March 30, 1993              HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS              Vol. XLI  No. 16


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

After much study, research and consultation with other provincial jurisdictions, specifically with Ottawa and the United Kingdom, I am now ready to make a ruling on the point of privilege raised by the hon. the Member for Mount Pearl on March 25.

As hon. members know, and it has been said by every Speaker, I suppose, just about every time he or she makes a ruling with respect to a point of privilege, that the Chair doesn't rule on the point of privilege, whether it is a point of privilege, the Chair simply rules on whether there is a prima facie case, that is, whether the matter is important enough to put aside everything we are doing and to give it priority and discuss the point of privilege. It is the House that decides whether or not there is a point of privilege.

The question of privilege, in this case, relates to difficulties experienced by the Auditor General in obtaining information from Memorial University pursuant to Subsection 14(3) of the Auditor General's Act. I don't think I need to read that - all hon. members know what the Act says.

The Auditor General submitted to the House of Assembly, pursuant to Subsection 12(1) of the Act, a special report in which she informed the House that she had retained legal counsel in respect of the matter, that she had applied to the court for an order declaring that the Auditor General had authority under the Act and pursuant to a Minute-in-Council to inspect the accounts of the defendant university. The decision of Mr. Justice Noel, of March 11, 1993, confirmed the authority that the Auditor General claimed but held that the court was bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, in Auditor General of Canada versus Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources et al 1989, etc., which held that the only remedy available to the Auditor General in such a case is that provided in the statute, a report to the House.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl states in his submission that the failure of the University to comply with the Auditor General's request, is an obstruction of an officer of the House in the performance of her duties and that it is an infringement on the rights of the House and the members who are being impeded in their ability to examine fully the expenditure of public monies. The hon. member cites Erskine May's, 19th Edition, Page 136, which states: '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.'

The hon. member goes on to say, we have a clear breach of the law, of the Auditor General's Act, which is fundamental to the House being able to carry out one of its most basic functions.

Hon. members will be aware of the fact that while the privileges of the House are finite and enumerated, for example, freedom of speech, freedom from arrest and civil actions, exemption from jury duty, exemption from attendance as a witness, and freedom from molestation, these are the enumerated privileges and they are only to be dealt with by the House. They are necessary for the due execution of the powers of Parliament. Contempts cannot be enumerated. They are offenses against the authority or dignity of the House which are not breaches of the specific or enumerated privileges. In this case, the Chair has to determine if the actions, or failure to act, by the University, have obstructed an officer of the House in the performance of her duties, offended the dignity of the House or prevented members from carrying out their parliamentary duties. After much consideration and research, as I have indicated before, particularly with the United Kingdom, and more specifically with Sir Clifford Boulton, the Editor of Sir Erskine May, the Chair has concluded that a prima facie case has not been made. While the Auditor General is an officer of the House, the refusal of the University to comply with her request for information impedes the Auditor General in the performance of statutory, not parliamentary duties. The act does provide recourse, in such a case, to which the Auditor General has resorted in reporting to the House. It is the opinion of the Chair that an obstruction or impediment to the House, which would amount to a breach of privilege or a contempt, as contemplated by Erskine May on Page 136 of the 19th Edition, would have to relate more closely and more strictly to a parliamentary proceeding and the performance of parliamentary duties. The failure of a witness to appear when summoned by the House, or a committee, might fulfil the requirements, for example, or failure of a person to comply with the request of an officer of the House when ordered by the House to do so. In this case, the actions complained of are one or two steps removed from an affront to the dignity of the House, or members, in the performance of parliamentary duties, although they do represent an obstacle to the Auditor General in her performance of her audit duties. The House is now seized of the question as a result of the report of the Auditor General and may take action to resolve the difficulties which have arisen, however, it is the Chair's decision that it is more appropriately done through other means which are available to the House rather than through privilege.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: On a point of privilege, Your Honour.

