continue.

But to suggest that everything must remain the same and not involve any change, it's going to relegate our educational system to the backwaters of the future. I don't think that anybody in this Province wants to see that happen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased today to present a petition on behalf of 374 residents of a number of communities along the coast of Labrador, particularly from L'Anse-au-Loup, Pinware, West St. Modeste and Black Tickle, Labrador.

This petition is similar to the ones that previously came to this House. I would like to read for the record: we the undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them, in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire.

We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away and we ask you, as our representative, not to tamper with the rights we now have under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the general thrust of that petition and I think that this government should be commended for reacting to the wishes of the people in this way by the steps that we have taken to assure the church community of this Province that we are not about to do anything that will destroy the system that we have. However, at the same time, I am quite pleased with the progress that this government has made through the Minister of Education and the previous Minister of Education, towards getting more 'dollars for the scholar' as my colleague from St. John's North puts it.

It is certainly quite necessary as we see declining enrolments and as we see the challenges that are there before our children, especially those days, Mr. Speaker, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The challenges that are there for our children to compete with the knowledge based industries, to compete in high technology industries, to compete more effectively in science and technology. These are areas of the education system, Mr. Speaker -

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. SPEAKER: Admit His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Please be seated.

MR. SPEAKER: "May it please Your Honour, the General Assembly of the Province has at its present Session passed certain Bills, to which, in the name and on behalf of the General Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's Assent."

A bill, "An Act To Amend The House Of Assembly Act," (Bill No. 1).

A bill, "An Act Respecting The Reduction Of The Impact Of Packaging On The Environment," (Bill No. 2).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Fisheries Loan Act," (Bill No.4).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Government-Corner Brook Pulp And Paper Limited Agreements Act," (Bill No. 10).

LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR: "In Her Majesty's Name, I assent to these bills."

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River, may continue.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: He was half-way through.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Half-way through another great speech to be interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I do not mind at all, but I would just like to say to the members of this House that one of the greatest challenges to the education system in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today, and has been for quite a number of years, is to be able to give our students the ability to be educated and be able to compete in the science and technology areas of the work force, because growing up on the Coast of Labrador, as I did, we certainly had no computers to work with. We certainly had no -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no Mace on the table. I am sorry. The Sergeant-at-Arms is some time getting the Mace. We will wait for that.

Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I would say even Boris Yeltsin would be a little bit confused by now.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I fully support the petition presented and the thrust of the petition because we have to achieve greater bang for our buck in the education system, and I just wanted to submit to the House my personal experience, growing up on the coast of Labrador. We did not have the labs. We did not have the biology and chemistry and physics labs that would have equipped many of our students to go on and be able to get higher education in the fields of engineering and medicine and other areas from where certainly we would be able to generate great careers.

Mr. Speaker, what we see today, and we are very appreciative of the moves that have been made by this government and these Ministers of Education to see that the dollars are put in place to be able to give the computers to the small schools, to be able to use the distance education and the teleconferencing system for the small schools throughout the coast of Labrador. I am sure that in the years to come we will see the students coming from these areas of the Province and be able to compete in the areas of high technology and knowledge based industries, and be able to have meaningful careers in these industries.

That is why we have to work toward the objective of sharing facilities, sharing the administration budgets of education, and sharing the co-ordinating budgets of education and so forth, because we are in a changing world; we are in a more competitive world, and we have an obligation to our children to give them the greatest opportunities available in line with the most opportune places they may be able to have to get these careers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to have a few words on the petition presented by the hon. Member for Eagle River.

I noted a number of times during his presentation he supported the thrust of the petition. Now I have only been in this House, I guess, about four years, but I think one of the things that generally have to be spoken about with regard to a petition is the prayer of the petition.

I have noticed over and over again, on the part of Liberal members of this House of Assembly, the fact that they support the thrust - the inclination - the direction of a given petition.

The petition is quite specific. They want their education system as currently constituted preserved, albeit with some sharing, albeit not having schools where there are not enough people to actually form a school, but the nub of the issue behind this particular petition, the nub of the issue behind the petition that I presented on behalf of the Pentecostals in Green Bay, is they want their denominational school system left intact, not chipped and withered away, not thrust away here and thrust away there, and thrust away somewhere else, so that all of a sudden you have a thrust going in all directions, which gets you absolutely nowhere.

Denominational education involves a school having a certain moral atmosphere, a certain ambience. Parents who choose to have their children raised in that particular fashion, educated in that particular fashion, have a constitutional right to so do. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't just support the thrust of this petition, I support the prayer of the petition. Thank you very much.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in my place and support the petition presented by the Member for Eagle River. I support the thrust and prayer of the petition. It's a good petition. I'm very encouraged by the third sentence. It says: and the petitioners humbly pray that we also support cooperation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they're needed. I think that's very important.

There are some good examples around the Province of where sharing is going on. Right in my own district one of the schools in Plum Point has been engaged in sharing for quite some time. It's been a very successful experiment and one that all of the children are happy with. I'm encouraged by the Member for St. John's East's remarks with respect to the Member for St. John's Centre's petition as well. I know that he and went to the Catholic school system. He went to Brother Rice, I think, and I went to Gonzaga High School with the Jesuits. i know they were very good in physical sports. They used to win the basketball, hockey, volleyball and all those kinds of things. Interestingly enough at Gonzaga we always won the public speaking, the debating, all those intellectual things. So it was quite interesting to watch.

The Jesuits always told us, Mr. Speaker, to make money and do good. I'm happy to say that half the equation is fulfilled now by me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. FUREY: I said I have half the equation fulfilled.

Mr. Speaker, the joint statement by the churches and the government as presented to the House some time ago by the Premier made it very clear. I know that there have been a lot of bogeymen, a lot of fearmongering and a lot of fog and shadows cast around about this whole issue, but it couldn't be clearer than how the Premier stated it on behalf of the government and in fact jointly with the churches some time ago.

I just want to quote. It says that the Planning and Priorities Committee of Cabinet met and "...significant progress was made towards achieving a consensus which will lead to major improvements of the education system..." in the Province, the "...objective of both churches and government from the beginning. Government and church leaders have agreed to work cooperatively in developing new approaches which will: enhance the quality of education; achieve greater efficiency in the delivery of services; and make substantial changes in administration that will lead to a major reorganization of school districts."

One of the major concerns, or one of the bogeyman, that has been tossed around is the whole issue of stripping the constitutional rights of people or classes of people. Well, the statement goes on: "...[I]n response to the church leaders' concerns that implementing certain recommendations of the Royal Commission Report would jeopardize their traditional rights, government has assured the leaders that it is not seeking change to the Constitution that would remove the constitutionally-protected rights of classes of people specifically provided for."

So when I see some of these petitions coming from friends and family and other people around the Province I get a little worried that somehow, somewhere, there have been some bogeymen created. The government is adamant that we want to work cooperatively and closely with the churches and with the people who make up those churches for the betterment of the children, Mr. Speaker. That's what it's all about, and that's what the prayer of this petition seeks.

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition similar to the other petitions that have been presented in this House of Assembly. I have three petitions but I'm certainly not going to go through the three of them and read the prayer. I'll read the prayer of one of the petitions. These three petitions are from Logy Bay, Outer Cove and Middle Cove. They're signed by 656 petitioners.

Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated- although I've done it before, but I think it's similar - but I will read the prayer on one of the petitions: to the members of the House of Assembly, we the undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and want to keep them, in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support cooperation between churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed. We do not want our rights and the rights of other people in our Province taken away, and we ask you as our representatives not to tamper with the rights we have now under the Constitution of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few comments made by the minister just previous to when I rose. I want to say to the minister that I presented the first petition from the people in my area on last - I think that was about a week ago. I want to say to him right now, never did I, and no one else on this side that I know of, instigate, coerce, or incite anyone to sign a petition. I repeat, that I don't know of anyone who incited, coerced, or instigated anyone to make up a petition.

What the minister said, and what a couple of other ministers over on that side said, that they were sort of provoked into making up this petition.

MR. FUREY: I didn't say that.

MR. PARSONS: Let me tell the minister: these petitions were ongoing before that ministerial statement was made. I want to get it quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that these petitions had been started in many areas before the Premier and the members of the churches were here. These petitions were ongoing. It's not that I went out and started it. Yes, I was in Outer Cove last week and accepted a petition. Which is my prerogative. That's what I'm supposed to be doing. I'm representing the people the best way I can. I feel as strongly about what they have in the petition as they do themselves.

I was really pleased when the Minister of Health rose today. He said that he was very proud of the schools within that area. I say to the minister, I am too. They're great schools. I had five children myself who went through that system. I played a role. I was always there, a part of the school system, and I feel really proud of that system.

I want to say to the minister, we talk about sharing. Sharing is a big part of the conversational package. Eighty-eight per cent of the schools in the whole system are single schools. There's no need of sharing in that 88 per cent. What we're talking about is the other 12 per cent and that's ongoing. Let me say to the members opposite: where I come from, I come from a community of 1,000 people, Flatrock. We lost our school because of declining enrolment. But Pouch Cove, who have an Integrated body, two classes, two different religions, and Flatrock, which is all Roman Catholic, have no problem in sending their children to the one school.

The point is that the people have already donated the land with a recreational facility and whatever. The three churches involved agree to sending their children to the same school, but, Mr. Speaker, there's no money to build the school. It's as simple as that. We're not financially able to build the school for the three denominations so they're going to have to stick with what they have until we get the money to build the school.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to rise in support of this petition. Before getting in, I think the hon. member may have misinterpreted the remarks of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, because at no time did he accuse members opposite of inciting petitions. His remarks should be studied in the context of Hansard.