I thank Your Honour for that ruling. Arising from a similar issue, the House will recall that in December of last year, I made a special report to the House of Assembly on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee which is a standing committee of the House of Assembly, and in that report I pointed out to the House that the University had similarly refused to appear before the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee, being a standing committee of this House, therefore the work of that House is no doubt parliamentary work, parliamentary business. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in refusing to appear before that committee, the University is in breach of privilege of members of this House, in refusing to comply with the requirements of the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, which clearly state that - and I will in a brief second find the actual Standing Order where it requires the Auditor General or the University or any agency to appear before the House of Assembly.

I will find my Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me - Standing Order 31, I think. There is a Standing Order, Mr. Speaker, but I do not have it with me at the moment -

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will look it up (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: - which requires any person to appear before the committee. Your Honour knows the reference, I referred to it in my submission in December - requires that officer or agency of government to appear before the Public Accounts Committee.

Your Honour, at that time I asked the House of Assembly to take action and to direct the university to comply with the demands of the Public Accounts Committee. The University has failed to do so, the House has yet failed to take action, the government and the Government House Leader and the Premier as the leader of the government, have failed to respond to the report to the House of Assembly of the Public Accounts Committee, so, Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is this: that in accordance with the legal opinion given by Justice Noel dealing with the University, which clearly established that the University must comply with the Auditor General's Act and the provisions of that act, clearly established that the University is an agency of government in that it does disperse government funds and is therefore responsible, as His Honour put it, to answer to the House of Assembly through the Auditor General, and I would remind Your Honour in that court order His Honour also pointed out that the Auditor General, in requesting information, was not requesting it on her own behalf but in order to fulfil her statutory obligations to the House of Assembly, and that was the basis for my previous point of privilege.

My point of privilege now, Your Honour, is that the public accounts committee, as Your Honour has ruled, since the Auditor General is a step - or removes the university a step away - the Public Accounts Committee is very directly an agency of the House of Assembly and therefore the failure to comply with the requirements of the Public Accounts Committee as required under the House of Assembly Act and under our Standing Orders is a breach of the privileges of this House of Assembly, and I would ask Your Honour to rule that I have established a prima facie case.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have two or three brief comments in response, all of which support my submission that the hon. gentleman has not made out a prima facie matter of privilege.

First of all I must, with respect, say to him that he has either misread the decision given by Mr. Justice Noel in the trial division in respect to the application brought by the Auditor General, or has misrepresented it inadvertently, and I make no aspersions at all, but Judge Noel did not say that the University is an agency of the government in the sense in which the hon. gentleman is using the term. He was using the term in the sense established in the Auditor General Act. What he did say was that the Auditor General was entitled to certain information, and that her remedy lay here in the House of Assembly. That is why he dismissed her application, which is what he did.

The reference to which the hon. gentleman is looking is not found in the Standing Orders. He need not search any further. He perhaps should have a look at the House of Assembly Act, which is our statute with which we govern ourselves. It says that - I am reading Subsection 11.(1) now: The House of Assembly may command and compel the attendance before the House or before a committee of a person, and the production of papers and things that the House of Assembly or committee members considers necessary for its proceedings or deliberations.

The House, to my knowledge, has not issued any commandment to the President of the University, or the Chair of the Regents, or any other person at all. That is why the Public Accounts Committee, in my experience, speaks of - it calls, but it does not command them. The House may command. The House has the power to subpoena, but that would require a decision to be taken by the House, but committees of the House send what are called 'calls'. While I am subject to correction, because I have not served on the public accounts since I chaired it in the early eighties, that, I understand, is still their procedure, and that is the reference that is found in the Public Accounts Act. I'm subject to correction, the hon. lady for Humber East may have some words she's given to my hon. friend to the contrary.

Let me come to the substantial point. The Auditor General has come to the House on two occasions and said that she has not been able to get information which in her opinion she needs to enable her to discharge the duties that this House has vested in her by the Auditor General's Act. She has not only every right to make that complaint, if she feels it's warranted, as she obviously does, she has the duty to do as she has done. Your Honour has made that report available to the House of Assembly.

That's no breach of privilege anywhere along the line there. If the House makes a command and 'tis not answered, then there is a breach of privilege. That's the famous Kielley and Carson case which went to the Privy Council about 1832 or 1833. Again, if memory serves me.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry? Yes, I may have represented them. In which case once again I'd be ahead of the gentleman for Burin - Placentia West who neither represents nor understands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, let me come back and make the submission. There is no point of order. The government has announced that we intend to bring before the House of Assembly legislation that will address this issue. The House can decide for itself whether it accepts the solution or some other. That Bill stands at the second reading stage on the Order Paper. The final draft of it was approved this morning. I understand it's at the printers. I don't know when it'll be back. It will be distributed as soon as it is back from the printers. It will be called then for debate in due course.

So my submission, Your Honour, is that the hon. gentleman has not made even a prima facie case of privilege. All that we have at this stage is a dispute between the Auditor General and the Memorial University of Newfoundland. Each of them believes strongly, and with a degree of reason, that she and it are in the right. It will fall to this House to make the decision as to what should be done. The government will take the lead as we should, lay a measure before the House, and then put the matter in the hands of the House which will take the decision.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Your Honour. Just a secondary submission on that. First of all, I remind my hon. friend opposite that I'm dealing with a breach of privilege relating to the Public Accounts Committee, not the University. The legislation to which he refers has no bearing on this particular point of privilege. I would also point out to him once again, as I did a couple of days ago, that regardless of what this government may be proposing to bring before the House of Assembly, it is not the prerogative of government to presuppose or prejudge what the decision of this House will be. Neither can they pass laws which make something that was illegal six months ago legal today. They cannot do that retroactively.

What we are talking about is the refusal of the University to respond in the first instance to the Auditor General and in the second instance to the Public Accounts Committee, a standing committee of the House of Assembly, the University has refused to comply. I refer my hon. friend to the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly, I thank him very much but the reference I am looking for is in our Standing Orders, Standing Order 84(e) and I quote; "The said Standing Committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, and, to report from time to time, and, except when the House otherwise orders to send for persons, papers and records, to print from day to day", and so forth. It is very clear, Standing Committees of the House of Assembly have the power and authority to send for persons to appear before them. We have been doing it on a regular basis, we have been issuing legal requests to appear before the committee and witnesses are regularly appearing before the committee. This is the first case that I know of, that any agency of the Crown has refused to appear before the Standing Committee of the House of Assembly, a parliamentary body engaged in parliamentary duties, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made my point for me but let me just draw the attention of the House, the Standing Order uses the words that I used, 'send for.' The Committees have the power to send for. The Statute says the House of Assembly may 'command and compel.' There is an obvious distinction between the two phrases, on the one hand, command and compel and on the other, send for. Only this House may command and compel and those words have been in the Act since at least 1949 when this Act was adopted and my - I have not done the research but I will wager, that it goes back to the original House of Assembly Act back in 1834 when this House first met after the 1833 general election.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the difference between, send for and command and compel, is like night and day. Send for, is what the committee has done and the University has not responded to that. They have been courteous, they have said they are not coming and they have not come, I acknowledge that. Only this House can command and compel, Mr. Speaker, and that is precisely why I made my submission that there is no prima facie breach of privilege in this matter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has heard sufficient on this, it is going to take it under advisement and study it, the same as I did with the previous one and report back to members as soon as I have done sufficient study.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this hon. House would want me today, to ask the House to extend the congratulations of this Assembly and indeed of all of the people of the Province, to Mrs. Catherine Callbeck who today or yesterday made history.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: She made history by being the first woman to be elected as premier of a province. Now Rita Johnson was the first woman who became premier of a province but of course she was not elected by the people of B.C., she succeeded former Premier Vanderzalm and ceased to be premier as soon as the election that followed was concluded, but Mrs. Callbeck has been elected by the people of P.E.I. and in fact she won an overwhelming victory. The opposition was reduced in fact to just the Leader of the Opposition, that perhaps is an unfortunate result, from two to one, yes -

MR. ROBERTS: Fifty per cent reduction.