I too grew up in a small community, a very small community of 300 people where there was one school, one amalgamated school in the town of Millertown. Most of the people in that area, it was basically run by the company originally, and there was one Roman Catholic family in that town. Eventually there were two because there were two daughters who married, then there were two Roman Catholic families. One of the Roman Catholic families kept their children in that school and we all went to school together. The other Roman Catholic family decided that their one child would be sent to St. George's where there was a convent school.

I want to say a few words about convent schools because I taught in Bishop Falls in a school and there was a convent school in Bishop Falls. Like other convent schools, that particular convent school added a dimension to the community life that our schools could not provide and I am referring to music. The nuns taught music and everybody who could learned music from the nuns, not just Roman Catholic people but whoever was there. This element of culture which was brought in many parts of this Province by a religious school system should be very carefully appreciated. I think that musical tradition is carried on now in places like Holy Heart and Brother Rice where their are tremendous bands and tremendous choirs that are so exceptional.

It is not just the spiritual values which are extremely important. I believe that this debate that we are having and the signing of the petitions that has taken place all over the Province is going to do something for religious education. I believe that church schools have a responsibility not just to teach the usual things in the curriculum but to seize their main challenge, which is the teaching of values, attitudes and morals and perhaps even church schools may have gotten away from that to some extent. Now, this brings us back, these petitions brings us back, all of us back, to think what it is we had these schools for. I believe our church schools and the contributions that they make will be even stronger now as a result of these petitions.

I want to make one other point before I sit down, and that is the sharing which has occurred. I omitted to mention the sharing, the joint services that occurred through the teachers union. In other provinces, particularly the Province of Quebec, there was a protestant teachers union. In other provinces too, they sometimes organize the teachers unions by religion. In this Province we have the Newfoundland Teachers Association which from its inception, had members from all denominations. I remember particularly when Brother Brennan became president of that association and went on later to become the president of the Canadian Teachers Federation. So, this is another example of the way that the churches in this Province have been sharing. I do not think that we should ever think that churches do not share but I will say this, that in some of the smaller communities, it has been very difficult to maintain the church schools because of the numbers. It is becoming increasingly difficult now that the enrolments are so drastically declining. Some means, as the Member for St. John's North said, must be found whereby we can not only preserve but enhance the spiritual dimension of the school and at the same time pay attention to the problems that are created by declining enrolments and decreased financing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of 716 residents of the Province concerning the closing of the Day Break Parent Child Centre. Mr. Speaker, the petitioners state as follows: to the members of the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled: we the undersigned urge the government to reinstate the necessary funding to keep in operation the facility of the Day Break Parent Child Centre, located at 3 Barnes Road in the City of St. John's, Newfoundland. It is critical that their service be one of the options available for families who need child development and parenting support and other specialized services. Mr. Speaker, most of the speakers this afternoon, since the commencement of petitions, have been talking about the quality of education and the quality of our school system. This project is about those kinds of people who cannot benefit from the school system and are going to be condemned to failure in that school system if they as children do not get the help they need prior to attending school.

I am glad the Minister of Social Services is here because it is he and his fellow Cabinet ministers who have to make a very important decision within the next week or ten days, a very important decision that is going to affect the future lives of hundreds and hundreds of people in this Province, not only the fifty children who are now there and the 150, or more, related people, parents and other family members who are serviced at this particular moment by Day Break, but the thousands who would be serviced by this centre in the future. Also the many thousands in other parts of the Province who will benefit from the work that is being done, from the model that is being created, and from the valuable consulting and training services that are being provided by the Day Break Parent Child Centre to other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I was at a meeting the other night at Mary Queen of Peace School, as was the Member for Pleasantville, the Member for Burin - Placentia West, the Member for Humber East, and the Member for Port de Grave. We heard firsthand from the parents, in the most part, and some professionals who had worked at the centre, but mostly from the parents, telling their very moving stories of the value that the Day Break experience had provided to their children and to themselves. These parents are struggling with very serious problems with their children, children who have particular disorders such as attention deficit disorder. We had one woman speaking the other night about how she had suffered so much stress that she lost all her hair. She was unable to look after her child with attention deficit disorder and she asked a rhetorical question to the group about her second child who she hopes will have an opportunity to go to Day Break because she is concerned that that child will not have the service available to her if this closes as the government has planned. She said: what will I do in September? Will I have Day Break to turn to in September when my second child is able to go? The answer from the crowd, Mr. Speaker, was, yes. They are a very determined group and they want to see the government change its mind on this issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are two alternatives here. Either this government has made a cold and callous move purely for budgetary reasons without considering the cost, and without concern for the cost, or it has made a blunder which it can correct. Either one or the other, Mr. Speaker. Either it has made a cold and calculated budgetary move that they have been trying to justify for various reasons over the past number of days, such as the federal government started it and the federal government takes away the funding. Well, Mr. Speaker, that means nothing. Every cent the Minister of Social Services spends, or practically every dollar that the Minister of Social Services spends, fifty cents comes from Ottawa. If that were the excuse well, I guess, we would have no program in the Department of Social Services because Ottawa's funding is what helps through the Canada Assistance Plan, the existence of not only these centres but also of the very Social Assistance Program itself.

Mr. Speaker, the second argument that seems to have been made is, if we cannot have it everywhere in Newfoundland why should we have it in St. John's? A most foolish argument, Mr. Speaker. If that were the argument we would have no university in Newfoundland, and we would have no Janeway Child Care Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask all hon. members, particularly those on the opposite side of the House, to change that decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member for Burin -Placentia West it being Thursday and 4 o'clock I am obligated to advise hon. members the matters for the motion to adjourn. The first matter is raised by the Member for Burin - Placentia West stating his dissatisfaction with an answer given by the Minister of Social Services regarding the Social Assistance Budget. The second matter is raised by the Member for Kilbride stating his dissatisfaction with an answer by the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture concerning hog shutdown. The third and final matter is raised by the Member for Humber East stating her dissatisfaction with the Premier's response to answers respecting renovations and re-decorating of the Premier's offices.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: I certainly want to offer my full support to the petition presented by the Member for St. John's East. What we see here is a very serious situation. We are seeing a situation where government, I believe, and I believe very strongly that what has happened is that this government, for some reason, the Minister of Social Services and the Cabinet sat down one day or one night, whatever the case may be, and decided, we have to save so much money. All of a sudden they went through the Budget and saw Day Break. When they looked at Day Break they said, one-half a million dollars, whatever it is, we can pull that down right quick. They never looked at anything outside of the Budget figure and the name Day Break.

There is no way that any human being - with a conscience that is - there is no way anyone with a conscience in this Province, whether you sit in the Cabinet room or whether you sit in the back benches of the government, or in the Opposition, there is no way that anyone with a conscience and a heart can vote against such a valuable and, I guess, a program that cannot be replaced in this Province.

I attended the other night, as the Member for St. John's East stated, and as a former social worker in this Province - as someone who practised social work for ten years, apart from being Minister of Social Services for a couple of years - I can say that it was a very touching and moving experience to be present and to hear the stories of what Day Break has done for these people, and what Day Break is continuing to do, not just for the children who attend Day Break, but for the families involved, and there is no way this government should be allowed to discontinue that very valuable service.

Yesterday we had a list of people who were asked to sit on the social services estimates committee. The social services estimates committee, St. John's North is the Chairperson of that committee; Humber East, Baie Verte - White Bay, Eagle River, Ferryland, Humber West and St. John's East.

Now I say to the Member for St. John's North - a man who I respect and who has had, no doubt, a great deal of involvement as an educator in this Province for basically all his lifetime and understands the needs of people - I would ask him to familiarize himself, if he is not, of the valuable service that Day Care has -

DR. WARREN: I have done that.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, I am delighted to hear that.

I would ask you, Sir, if this government cannot change their mind - and yesterday the Leader of the Opposition did not get too far with the Premier - I will ask you if you, as Chairman of that committee, will encourage your members on that side to reject the Department of Social Services budget outright, completely outright, reject it. Stand in your place one of these days in the House and in concurrence debate say: Mr. Speaker, I have to report to this House that the committee has rejected the Department of Social Service budget. Then we will see action on Day Break; but that decision will not be made by bureaucrats. That decision will have to be made by politicians. Then when it comes to this Legislature for a vote, we will all reject the Budget. We will all reject it unless Day Break is included.

So it is not for this Premier and this government to dictate to the people who are involved in Day Break or this Province what they will do or what they will not do. It will be the intestinal fortitude of every man and woman in this Legislature as to whether or not they support Day Break. The day will come when we will have to stand and be counted, whether we want to turn our backs, not just on the fifty people who attend Day Break - the fifty children - but the couple of hundred plus who are involved in the Day Break operation in this Province.

I would ask that everyone join with this committee that is actively involved in pursuing the rights for these people to be protected and to be continued, and to tell the Premier of this Province that we will have no part of your government putting thumbs down to such a valuable service in this Province.

I notice the Members for Port de Grave and Pleasantville attended the meeting the other night as well. I'm sure that they -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Okay. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I'm sure that these people as well -

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: - got a fair understanding as I did - well, I had some knowledge of it before because of my previous involvement - but there is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that all of us who attended that meeting the other night -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I told the hon. member his time was up. Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Just in conclusion, just thirty seconds, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure and I know that the Members for Pleasantville and Port de Grave, as well as my colleagues, got a real understanding of what was taking place the other night, as well. Thank you.