PREMIER WELLS: - cut 50 per cent, I suppose, but let us not look at that. Her victory was overwhelming and it is a major achievement in Canadian history and I think the people of this Province would want its House of Assembly to send a formal resolution of congratulations to both the premier and the people of Prince Edward Island for their having made history in Canada yesterday and wish Premier Callbeck and the people of Prince Edward Island, the very best in the next four years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We, on this side, would like to associate with the Premier's remarks in sending congratulations to Premier Callbeck. We knew there was going to be the first woman premier elected in Canada yesterday and of course it turned out to be Premier Callbeck. Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Humber East points to my pin. I was going to say that some of us on this side, I do not know about all, are looking forward to the day when we will soon have the first woman prime minister in this country, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Elected, elected.

MR. MATTHEWS: Elected, yes, elected of course, the same phrase I say to the Government House Leader: elected woman prime minister, it will not be long now, but having said that, Mr. Speaker, it was an historic day for Prince Edward Island and for Canada, and we very much want to be associated with the congratulatory remarks as expressed by the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join with the Premier and the Opposition House Leader in supporting the proposal that we send a resolution of congratulations to Premier Callbeck. Of course, for purely partisan reasons I would have been happier to see a man as premier of Prince Edward Island today, and ironically Mr. Speaker, after the debate on women's issues, I think he was declared to be the only feminist in the running for the premiership of Prince Edward Island. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the Premier and other members of the House on both sides, wish to join in the congratulations to Premier Callbeck and to the people of Prince Edward Island, in having the first elected woman as a provincial premier and I wish her every success in her government.

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

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today the release of the Review of the St. John's Urban Region (Agriculture) Development Area Boundaries report -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: - as prepared by the Commissioner, Mr. Scott Simmons.

The Agriculture Development Area of the St. John's Urban Region (the agricultural zone as it is known) was established almost twenty years ago to protect the agricultural industry, and more specifically the agricultural land base, from urban expansion. Although these measures have provided stability to the agricultural industry, the implementation of the agricultural zone policy continued to cause many requests, many problems and appeals to come to my office for decisions. I, therefore, sought and obtained the approval of government to proceed with the review of the boundaries of the agriculture zone.

The Commissioner recommends forty-nine changes to the agriculture zone boundaries. Forty-two of the recommendations are for the removal of land from the agriculture zone, while the remaining seven recommendations are for the addition of land to the agriculture zone.

In addition to the forty-nine boundary change proposals, the Commissioner made forty-one recommendations on the general administration of the agriculture zone and on the regulations used to control development in the zone. Some of the Commissioner's recommendations include the preparation of a strategic plan to guide agricultural development and planning in the zone, the acquisition of additional statistical information to better measure the effectiveness of the zone, and the replacement of the existing development control authority with an appointed board consisting of public representation.

It is the Commission's opinion that if the agriculture zone is reduced to include only those lands of agricultural importance, then development control on the remaining agriculturally zoned land should be strictly enforced to ensure that farms and farmland are better protected than in the past. The Commission further reports the need to complement the zoning program with a standard business tax policy, construction of agricultural access roads, introduction of farm practice legislation and a larger commitment to the Province's land acquisition program.

Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks my staff has been reviewing the individual recommendations, and I will shortly be seeking government's approval to implement them wherever possible and on a timely basis. In particular, those recommendations with cost implications can only be considered as budgets permit.

I am sure that these recommendations deal with most of the concerns that landowners and others have expressed over the years. On the other hand, I am also aware that not everyone will be satisfied. However, the report will help to ensure that the scarce agricultural land on the Northeast Avalon will be protected in the long term, which is the clear position of this government.

Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Simmons and his staff. The allotted time was only four months, and the budget very limited, but the work was done on time and in an extremely efficient manner.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

First of all, I want to thank the minister for a copy of his report a few minutes before I came to the House, and I will respond to this because our critic, the Member for Green Bay, is not here today, and it has great effect on the district of Kilbride and the agricultural zone.

Mr. Speaker, I say, in starting, that I have not read the report fully. I have only been able to read the minister's statement, and I will be going through the report more in-depth tonight and tomorrow, but I say that this is the second nail in the coffin of the agricultural zone in the Northeast Avalon. I predict now, that within ten years, there will be no agricultural activity in the Northeast Avalon. Some people want that. Some people say that would be a good move. I happen to be one who believes that it will not be a good move.

We need to protect every inch of agricultural land in our Province. We can grow food on 2 per cent of our land. We can do anything else in the world that we want, with 98 per cent of our Province, and Mr. Speaker, we are giving away our agricultural land - not only in the Northeast Avalon, but everywhere else in the Province.

If you read the section of the task force on agriculture which relates to the protection of agricultural land, again we have another recommendation by this government which runs completely opposite to what the agricultural task force recommended.

We have seen two now in the last two weeks, one in the hog industry and one in the agricultural zone, and it is unfortunate that this government is looking to get control, some time in the future, over the fishery. Mr. Speaker, they have complete control of agriculture in this Province and they are driving it into the ground - I speak metaphorically. They are going to decimate the agricultural activity in the Northeast Avalon, for sure, and the Province, generally, if they stay there long enough.

Mr. Speaker, this report, with its recommendations, is not based on the proper use of land, it is a reaction to those who yelled the loudest, who were listened to and satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, I just browsed through a couple of the maps there and I know of two active farms that have been removed from the zone in this report.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Does the hon. the Member for St. John's East, commenting on the Ministerial Statement, have leave of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish briefly to address the Ministerial Statement. I have not seen a copy of the report, but this is obviously a vital document because it is a most controversial area having to do with individual private rights. First is the public need to preserve and continue working, as the minister said, the small amount of agricultural land that we have throughout this Province, and certainly, on the Avalon Peninsula.

I hope that the report deals fairly with the issues and is not, as the Member for Kilbride has said, the result of squeaky wheels getting attention.

I look forward to reading the report, and I hope the report reveals the direction that provides some commitment to agricultural land continuing in this Province, and a greater commitment to agriculture than we have seen from recent statements of the minister and recent actions of his government, particularly with respect to the hog industry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier. I noticed in the Weekend edition of The Telegram that Trinity Brick Products Limited, a company controlled by Mr. Tom Hickman, is up for sale. I ask the Premier: Is there any Provincial Government involvement in Trinity Brick, and, if so, what is the amount and nature of the government's involvement? Can he answer that for us?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I will take the question under advisement to determine whether or not there is, unless the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology may know. I don't know of any.

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

MR. FUREY: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, two - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) order.

MR. FUREY: Am I in order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what transpired.

MR. FUREY: The Premier asked that I respond to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the minister to take his place, please.

We have run into dispute before on the transferring of questions, but, quite obviously, if the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has the information, and if the House wants it, they will allow him to answer. I didn't hear any objection from anybody but if there is an objection, well, then, we will allow the question to be submitted.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe there was a loan made to that company by Enterprise Newfoundland, two or two-and-a-half years ago. I would have to check the facts and bring the details back to the House within the next twenty-four hours.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for the answer. I wonder, would the minister, while he is checking out the answer, if he does not know, check to see if government is involved in negotiations for the sale now of Trinity Brick and is the sale in any way conditional on government financial assistance, either directly or through Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador? If the minister doesn't have the answer, I can understand, but would he at least check that?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to check that and bring it back along with the answer to the first question.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, I think it was in 1991, around the month of June, that Trinity Brick, Mr. Hickman's company received a $500,000 loan from Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think, shortly after that loan was arranged, Trinity Brick closed down. I would like to ask the minister does he know what became of that loan? Was it repaid, is it still outstanding, or has it been written off?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get that answer, as well. I don't have the details on every company. We deal with hundreds and hundreds of companies every month in this Province. That is just one of the hundreds we deal with. I will be happy to find the answer for that - the status of the loan, where the loan is, what the current negotiations are, and table that, as well.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering would the minister, while he is at it - I guess he doesn't know the answer to this either - check and confirm, because I have information that tells me Enterprise Newfoundland turned down Mr. Hickman's Trinity Brick's loan application on at least two occasions. Will he find out why the loan was eventually granted, given the fact that on two occasions that loan was rejected?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that the hon. member's information is correct. I have no knowledge of every single application. The hon. member says it was turned down twice but I will have to check those facts for him. I do know that I met with the union of this particular brick company and with the member for the area and there was strong pressure for government to intervene to protect these twenty-five jobs, and I know that we did everything possible to keep these jobs in place. One of the major problems this company had, as I recall, was there was a high inventory and they couldn't deplete this inventory and therefore fire up this company and get production underway again. I will check, get all the answers, and provide a comprehensive answer to the House within twenty-four hours.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was for the Minister of Environment and Lands but, in her absence, I will direct it to the minister responsible, or the Premier. Is the government aware of any group, agency, or department planning on establishing storage or destruction sites for PCB's in the Province?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's absence, I will have to take the question as notice. I can say that no such application has come to my notice or, I understand, that of the Premier, just from recollection, but let the full answer be that we shall get an answer and provide it to the House as the earliest moment, tomorrow, if at all possible.