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

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too want to rise in support of this petition by some of the parents, supporters, directors and operators of the Day Break daycare centre.

I've been persuaded to support the effort to keep the centre open and restore financing because I think it's one of the best investments this government makes. I think we get a tremendous return on the money that's put into this operation, both in the jobs it creates - because it creates about twenty full-time jobs - but in the services that it provides to this society, and in the costs that it saves government in other ways. For many years to come the money we invest in Day Break will save this Province thousands and thousands of dollars.

It might look to some people who are making up a Budget like we're saving $500,000 by cutting this out at this time, but I think the Day Break supporters have put together a persuasive case that in actual dollars we're probably not saving any more than $150,000 or $170,000 at most. I doubt that it's that much,. For that amount of money we're getting twenty full-time jobs and we're getting all of the services that are provided for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, some of whom live in my district, some of whom benefit from the operations of the centre, and some of whom work there.

If those people can create jobs like that for that kind of price perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should come up to one of the meetings we had with them and maybe they'd have some ideas for that department and the Economic Recovery Commission in relation to job creation in this Province, because I think they get a tremendous return on the money that's spent there. So I hope the government will reconsider what it's doing in this regard and what it's going to do for the centre in Corner Brook.

I would also say, in view of some of the things we heard here today, when you hear about the waste and extravagant spending that's gone on in this Province over the years, by the people in the former administration who wasted so much money in this Province for the seventeen years in which they governed. They came into office when we had a debt of $1 billion -

MR. TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NOEL: - and now we have a debt in excess of $10 billion in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pleasantville has to address the prayer of the petition and he's not doing this. What he has to remember is that for seventeen years the Progressive Conservative government kept Day Break open, I'd say to the Member for Pleasantville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: That's the issue.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it ill behooves the hon. gentleman for Burin - Placentia West to make such a specious point of order. I've sat and watched and listened to him. He has -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order!

MR. ROBERTS: - distorted, I submit - I'm building up to a submission that there is no point of order. He has distorted the purpose of petitions to a new low, even for him. The hon. gentleman for Pleasantville was making a very effective speech in support of the prayer, the thrust, of this petition, as we would expect from the hon. gentleman for Pleasantville. The hon. gentleman for Burin - Placentia West has once again made a wrong submission on a point of order, as we would expect from the hon. gentleman for Burin -Placentia West.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind hon. members when they are speaking to a petition that they must keep their remarks to the prayer of the petition and to the material allegations within the petition. I ask the hon. member to carry on.

MR. NOEL: The reason, Mr. Speaker, there was some consideration given to cutting this program was because of the financial state of this Province. We have to talk about the financial state of this Province if we're going to talk about what needs to be done here. This Province is going to go down the drain if we don't wake up and change how this Province is operated, how we spend our money and how we raise our money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. NOEL: We can't afford to throw out programs like that, that are going to save us money for years and years to come, but we can afford to cut out the kind of money that members on the other side are going to collect in severance pay, the half-dozen of them who are going to be quitting this House of Assembly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. NOEL: - in a few weeks time, and going off with a pocketful of a couple of hundred thousand dollars and fancy pensions that cannot be justified in an economy like this. This is the kind of place where we have to look for saving money in this Province, Mr. Speaker, not on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Apart from the member not being honest with this House in the statements that he just made, he is supposed to speak to the prayer of the petition, and it is not enough for him to say, 'I support the petition.' and lack the courage or the guts to support the petition, and try to come up with other measley, weasely excuses - you support it or you don't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I advise the hon. member there is no point of order. There have been many rulings made in this House. An hon. member doesn't have to support a petition to speak to it. What an hon. member does is speak to a petition.

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. NOEL: I would like to say that I support the petition enthusiastically, and I hope government reconsiders the decision it has made in this regard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up. Time and time again now, the Chair says that time is up. When the time is up, the hon. member should either take his place or ask for leave of the House to make a few brief remarks.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we deal with Motions 2 and 3? One is a first reading and the second is the naming of the committees, of which I gave notice yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act," carried. (Bill No. 13).

On motion, Bill No. 13 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 3. Honourable members will see what the motion is without the Chair reading it. It is the setting up of the Estimates Committees.

On motion of the hon. the Minister of Justice, the setting up of the following Estimates Committees, carried:

The Government Services Committee comprised of the following members:

The hon. the Member for Pleasantville (Chairperson) (Mr. Noel)

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main (Vice-Chairperson) (Mr. Doyle)

The hon. the Member for Carbonear (Mr. Reid)

The hon. the Member for Fogo (Mr. Winsor)

The hon. the Member for Harbour Grace (Mr. Crane)

The hon. the Member for LaPoile (Mr. Ramsay)

The hon. the Member for Kilbride (Mr. Aylward)

The Social Services Committee comprised of the following members:

The hon. the Member for St. John's North (Chairperson) (Dr. Warren)

The hon. the Member for Humber East (Vice-Chairperson) (Ms. Verge)

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay (Mr. Small)

The hon. the Member for Eagle River (Mr. Dumaresque)

The hon. the Member for Ferryland (Mr. Sullivan)

The hon. the Member for Humber West (Mr. Dicks)

The hon. the Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris)

The Resource Committee comprised of the following members:

The hon. the Member for Trinity North (Chairperson) (Mr. Oldford)

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley (Mr. Woodford)

The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage (Mr. Langdon)

The hon. the Member for Green Bay (Mr. Hewlett)

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave (Mr. Efford)

The hon. the Member for St. John's South (Mr. Murphy)

The hon. the Member for Menihek (Mr. A. Snow)

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

MR. ROBERTS: We have fifteen minutes before the Late Show begins. I wonder if we could go into Committee on Interim Supply. There is a matter of which I would like to advise the Committee and then we have ten or fifteen minutes if somebody wants to speak on some Interim debate. If not, we would begin the Late Show early, if that is not an oxymoron.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

Bill No. 12. The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This bill, of course, is the Interim Supply Bill. What I would like to say to the Committee is this: The bill has been reprinted and the Pages, I assume, have a copy, or the Clerk has a copy, and will bring it around to members.

I would like to say a word or two to explain why the bill has been reprinted. The total has not changed, and accordingly, the resolution has not been reprinted. The resolution we will be debating has not been altered in any way. All that has been done is there has been a change in the distribution of roughly the billion dollars in the amount in the heads.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, if my hon. friend can control his enthusiasm, if that is what it is, for a moment or two, when the printed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I can really yell as loud as anybody in the House, but I would just as soon not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, it will come around now. The Clerk will bring one over to my friend.

When the printed estimates were prepared some time ago, the estimates in respect of the Chief Electoral Officer's office were included under the Legislature head. The heads are no longer numbered, for whatever reason, another change from the old days, but if one looks at page -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

If one looks at page forty-eight, Mr. Chairman, of the volume that was distributed on Budget Day, there is laid out the $3,260,000 that the government estimated it would cost to operate the Chief Electoral Officer's office this year. Now, that was done on the premise that the new act would be proclaimed. The new act - as the Premier and I have discussed with the Leader of the Opposition and with his House Leader and with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the gentleman from St. John's East, the new act cannot be proclaimed for a little while. I can go into that in detail if members want or if Your Honour wants but it will be a little while for reasons which we have explained and which I think all hands accept.

The result is, that money no longer can be voted or should be voted in the Legislature head, it moves back into Justice where it has been for some time. So the change in the Interim Supply Bill as it was originally printed, and the Interim Supply Bill as it is reprinted and identified as reprinted, is a redistribution of, I gather, approximately a million dollars from the Legislature back to the Justice Department. Now, there is nothing more mysterious in that, there is nothing untoward about it; there is an Order-In-Council to cover it with the authority of a piece of a legislation adopted twenty-five or thirty years ago. The Chief Electoral Officer continues to report to the House, through me, as he or she has for thirty or forty years, however long there has been that office. When the new act is proclaimed, which will be as soon as it can be done, then the money will be moved back through the normal process, so there is nothing more mysterious or untoward than that.

I can say to the Committee, that, we, in the Cabinet, have been operating with Mr. Mitchell, the Chief Electoral Officer, who holds office by virtue of an Order-In-Council and by virtue of a Resolution of this House. We have been operating with him on the explicit understanding on both sides that he will function as if the new act were in play. For example: The Cabinet appointed, on his recommendation, the returning officers. Each of the fifty-two returning officers, as far as I know, has been appointed. The recommendations, in each case, were those made by the Chief Electoral Officer. Where he was not convinced that the person who was on the list maintained over at the office was the best person, the Chief Electoral Officer spoke with individual members on whatever side. I don't know with whom he spoke. I know that he spoke with my friend from Kilbride and, in each case, the discussion carried on, I was not privy to it. I know that the result is the one the Chief Electoral Officer wanted. I assume that he took into account whatever representations were made to him by individual members. Any member who did not hear from the Chief Electoral Officer, it was because the CEO, Mr. Mitchell, was quite comfortable with the person who had been identified, and all fifty-two have been appointed. I assume it is in the Gazette, but I haven't checked. In fact, the returning officers, I believe, have been given two training sessions. There was a training session in the western part of the Island and Labrador and in Corner Brook a week or two ago, and I believe the one for the eastern part of the Island was held here in St. John's last week.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to delay the Committee. We have another eight or nine minutes we can take now, or we are on the Late Show -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, I will be happy to deal with that if you wish, Mr. Chairman. The situation is quite straightforward. The present voters list which was taken up in 1988, before the 1989 election, is valid under the Elections Act - the present legislation, not the new one. It is for five years - I believe it is good until November 1993. If one looks at any copy of the list, there is a certificate on it as to when it was adopted. So it is good for five years from then and, in fact, Cabinet, I believe, under the act have authority to extend its validity.