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

MR. HEARN: Let me tell the minister that apparently an agency has indicated they will establish sites, or they have selected nine potential sites, and I ask him if he has any indication that an interest has been expressed in selecting such sites in the Harricott or Trepassey areas of the Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know what the hon. member is talking about. The Province is not doing it and, as far as I know, nobody has applied to the Provincial Government for authority. The Federal Government has been looking at a site somewhere in Atlantic Canada to be a site to establish a PCB destruction facility similar to that which was established in Goose Bay. I heard a discussion of the pros and cons of it, I believe, a month ago on CBC radio and I think they had reduced some 200 possible sites down to nine. I don't know whether it was nine in Atlantic Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-one in Atlantic Canada.

PREMIER WELLS: Twenty-one in Atlantic Canada, nine of which were in Newfoundland. The commentator at the time - a CBC reporter, John Soper, I believe - I recall noting that the bulk of the PCBs to be destroyed in Atlantic Canada are in New Brunswick and it was most probable that the site would be established by the Federal Government in New Brunswick where the bulk of the PCBs were, because this would result in the lowest amount of transportation involved. There were, however, nine sites in Newfoundland that were, at this stage, still being looked at, being considered by the federal authorities.

Now, if the federal authorities eliminate all nine, there is no question for us to ever consider. If they get down to one or two left in Newfoundland and say: We are considering putting a PCB site in Newfoundland, then the Government of the Province presumably would receive a request from the Federal Government and we would have to establish our position at that time. That is the only knowledge I have about it and, admittedly, that came from CBC Radio.

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

MR. HEARN: I thank the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I just ask him: in the event - the federal Public Works Department, I believe, is the proponent in this case - in the event they do select a site in Newfoundland, and, out of the nine, two are in my district, which sort of gives me a one out of four-and-a-half chance of having it designated, I ask the Premier will he make sure that proper environmental assessment procedures take place and that provision will be made for public input?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can assure all hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that before any action is taken on any such matter there will, of course, be a thorough environmental impact assessment.

This is a kind of situation where you really only need one in Atlantic Canada, apparently; this is the opinion of the Federal Government and they are prepared to see it established somewhere in the Atlantic Provinces. Now, if every province says: 'No, not in my backyard, destroy my province's PCBs in some other province,' we are going to be in a mess. The result is, we are all going to have to have our own. We have a fair quantity of PCBs in Newfoundland that need destruction, so we would like to see them destroyed, and would like to see a facility somewhere in Atlantic Canada to achieve this, but I can assure the House that there will be no establishment of a PCB destruction facility without a most thorough environmental impact assessment.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister must know by now that the people of the Province have said loud and clear that they don't believe the minister's Budget, they just don't trust his Budget. Will the minister not confirm that this wide-spread mistrust of his Budget and of this government as a result of their performance in the last four or five years, particularly as a result of the minister's performance in predicting revenue and expenditures, which has been a dismal failure - would the minister like to confirm that this is the real reason that the public sector unions have now also rejected the minister's proposals? - they don't believe them either.