We have asked Mr. Mitchell to proceed at once with a new enumeration. Now, in fact, we asked him to do that some weeks ago but we gave him two things to do, number one, get the machinery ready in case there is an election, and number two, get the enumeration done, and he said, 'I can't do both at once,' so his instructions were, well, get the election machinery up and running first, and he has done that. I understand that if the Premier were to advise a dissolution today, the machinery is in a state of readiness and we will carry on.

The enumeration will go ahead at once. I am told it will take somewhere between four to eight weeks. Now, there is a difference to view as to how long it takes. I do not know when the election will come. The Premier can address that issue, it is not for me. Even if I had knowledge, it is not for me.

MR. TOBIN: I don't think he would tell us.

MR. ROBERTS: No. I say to my friend from Burin - Placentia West, he will hear in due course when the election has been called. I assure him, he will know about it. The Premier may not tell my friend from Burin - Placentia West before he tells the Province at large. I don't know how to break this to him gently so I will just be straight up, he may not even seek advice from my friend for Burin - Placentia West - but maybe he will, I don't know. In any event, Mr. Chairman, a new list will be taken and, certainly, I would hope that we can get the new list into play, because I went through a by-election eight or nine months ago - it seems like a lifetime - but in Naskaupi in June 1992 we had a 40 per cent swear-in rate. My friend from Ferryland, if recollection serves me correctly, was about 20 per cent on the Southern Shore. He went through a by-election, of course, at the same time. It was about 20 per cent, I say to my friend, as I remember the number from Ferryland district, about 40 per cent in Naskaupi where there is more mobility, people tend to come and go.

MR. TOBIN: I think it is on the upper side of fifty in St. John's.

MR. ROBERTS: It could be, and it would be infinitely preferable from a whole variety of points of view if we do have a new list. What I say to gentlemen opposite and to my friends on this side is that we have for some time been determined to get the new voters list in place, but Mr. Mitchell, who has proven to be an extraordinarily competent CEO, in my judgement - I am not surprised but I am happy to have the belief confirmed - Mr. Mitchell makes the point, in fact, I had a minute with him yesterday when he said, 'I can only do one thing at once.' Well, I think that is fair enough. What nobody realized was the fact that the electoral machinery was adequate for by-elections but it had not been maintained. I must be candid, it had not been well maintained in the period since 1989. And that was not the result of a government decision, it is simply that the system was not adequate to cope with the demands that would be made upon it by a general election. In any event, that is where we stand now. If there are other questions on that, I would be more than happy, Your Honour, to try to address them.

MR. TOBIN: So, there will be an enumeration?

MR. ROBERTS: There will be an enumeration. I don't know if the Order-in-Council has been officially signed, but the order has been made and will begin at once. The order to the CEO is please to do it just as quickly as possible, and there is money in the estimates to cover the enumeration. It is a fairly expensive process, from memory about $850,000 or $900,000, we estimate. That will also be the jury list. Formerly, we had two lists taken in this Province, a voters list and then a jury list, but they are now being combined. Hon. members will recall that when the Elections Act, 1991 was adopted a year ago, before I came into the House, there were amendments made to the Jury Act at the same time. So, that will go ahead at once.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What about those people who can't be on the jury list but will be on the voters list?

MR. ROBERTS: The basic list is voters list. The jury list, I think, is everybody who is eligible to vote and then there are people who exempt out. A lawyer can never be a juror and a member of the House cannot be a juror.

MR. R. AYLWARD: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Oh, yes, the voters list is the basic list,but the panels will be drawn, as I understand it, from the voters list. At any given time - I didn't do criminal law when I was practising downtown, but one would go over to the courthouse in the morning and see hundreds of people lined up, and when you asked a crier or bailiff what was going on, well, it was some criminal trial. At times they were at the Arts and Culture Centre, I think, with a thousand people out there, and all sorts of people, when their name was called, would stand up and say, 'I am a lawyer,' or whatever. There is a whole list of exemptions in the statute, from the obligation to serve on a jury.

The list will be the voters list but it will be used also as the basis for the jury list and that will require an amendment to the Jury Act. Now, I have probably gone a moment or two over my time but if there are other questions I would be happy to respond in the appropriate moment. But we will be doing an enumeration and it will get underway as quickly as possible. If an election comes before the enumeration is complete, then we will have no choice except to use the old list, but is legally valid, quite consistent with the practice which has been adopted over the years.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Justice about the voters list. Hasn't the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Mitchell, advised the minister that he and his officials -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I have questions for the Minister of Justice about the voters list. Is it not true that the Chief Electoral Officer has advised the minister that the Chief Electoral Officer can't prepare a new voters list before the end of May unless substantial additional funds are provided for the purpose? Therefore, is it not almost certain that we will be using the 1988 voters list for the spring election? I will go on to say that I don't see any great harm resulting from that when you consider that the cost of a new enumeration is in the order of $800,000, to quote the minister. When one looks at all the other competing needs in the Province, as one member of the House, I have no hesitation in saying that I would rather have the $800,000 spent for child care - to continue the Day Break Centre, to provide bridge funding for the Dunfield Park Centre in Corner Brook. I would rather have the money spent for single mothers on welfare, and their children.

So, is it not almost inevitable that we will be using the 1988 voters list for the spring election? Therefore, there is really no need to have a new enumeration this year and it would be better for us to reallocate that money to more pressing social needs including the needs of disadvantaged families.

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

MR. ROBERTS: By leave of the Committee, we may go a moment or two beyond 4:30, if that is agreeable to members? I will try to answer the hon. lady's questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have leave to go beyond 4:30 p.m.?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. ROBERTS: I am not going to get into a debate now, we could do it tomorrow or another day on whether the utility of a voters list is outweighed by Day Break or the institution in Corner Brook to which she referred. Let me just deal with the substance and not the politics of her questions.

First of all, she should not assume there will be a spring election. She made that assumption several times and in her leading questions. I should simply say, that one should not make that assumption. The Premier has the right to advise his Honour to dissolve, we are entitled to hold office until May of 1994, which is a year and two months or fourteen months from now, so one should not assume there will be a spring election, point one.

Secondly, I can only say to the hon. lady and to other members, Mr. Chairman, that, in our judgement, it is of crucial importance that we have the best possible voters list. It is the basic tool for carrying on an election.

Those of us who worked in the by- elections - I don't know if the hon. lady - I didn't see her in Naskaupi, unfortunately, or it may have increased by majority - or she may have been in Ferryland, I don't know. But those of us who were involved in the election on either side, I think, will agree that it is very, very difficult to carry on an election without as accurate as possible a voters list. I can only say that that is the impression that I have taken from our meetings with the Leader of the Opposition, with the Leader of the New Democratic Party and with others. The hon. lady may feel that she can carry on but my guess is that in her own constituency she will find 25-30 per cent or more of the names - she shakes her head. I don't know, but I just said that is my guess.

In any event, be that as it may, I can only say that in our judgement - my judgement and the judgement of many others involved in the operation of electrical machinery, I mean, the political guys - my friend from Burin - Placentia West, he and I for once are in agreement, we both should be worried about that, but we believe it is very important. After all, the election is the means by which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will determine who is to run the government for the next period of years.

Finally, to come back to where she began, with the questions about what Mr. Mitchell has advised me, I don't have all the memoranda here, there are a number of them. My understanding is that it will be possible to do a list within the Budget, within the time frame I have indicated but I would be quite happy to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I mentioned a period of four to eight weeks from today or tomorrow. I do not have the paper in front of me, I left it back in my office, but I would be quite happy either to meet her outside the Chamber or to ask her to call Mr. Mitchell, I mean, although, Mr. Mitchell in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: - governmental theory reports to me, but I mean in the real world, as I told the committee, I am operating on the assumption he is an officer of this House and any member should feel free to speak with Mr. Mitchell at any time on any matter and to carry on with it.

The closer we want to get to perfection, the more it is going to cost us and we can go on and if we had three or four or five months, we could get a much better voters list than we would be able to get in four to eight weeks, there is no question about that, but that is true of almost anything that one could suggest and we have not restricted Mr. Mitchell. What I have said to him on the authority of my colleagues in the Cabinet is, whatever you need to carry on with this voters list, you have it and we will come back and ask the House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: - we will carry on and ask the House to vote what is needed. I can only say the estimates I have seen or the order I have indicated to the House, the estimates have gone all over that, nobody really knows what it is going to cost to do it, what I have given the committee, what is in the estimates are the best advice we have taken, but the closer we want to get to perfection the more it will cost and that is true of a lot of things, so that is where we stand, Mr. Chairman, on it. Members, I think want to go on with their Late Show game.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report astonishing progress and ask leave to sit again.

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 Trinity - Bay de Verte.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply has considered the matters to it referred, have directed me to report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Now we are into the Late Show and the first matter is the matter by the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked three questions of the Minister of Social Services, but basically I asked one question with two supplementaries. But in any case, Mr. Speaker, it was dealing with the figures as it relates to the Department of Social Services, and I must say that the minister was very vague in his answers. I had difficulty recognizing what we were really talking about because as we know, Mr. Speaker, the figures in the Budget, as it relates to the social assistance department, indicates that last year's revised budget was about $15 million higher for social assistance than what was originally estimated in the Budget, so what I was trying to get from the minister in his answers that were extremely vague, is, how could he reduce the budget this year for the Department of Social Services, when in the Budget Speech by the Minister of Finance, as dismal as it was, and as unimpressive as it was and as boring as it was, and as hard to listen to as it was, the architect of despair I would call the minister.

The Department of Social Services now have their employment opportunities budget cut by some $5 million. The government's forecast will be 4,000 less jobs in Newfoundland next year, the Department of Social Services has cut their budget by some $5 million for the employment opportunities division, and in addition to that, they have now decided to reduce the social assistance budget by some $5 million. So I do not know how the minister could arrive at these figures.

Did he do the same thing with the figures for the social assistance budget as he did with the closing of the Day Break Centre in this Province - looked at a figure and wrote it in? Because as everyone in this Province knows, this budget does not mean anything. This will not be the budget for this Province this year.

The Minister of Justice can say all he likes about people being presumptuous in terms of looking at a spring election, but we all know that this budget was not written, drafted or presented by any minister realizing or believing that it was going to be the budget for 1993-'94, because this budget will not be voted on in this Legislature.

There will be an election, and I can say to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Social Services and others that there will be hope in the next budget presented in this Province. There will be opportunities for people to go to work, and if there is a reduction of $5 million, like the Minister of Social Services says, it is because the budget will not show 4,000 jobs less in this Province. It will show a budget that will create thousands of jobs in this Province, and then there will be no need to have the same budget for social assistance.

This minister is trying to hoodwink people. He is trying to blindfold the devil in the dark with that budget by bringing in -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, probably he did not try to blindfold you, but you are the closest thing to a devil I have ever seen.

Mr. Speaker, this budget, the social assistance budget, is not honest. It is not truthful. It is not being straightforward with the people. The minister cannot say on one hand there are going to be 4,000 less jobs in this Province; we are going to cut the employment opportunity budget by $5 million, and yes, we are going to reduce the social assistance budget by some $5 million.

In addition to that, what about the numbers of people today in this Province who are coming off the unemployment insurance rolls, with no chance in the world of getting a job in this Province because of the economic mess that this group over there has made. Where are they going to go, I say to the Minister of Social Services?

So I ask the minister: Will he be honest? Will he come clean? Will he stand in his place and tell the people of this Province that this is not a budget that is meant to go anywhere. It is something that was dreamed up by the Minister of Finance and a few other Cabinet ministers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, do not give him leave.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I just said jokingly to the hon. member that he was going to ask the question - he asked it three times yesterday, the same question, identical, three times. It is amazing.

MR. TOBIN: Two supplementaries.

MR. GULLAGE: Two supplementaries. It sounded the same to me.

His question yesterday was, why we could revise the budget downwards by some $5 million - and the same question today, the way I heard it - the identical question.

MR. TOBIN: I was not satisfied with the answer.

MR. GULLAGE: Well I am going to give a similar answer, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that we are able to reduce the amount that we are projecting in the estimates for the upcoming fiscal year because we feel that we will have less people if our caseloads - obviously we have to assume that the caseloads will stabilize; otherwise we will be in the predicament we were in throughout this fiscal year where we did expend more money, and of course the revised figures show that, more money than we budgeted. That could happen again. I cannot predict the future, but certainly based on where we are going to be at the end of this fiscal year we are able to project that next year we will have less need, if our caseloads stabilize and level off and we do not have the predicament that we had throughout this fiscal year.

We think, and I feel quite confident, that we will save considerable dollars on social assistance. We know from the phone calls we get from our recipients, from people who are on social assistance and from the public at large, that there is abuse of the system going on. I do not think anybody will deny that, and it is true in all parts of the Province without exception and nobody is happy with it. People have been asking me what we are going to do about it. Mr. Speaker, we made an attempt last year to start addressing the problem by way of having a person in the Corner Brook region, out of the Corner Brook regional office, focus on our problem in that area and the recovery was close to $1 million, some $800 odd thousand dollars. That was one individual, we are having similar results in the St. John's region already this year, since January.

So we added the group of people, the investigators who are allocated in the Budget, and we have asked them to focus on the cases that come to light, the cases that are obvious and that are pointed out by the social workers, by other staff and those that are identified by the public at large and by our recipients. There is plenty of work with those caseloads, with those cases that are identified. We are not asking them to focus on all our social services recipients simply those that appear to be abusing the system and that is what they will be doing.

Mr. Speaker, we have estimated that our savings will be considerable, in the millions of dollars. We have reflected, by way of a reduced amount in our Budget, what we hope to save with these people focusing on this very crucial problem. It is a problem, Mr. Speaker. I know, as I mentioned, by way of the phone calls that we get, people are asking us to do something about it. We are doing something about it, probably the first time it has ever been done where we have actually taken a group of people, investigators, and focused on the problem itself. Normally it is just done by way of our social workers, our financial officers and others throughout the regular course of their duties, if you like, uncovering situations that need to be investigated. I think this focus, Mr. Speaker, for the first time, particularly when you look at the magnitude, the size of our Budget, is going to be very important and will indeed show us the savings as we are reflecting them in our Budget figures for the upcoming year. A reduced amount in the estimates because we do expect to save this amount of money throughout the upcoming fiscal year.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture a question yesterday, I believe it was, anyway one day this week, about the assistance that he plans to give the hog industry, particularly the fourteen producers, because this Budget cut them completely out of business, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the minister, and I didn't get an answer, if he had done some studies before the decision was made to cut the hog industry. If the studies were done to see what the ripple effect of closing this industry is. I know this industry was having difficult times and I know there was a fairly large subsidy. But there was a reason to keep this industry in place, because of the ripple affect. Because I was told this when I was there.

When I was there the hog industry used to consume about 30 per cent of the feed that's consumed in this Province in our livestock industry. Twenty per cent of that is produced by the feed mill that we have in our Province. I know yesterday or the day before, the day after the Budget, I think, or the weekend after the Budget, the feed mill gave layoff notices to five people immediately. They know five people are going because of what the Budget did. They are also losing 20 per cent of their market.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's this?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The feed company, our Newfoundland local feed company.

MR. WINSOR: Five people laid off (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Five people gone already. They are losing 20 per cent of their feed -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: The hogs? The hogs are eating the feed that comes out of the feed mill. Same as all livestock.

The hog industry consumes 20 per cent of the feed that comes out of the feed industry. So that 20 per cent is gone. They have supplies in their barns for a while, because all of that feed is brought in by shipload and dispersed throughout.

Mr. Speaker, five people went out of the feed industry immediately. Because they don't need salesmen. There's no good going out to the hog farmer to try to sell him any more feed. He's going to take what he has to take to get rid of his pigs. So we have five gone there. We have a feed company that's in jeopardy. If the feed company does - I don't know this for a fact, and I won't be an alarmist - happen to go under because of this, anyone who loses 20 per cent of their business, it's a fair assumption that they're going to have a problem with it.

So if the feed company does go out of business then we become a captive market in our other two livestock industries. Our chicken industry and our dairy industry become captive markets for those who will be sending in feed from outside of the Province. They become captive markets for the trucking companies who will have to truck it in or the shipping companies who will have to ship it in to our Province. Therefore it will become a more expensive product jeopardizing the dairy and the chicken industry in this Province in the long-term. If that happens we have destroyed our agricultural industry.

Another question that I want the minister to address is why he closed the abattoir so quickly? Why was the abattoir closed the day of the Budget when we have thousands of pigs ready to be slaughtered in this Province? We are going to pay for them anyway. We are going to pay for the slaughter of those pigs in New Brunswick. We are going to ship them to New Brunswick. We are subsidizing the price of pork in New Brunswick over the next six months or so, whenever this phases out, whereas if we had kept the abattoir in place we could have had at least a few more jobs for a few more months in the abattoir to look after the pigs that are in place.

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is about $1.3 million worth of debt associated with the hog farmers in this Province. Some of those farms are mixed operations. Some of them have a chicken operation and a hog operation. Some are tied in with dairy operations and some with vegetable operations. If the hog part of their business goes then farm credit which has the biggest debt load is going to expect that the other part of their operation will take up the slack and try to pay off the debt that was associated with the hog industry and that in itself will put the rest of his business in jeopardy and put the farmer completely out of business. The hog farmers in this Province that I met with yesterday are not saying: keep us alive. They are being fairly practical people. They are saying, okay, it is gone so let us see the best way to get out of this for all concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: First, Mr. Speaker, I must comment on the timing of the question yesterday. You will remember that the hon. Minister of Finance announced in the Budget a week before yesterday that we were withdrawing government support for the hog farmers and I had expected a question every day from the hon. Opposition relative to the hog industry but no question came so I thought it was not important to them. Then yesterday the hon. member gets up and starts asking questions. He did not look at me, Mr. Speaker, the minister he was asking the question of, he kept looking into the gallery, and I looked up, Mr. Speaker, and here was the hog industry in the gallery. I wonder if a question would ever have come, was the hon. member concerned enough to have asked a question unless he wanted to grandstand in front of the hog industry? I just wanted to comment on the timing of the question. I want to correct him, Mr. Speaker, there are seventeen producers.

Did we do studies on the feed mills? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did studies on the feed mills, and we knew when the hog industry came out there would be reductions of about 30 per cent, as he says, and obviously that would have an effect on the feed operations; but it was practically impossible to determine to the extent of whether it would be four employees, three employees - but we knew it would have an adverse effect. I understand the feed company yesterday announced that they were laying off five employees.

It was always a possibility, Mr. Speaker. It is our hope that the chicken industry will, in the next year, year-and-a-half or two years, expand. We have an allocation of another four million kilograms of chicken and that may take care of it, although it will take awhile, that will certainly take up the slack - some of the slack.

Mr. Speaker, why the abattoir closed so quick. That was a decision; there were a lot of considerations. One was that the cost to continue the abattoir - remember, the production would start falling off - the processing would start falling off - and if we were to keep the abattoir open until September, by June there probably would have only been one-quarter of the hogs going in that would be needed to retain the thirty or whatever. So it would have driven the cost out of whack, so the decision was made to close the abattoir and provide the funds necessary to ship the hogs off to New Brunswick.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to his meeting the processors, I have met the processors. I was meeting with them off and on leading up to the decision. I met with them yesterday. I met with them today. The package we put in place - the proposal we put in place - was a proposal that would allow the hog industry to (inaudible) the business, to cover the cost of transportation, to cover what we would have paid them in price support until September, that kind of thing.

I always made it clear that I was prepared to meet with the hog industry. The immediate requirement was to make sure they were in a position to continue to grow out their hogs that were in the barns over a ten month period, and that money was put in place to guarantee that could happen.

Now I have met with the hog industry. I am continuing to meet with them, and I will list all the concerns they have and government will consider any requests or any considerations that they ask us to consider. We will deal with the hog industry and I will continue to take representation, and the government will deal, on a timely basis I might say, with any requests that the hog industry has to put before government through me.

Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere between the government and the industry is, under the circumstances, good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I'm dissatisfied - as a matter of fact, I'm quite disgusted - with the Premier's response to the questions I asked him today about his extravagant renovations and redecoration to his office suite on the eighth floor of this building and the Cabinet room on the eleventh floor. Since the Premier isn't in his seat to continue the debate I don't see much point in my proceeding on the Late Show. So I'll have to wait until another time when the Premier is in the House before resuming my questioning of the Premier.

The Premier's spending of $1.5 million of taxpayers' money in the middle of a recession, in the middle of what he himself calls the worst recession since the 1930s, is absolutely outrageous. On the one hand, the Premier is telling the public service to live with less. He's put many of them out of their jobs. He's rolled back negotiated wages and benefits for the ones still in their jobs, and now he's tampering with their pension plans. He's cutting vital social programs such as the daycare child parent resource centre in St. John's. A couple of years ago he took away social assistance from single mothers and their children who were getting court ordered child support.

On the other hand, the Premier is lavishing taxpayers' money on himself for his own personal convenience. The Premier didn't like the decor of his office that was completely redecorated and refurnished a couple of years before he moved in there. He complains that the light wasn't bright enough. Now he could have corrected any lighting problem by buying a lamp. At the most he could have put in new ceiling fixtures. If you stretch it maybe you could grant him a new ceiling, but not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of new decor.

I don't know what this government is doing with chairs. It would be interesting to know how many chairs are in storage. Why on earth this Premier would need to purchase from outside the Province more than fifty plush new chairs, not to mention chesterfields, sofas, love seats, and other furniture, just boggles the mind.

Mr. Speaker, most people in our Province today are hurting and for the Premier to take so much out of the public purse to suit his own extravagant taste, and there is no other excuse, no other reason, while he is denying needy citizens and taxpayers, is totally unacceptable. Since the Premier is not here there is really no point for me to proceed on the Late Show. As I say I will have to wait until the Premier is in his place, perhaps tomorrow morning, perhaps next week, but make no mistake we on this side who are representing the interests of our constituents are not going to let the Premier off the hook on this one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Premier's absence I will endeavour to respond to the comments of the Member for Humber East with respect to the renovations. Mr. Speaker, this is an old, old, story which is being dragged up to suit the political ends of the Opposition. The hon. member said, $1.5 million but what was tabled here in the House last fall, and the government is always upfront on these issue, was not $1.5 million. Including furnishings it was only $600,000 and as the Premier indicated the great waste and extravagance and abuse of the taxpayer's funds that occurred in 1985 when the eight floor was renovated at a cost of $653,000, 1985 dollars, not allowing for the cost increases in construction since then, $653,000 including $148,000 in furnishings, wasted because this building has to be renovated in a certain order. It is not just the wall finishes, it is not just the lighting. There are ducts, there are electrical systems, there are mechanical systems, there are ventilation systems, $653,000 of hard earned taxpayers money thrown in the trash can in 1985.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: And, Mr. Speaker, just to let the public know that they have not experienced the conversion on the Road to Damascus, that Saul has not become Paul.

Lets go back to 1988 which were tight fiscal times as well and we see that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is 5:00.

AN HON. MEMBER: Stop the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Stop the clock? No? The hon. member does not have leave.

It has been moved and seconded that this House -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: - this is Thursday.

MR. ROBERTS: It is Thursday but do we come back? I defer to Your Honour, if the motion is put we will defeat it then. We are going to finish the speech. So, Your Honour put the motion please.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved and seconded that this House do now adjourn.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: 'Aye'.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: 'Nay'.

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker -

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday and I submit to Your Honour that it is automatic that the House recess at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I will point out to the hon. member it is not automatic, the Chair puts the motion and if the motion is defeated, well then the House continues, and the Chair put the motion.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding of the rules that if the motion to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. is defeated then we come back at 8:00 p.m. We do not automatically continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Speaker has not left the Chair.

MR. WINDSOR: I beg your pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I do not know. It is automatic, the House does not just continue on. That is not the way that we operate in this House. The rules are pretty clear on that. I will find that -

MR. ROBERTS: Would the hon. gentleman care to cite the rules to which he is referring?

MR. WINDSOR: I will in due course.

MR. SPEAKER: We have had it both ways - we have agreed that we would, had the motion been defeated, hon. members have agreed that we will come back at 7:00 p.m. We have also carried, when the motion is defeated, to just carry on until the House comes to a close. If the hon. member would like for me to recess to check a little further, I would do it.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the House will recess briefly to check.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

I made a mistake, according to our standing orders when the motion is defeated the Speaker leaves the Chair until 7:00 p.m. If hon. members could agree to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation having a couple of minutes to finish his speech, we might be able to do it as we ordinarily do, if not we will do as was originally stated and I will leave the Chair until 7:00 p.m. If hon. members want that to happen.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: For those of us on this side all that we ask is that my friend for Bonavista South, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, be given the same five minutes he's entitled to under the rules. The only reason he didn't get them is the Committee sat a little beyond 4:30 p.m. by leave of all concerned. The Chairman of Committees was in the Chair.

The moment my hon. friend uses up his five minutes, there's a couple of minutes left, I am quite prepared to move the adjournment until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. I don't see any reason why, when the House by leave agreed to sit a moment or two beyond 4:30 p.m., before we began the Late Show, that we then end up with a minister not being given an equal right to reply to the hon. Member for Humber East.

I don't want to be back here this evening. I've made no plans to be here this evening. I'm quite prepared to move the House adjourn the moment my hon. friend finishes his speech. I think he has two or three minutes left.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The member will get a chance.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: I believe Your Honour will find by checking with the Clerk at the Table that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has already had the five minutes to which he's entitled.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West to make a point.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Government House Leader that we have no difficulty coming back here at 7:00 p.m. Leave was given to the Government House Leader who continued to talk after the 4:30 p.m. deadline.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it's 5:01 p.m., by the way.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I tell the hon. member if there's no leave, in deference to the respect for the House and decorum the Chair will leave and we will come back at 7:00 p.m.

The House reconvened at 7:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. Order 2(a), the Interim Supply bill, Sir.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I was concluding my remarks in the Late Show today I didn't get an opportunity to finish. Apparently, the Opposition didn't want to hear what I had to say with respect to the renovations they undertook and the furnishings they bought when they were in power. Lest the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are under any false apprehension that the Opposition, now that they are in opposition, have experienced a conversion, that they have -

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to take up the time of the hon. member, but I'm just wondering if there are going to be water glasses provided tonight, since we are going to be here until 10:00 p.m., I would assume.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To that point of order. I have been informed that the glasses are being washed right now in the dishwasher and there will be water a little later on.

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So when the electorate in this Province has its choice we certainly don't want them to labour under the impression that the real change has occurred on that side of the House. Because they were in power for seventeen years and they have to live up to their record of what they did when they were in power, the waste and extravagance that went on for seventeen years, which has built up a massive debt in this Province, and left a mess for this government to straighten out. I am sure the people of the Province realize that the current economic situation being experienced by governments in this nation of ours, be they NDP, Conservative or Liberal, is being experienced worldwide by governments of all political stripes.

We all know that when the Peckford government was in power, particularly in its last years of power, the economic situation was not the best. During that period of time, as it was reported by the Sunday Express, back in October 1987, there was $30,000 spent by the government in hiring interior designers, interior decorators, to re-design six ministerial offices. Now, I do not have those figures with me tonight, which ministerial offices they were, and which former ministers' offices were re-designed. But I am going to check into that and I will find out which six ministers had their offices re-designed back in 1987.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: For $30,000. That was just the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GOVER: No, interior decoration. I would be very surprised, Mr. Chairman, if those six former ministers are not sitting over there on the front benches today. I would be very surprised if, in fact, some of those former ministers are not the members who are screaming the loudest about these necessary renovations which are done to the Premier's floor. I think we are going to dig out which ministers they were and find out how much was spent on each of their offices. I think we should table this in the House so that the people of the Province will know exactly what the alternative is when the next election comes up.

There is no doubt that we have to have concern for the public servants of this Province. When renovations are going on under this administration, they are going on not only for ministerial offices but for the offices of the staff and the public servants who have to deliver the programs of this Province to the people of the Province, unlike the former administration when they redesigned the ministerial offices and forgot about the staff. They did nothing for the staff. They did nothing for the long-suffering public servants who served this Province so well. I think we are going to have to make those facts known, as well. And, of course, who can forget the renovations and construction carried out to create an office for the former Member for Torngat Mountains? Who can forget the bathroom, Mr. Chairman, and the expenditure, to create an office for the former Member for Torngat Mountains? I believe the figure was something like $125,000 for one office. Now, we are going to have to find out exactly what the expenditure was for the bathroom. I don't have it at my fingertips here tonight but we are going to find out.

The greatest waste in the Premier's office since there was a Premier's office, as I indicated earlier, was back in 1985 when $653,000 was wasted on renovations and furnishings for the Premier's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Approved by the Cabinet.

MR. GOVER: Approved by all members of the former Cabinet over there, there is no doubt about that.

Since I have been Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, if I learned one thing, I have learned that wall finishings, the painting and the carpeting are the least important part of the renovations because there is no point in doing that until you get behind the walls and correct the electrical system, the duct work and the ventilation system. There is no jumping ahead, putting wall paper on, laying down carpet, putting up ceiling tiles and bamboo rods unless you correct what is behind the wall. Back in 1985, the former administration, many of the members sitting on the front benches over there today, approved $653,000 to do just that, utter waste, utter extravagance of taxpayers' money down the drain.

Then, the Premier was so popular, the Province had to incur $100,000 over thirty months for a bodyguard. Now, I don't think the present Premier has a bodyguard, but the popular Premier of that former administration required a bodyguard worth $100,000 over thirty months, and when asked if he was prepared to get rid of the bodyguard, categorically said, no.

DR. KITCHEN: What about the cigarette lighter he had over there?

MR. GOVER: I am glad the Minister of Health asked me about cigarettes, because I have the Premier's expenses and the expenses for Premier Peckford from 1988 to 1989 on cigarettes and cigars for official entertainment, the figure for 1988-1989 for Premier Peckford, and the figure for Premier Wells for 1991-1992. Now, who is the winner? In 1988-1989, Premier Peckford spent $7,457.73 on cigarettes and cigars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out of the public purse.

MR. GOVER: Yes, out of the public purse.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much? Say that again.

MR. GOVER: On cigarettes and cigars, $7,457.73 - that was the former Premier. The Member for Burin - Placentia well knows because he might have lit them all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: The old trigger finger was worn out. In any event, that expenditure of $7,457.73 went down from 1988-1989. In 1991-1992 under Premier Wells, the expenditure for cigarettes and cigars was zero.

Now let us have a look at advertising and promotions for the Premier's office over the same period of time. Over the same period of time, advertising and promotions for Premier Peckford, $53,100.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. GOVER: Fifty-three thousand... I do not know what he was advertising, and I do not know what he was promoting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cucumbers.

MR. GOVER: Unless it had something to do with that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GOVER: I do not know if the $53,000 went on this. Anyway, that was the figure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, members of the House on both sides have seen, over the last year or two, that the current Government House Leader is quite inept and consistently shows bad judgement. It has been proven once again here this evening. The Government House Leader has all of us back here this evening for three hours to hear the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation go through that litany of alleged excesses of the past administration.

The members opposite - the members of the Wells' administration have formed the government of this Province for four years now, and what the voters are interested in is how they have managed the affairs of the Province. Most people realize that we have massive economic problems, many of which have been caused by external factors, some of which are attributable to the decline in the fish stocks.

Mr. Chairman, people understand that the government does not have the revenue that it used to have; that the government cannot maintain all services and programs, but people cannot accept or excuse the Premier spending $1.5 million to renovate and refurnish and redecorate offices - his own personal office suite and the Cabinet room - that, by the admission of the minister, were expensively renovated and refurnished just a few short years ago.

Only two or three years before the Premier moved into the eighth floor, as the minister said, that floor was gutted. It was rewired; new plumbing was put in; expensive, stylish new fixtures were installed; all new furniture was put in, and the minister is saying that work cost $653,000. Mr. Chairperson, that being the case, how can the members opposite explain to their constituents why their Premier - their real change Premier - is now spending $1.5 million refurbishing it again? He did not like the colour? Now what does the Premier himself say?

Excuse number one is that the light was not bright enough in his office. Now how would a prudent, responsible Premier deal with that problem? He could buy a lamp. Now he could go to Woolco and get a study lamp for $29.99 but perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I am sure, being a stylish person, might feel that a Woolco lamp would not be good enough for a Premier. Okay. Maybe we will grant that the Premier could get a designer lamp. Now, how much would a designer lamp cost, maybe - I do not know, $100, $200, that would have been one option, Chairperson. He complained about the wood fixture, the wood-slatted fixture on the ceiling, he did not like that, well, he could have had it taken out, he could have had higher wattage bulbs put in the ceiling fixtures, so there were choices available to the Premier. He chose however, to gut the works and to put in all new fixtures, all new wall covering, all new carpet, all new furniture.

Now excuse number 2, is that, the new stairwell going up through the central tower of Confederation Building, going through the eighth floor disrupted the space, but, Chairperson, when the renovations were done in 1985-86, provision was made for that stairwell. That stairwell takes up only a small corner of the eighth floor, the corner occupied during the time of the Peckford administration by the press secretary. The stairwell should have been installed with only minor alterations to the eighth floor as were planned when the work was done in 1985.

Chairperson, the people of the Province can see through the lame excuses of the Premier; people realize that there is no conceivable earthly reason why the Premier had to buy $120,000 worth of new furniture; people know that it is absolutely ridiculous for the Premier to go out and buy fifty-five plush new chairs, not to mention chesterfields, sofas and loveseats, people know that. Now, as for the Cabinet room on the eleventh floor, Chairperson, that is the space that was many years ago, a museum, a military museum.

Now, Chairperson, in 1986 that space was vacant, it was fitted up for the Cabinet room. Again it was completely redone with stylish fixtures installed. The minister talks about Interior Decorating Services. Yes, there were Interior Decorating Services retained to redecorate the Premier's office and the Cabinet Room in 1985 and 1986. That top floor was not done temporarily, it was done for the long-term and, Chairperson, it is absolutely obscene for this Premier, in the middle of this recession, when he has cut back negotiated wages and benefits of public servants, when he has laid off other public servants, when he has refused to give any increase to pensioners, when he has refused to give any increase to welfare recipients, when he has cut the Daybreak Child Parent Resource Centre and has the gall to lecture people about the limitations of the resources of the Province, it is absolutely obscene for a Premier making all those other people suffer, to spend one-and-a-half million dollars of taxpayers funds for his own personal convenience, because this is a Premier who has an elitist attitude, Chairperson, because this is a person who holds himself above the masses, above the voters and the citizens of the Province, he feels that it is quite -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair is asking the hon. members who are interjecting, to restrain themselves please.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. Because this is a premier who regards himself as more important and more worthy than the people, through their taxes, who are paying his salary. He seems to feel it's quite okay to spend a huge amount of public funds to redecorate and refurbish offices that were expensively refurbished just a couple of years before he moved into those offices.

This building opened in about 1960. Twenty-five years later the Peckford administration had the whole eighth floor, the premier's office suite, renovated. The minister says it costs $653,000. I'll accept his figures. I don't have any other figures here. But what is the excuse for this administration here and now, so soon after that, in the middle of such a terrible recession, spending $1.5 million to re-do it again?

Chairperson, this wasn't a matter of just a patch job on the carpet or a patch job on the walls because of the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the member's remarks with some interest. Twice during the course of her remarks she's mentioned a $1.5 million figure. The figure as tabled by the Premier back in November for the tendered work for the eleventh and eighth floor is not $1.5 million. It's $598,200, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

To the point of order. There's no point of order. The hon. member just has a difference of opinion with the hon. Member for Humber East. I remind the hon. member that her time has now elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened with interest as well. I must say I was prompted to rise in this debate, especially following the Member for Humber East. I would have to say: what gall for that hon. member to stand here today and go on with this kind of foolishness.

Let me submit to the people of this Province, through this hon. House, what that hon. member did while she was a minister of the Crown of this Province. Let me say to that hon. member: does she recollect signing the MCs to give Nulantic engineering consultants $24,000 to implement an in-plant quality program at Barry Fisheries Limited in 1986-1987? Does she remember doing that? Does she remember in 1987 giving another $20,000 contract to Nulantic Group for the development of productivity and quality management systems for Makkovik fish plant? Does she as a former member of the Crown remember to have the ink dried on the contract for the development of a fisheries quality manual for $30,000 for Nulantic Group? That's not the last one. In 1988 again, to implement in-plant quality program at four processing plants for $30,000.

Obviously the member has a very short memory. Because hon. members in this House must know that the principal of that group was none other than her spouse. How could you sit there in that Cabinet room and permit those contracts to be given for $95,000, and come back here today and say to the people of this Province as you are saying: I am holier than thou, I did absolutely pure and puritanical performance while I was a member of that Crown? That is wrong and it should be told. The people must know that this is what happened just a few short years ago.

That's not all. There was a new standard established during the Peckford era, a new established trend towards what we do when we go and occupy that office. Because they used the public purse as their own personal bank accounts, and it was wrong. I say to them, they should be ashamed to come back here today and go and try to fool the people and say: we want back the mantle of power to abuse it as it was never abused in the history of this Province, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: In March of 1989 former Premier Peckford, when they had the great yard sale, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure there was a special meeting of Cabinet called, because on January 21 of that year the premier said he was going to vacate his office. So they said: we're not going to allow that premier to go out there and be destitute. We're going to try and have to cushion the blow. We're going to have to try and see what we can do for him. From the public purse.

So there had to be a special Cabinet meeting called. Around that Cabinet meeting they had such ornaments as: the Gibbard mahogany dining room and bathroom sets; the Noritake china; silverware, crystal, two colour televisions, a stereo, deep-freeze, upright freezer, microwave, Electrolux vacuum cleaner, and numerous other pieces of furniture. All there. They said: we have to do something for this premier because he can't go out on the street after going there now and serving for the time that he did, and be able to go out with a $65,000 pension. He can't be going out there and be destitute on the streets of St. John's.

So they said: we will have to see what we can do. Let's look at the mahogany dining room set. Includes a table with one leaf, ten chairs, a server and china cabinet. Considered one of the best makes of furniture available in Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. DUMARESQUE: One of the best. It's a Gibbard mahogany, it's considered one of the best. Similar value, $15,000 for that one table. That's the value of that table. But I'm sure they said: we can't allow him to go and sit out in his house now and not have a good quality table at a reasonable price to the taxpayer of this Province. So they said: what shall it go for? I know one hon. member of the Cabinet said: let's let it go for $10,000. That would be a fair price to let that table go for. Well, as you know, one of the other members said, who was a little closer to the premier - maybe it was old 'flick-the-Bic' himself, I don't know who it was, he said: maybe $8,000. Let's let it go for $8,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, Mr. Chairman. Dead silence. Fifteen hundred dollars, take it or leave it, he said, let her go. Then of course it wasn't good enough to have just the dining room set. Let's look at the bedroom.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did he pay for it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Fifteen hundred dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did it cost?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Fifteen thousand dollars, Mr. Chairman. Then of course the Gibbard mahogany bedroom set with a king-size bed, bureau, high-boy, two end tables and a wine stand. In 1979 the government paid $4,675 for the set. A little while after they got around the Cabinet table, they said: what are we going to do with the wine stand? Can we allow the premier to go out now and not have a wine stand? No, one close to the premier - maybe deputy premier, I don't know - said: no, we can't allow him to go out without a wine stand. We have to help him.

They said: $4,675 we paid for it, let's let it go for $3,000. No, there was no scratching of heads. They said: we can't allow it to go for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, the final one -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, $500 gone. Five hundred dollars, they said, take the wine chair and the bedroom set. Let her go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: But you can't be in that big bed with a little bit of wine on the side there without watching a big t.v. set - a 20 inch Magnavox, remote control, originally $850.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) bucks.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Seven hundred bucks was obviously what most people would think to be a reasonable price - not a very used one either, because at that time, he didn't like the media, he didn't like CBC, and they were showing Sprung all the time. He didn't turn it on much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: So he had said, 'No, we are not watching any more t.v.' Even though it had little use, they said, 'No, not $500; not $200 -$140, take her. Let her go.'

Now, while he wasn't watching t.v. - he couldn't be watching t.v. all the time - he had to do a little bit of entertaining, so he said, 'Now we can't entertain without good dishes, so we will have twelve place settings of Noritake china.' It retails between $100 and $186 for each setting, and its value increases with age. So here we have twelve place settings -

AN HON. MEMBER: At how much each?

MR. DUMARESQUE: One hundred dollars to one hundred and eighty-six dollars, depending on the age, and it increases with age. 'You can't have Peckford out there destitute on the street. We know he has a t.v. that wasn't used very much, that he is looking at all the time, a fine bed and a good dining room set, but we can't have the china and not go on to that (inaudible),' so they said, 'Well, maybe $1,000 for the whole set wouldn't be too bad, I suppose - pretty reasonable. Uh - $125,' they said, 'Take her. Put the cash on the table. Let her go,' $125 for the whole thing.

Mr. Chairman, then, of course -

AN HON. MEMBER: No more. No more.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh yes. You don't remember the $25,000 in liquor that he had in the other cabinet up here. They said, 'Now, of course, when he leaves he has to have something out of which to drink that.' There were forty-two crystal glasses around the table at the time - like your brandy, champagne, all kinds of glasses - retailing for about $25 each, I suppose, in 1975, 1979, for a value of $1,050. So Peckford said, 'I don't have much - only ten dollars.' 'No problem, take them - $10 each,' they said. 'Take them away.'

Here we have a situation now - $8,055 paid for furniture and appliances -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. DUMARESQUE: - that obviously is a complete shame to the taxpayers of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would appreciate a bit of leave, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River, by leave.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would appreciate a bit of leave, Mr. Chairman, because, obviously, the people should know the destitute position of the Premier at the time he left office.

MR. MURPHY: Who did it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: You know, this is the mystery. Obviously, from the conversations we have heard in this House in the last couple of weeks and in the last couple of years, nobody here in this House, I am sure, was party to anything like this.

MR. MURPHY: Was the Member for Humber East there?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now that rings a bell. The Member for Humber East - I believe she might have been in that room at the time. I can't believe she was there when her husband got the contracts.

MR. MURPHY: She couldn't agree to that.

MR. DUMARESQUE: No. Now, the Member for Mount Pearl - I do not know if the Member for Mount Pearl was there or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) there?

MR. DUMARESQUE: No, I am sure he wasn't there.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the Member for Kilbride?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The Member for Kilbride, now 'old doorknobs' himself, yes, I am sure he was there. He had to be there, because it was a $25 million contract that came along from one Dawn Sprung. He had to be there to sign that contract, so I would say that he was definitely there the time they had the big auction.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was in Las Vegas then.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Maybe he was in Las Vegas somewhere.

MR. MURPHY: Why don't you table that so the media can have it?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, I think this is appropriate information to table, and I will have to do that, Mr. Chairman. We will have to table the full information on what the taxpayers had to give to that former Premier so he wouldn't be destitute, out there on the street not having anything to remember his past colleagues by.

This is something that has to be taken and put into context. What we are saying, obviously, to the people of this Province is that when you look at the expenses of government, when you try and say to us that we have obviously either missed an opportunity to make sure the people out there are well (inaudible) we have a responsibility to do that. We have to tell the people that this is the kind of abuse that took place while they were partners, while they were sitting by that table, and while they were happy to do what they could with the public purse.

The final details that we have already indicated to people for the Premier's expenses for 1991-1992 versus 1988-1989, I am sure that the people out there are very interested in knowing. You have to have a comparison. They are saying that our Premier has left the dining room closed, he has left the liquor cabinet empty, he is now doing his thing in his own house. Obviously, he must be incurring extra expenses in order to do that. He's saving the taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars. But surely there are incidental expenses that must add up.

So, in order to put it in perspective, I think it is important that Premier Peckford in 1988-1989 - going down through the list, the gasoline is at $4,816, vehicle repairs of $5,615, official entertainment at $10,971, on down through the dining room chef.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, yes, $28,878.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Peckford having a chef.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Oh, nil for the chef, here, obviously.

MR. MURPHY: How much did they spend?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight dollars, Mr. Chairman. 'Chef Boy-Ar-Dee' was alive and well in that dining room.

There had to be some electrical services and housing allowance, advertising and promotion. I know the cucumbers weren't making good inroads in the marketplace so they had to go into the heavy advertising blitz on the green and yellow - flowers, of course, to the bereaved Tories who were about to be cast outside of this House, $21,526.

Mr. Chairman, let's put this in perspective - 1988-1989: A total of $309,631.20 was spent on the premier's office in 198, without any allowance for inflation, without any allowance for the natural increase in prices, the natural increase in demand that you would have for your services, in 1991-1992, our Premier came in - you would expect around $200,000. Even if he pinched it you would think he would be in around $150,000. But I tell you, here we are: $94,015.48.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Ninety-four thousand and fifteen dollars. Less than $100,000 - one-third, compared to $309,000, Mr. Chairman. I table this, and without further ado, I move that the debate adjourn for this evening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

MR. WINDSOR: That's a debatable motion, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will recess for a few minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I refer hon. members to page 16 (45) of our Standing Orders: "A motion that the Chairman leave the Chair is always in order, shall take precedence of any other motion, and shall not be debatable. Such motion, if rejected, cannot be renewed unless some intermediate proceeding has taken place."

All those in favour of the motion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nay!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the 'ayes' have it.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

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

MR. ROBERTS: I move that the House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that the House do now adjourn.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Is this not a debatable motion, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. WINDSOR: Motion to adjourn - isn't it debatable?

MR. SPEAKER: No.

MR. WINDSOR: Not in Committee. A motion that the Committee rise is clearly not debatable, but a motion to adjourn is.

MR. SPEAKER: No. If the hon. member would permit, a motion to adjourn until a certain time specific is debatable, but a motion to adjourn is not debatable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House do now adjourn. All those in favour, please say 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay', carried.

This House stands adjourned -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Afraid to call the Budget! Afraid to call the Budget! Trying to shut the House down!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.