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

MR. BAKER: The answer to his many questions, Mr. Speaker: no, no, no, no and no.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, essentially, the minister after only a year or so is learning from his colleague, the former minister, whose answers were always: yes, no, yes, no. On a rare occasion, we might have gotten a 'maybe' out of him. Now, the minister is finally catching the 'yes-no' disease.

This is a very serious problem. I say to the minister that he has lost the confidence of the people of this Province in his ability to manage the finances of the Province. How does the minister propose to deal with that? What is the minister proposing to do to restore confidence, particularly in the public sector unions? How does he propose to reach agreements with them if he can't restore confidence in his financial projections?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting question, and one that obviously has no answer. The sky is falling in, therefore what are you going to do about it? The answer: The sky is not falling in. The people in this Province have great confidence in our ability to manage the financial affairs of this Province, unlike the situation when the previous government was in office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is right, the sky is falling, but it is falling on this government. This Province is about to elect the first representative from Grand Falls as the Premier of this Province. The sky is falling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: If we could ever stir the Premier, if we could ever get the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINDSOR: You are not running in Grand Falls because the people of Grand Falls would not even nominate you, I say to the Premier. He barely got his nomination in the Bay of Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: I am totally out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I am having fun.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not mind a bit of levity but, as hon. members know, we are not supposed to have debate in Question Period and I would suggest that what we are talking about are surely debatable items.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will not debate. I will give facts. The Premier is not running in Humber East either this election.

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister think that public sector unions are supposed to accept the fact that he has such a financial problem and that he is going to deal with it? How does he expect them to believe that he is going to find $70 million or $80 million in increased revenues when the minister's own economic forecast is predicting some 4,000 fewer jobs in this Province this year, and all of the economic spinoff that entails? How does the minister expect anybody to believe his projections?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the projections are based on the fact that this year we have increased taxes. If the hon. member is not aware of that, I would like to repeat again, this year we have increased taxes which will result in an increase in revenue, so it is not very difficult to understand. That is where the increase in revenue comes from. It is a very small increase in revenue in terms of the Province's own efforts.

I would also like to point out that the revenues from the federal government will actually drop in dollar value from this past year to next year, so that is part of a problem that we have.

As to where the $70 million is coming from, it is coming from the total compensation package that we pay out. We pay $1.6 billion in total compensation in this Province, and from that $70 million has been removed, and we are in the process now of determining the mechanisms to remove that.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be done and the universe will unfold as it should.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister indeed has increased taxes, but you can increase taxes all you want. If there are less people working, they are going to pay less income tax. If there is less disposable income, they are going to pay less retail sales tax and other taxes, so I think the minister's projections are clearly out of whack.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, how does the minister, based on his own figures - his own estimate that there will be 4,000 less people working in this Province this year - how does he predict that he is going to save some $10 million on social assistance, when we have one Supplementary Supply Bill on the Order Paper asking for some $20 million, and one just circulated a few moments ago - a big change in two weeks - that he is now re-estimating another $2.5 million in social assistance. It is growing and growing for 1992. He tells us he is going to have 4,000 more people unemployed in 1993, but he is going to spend $10 million less on social assistance. What kind of a fairy tale is that, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the record will show, and if the hon. gentleman would care to talk to the financial houses in North America he will realize that they have extreme confidence in this Province's ability to predict and control its expenditures.

We have been very accurate in that regard in our four years, unlike what happened previously when the previous government did not really care about the expenditures once the Budget was in, and just let things simply balloon. As they got more money from Ottawa - Uncle Ottawa was sending them down every few months an extra $20 million or $30 million or $50 million, and they were going merrily on their way, spending all of this extra money, not controlling expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, we have a tremendous record in Canada and in North America in terms of being able to predict and control expenditures. The hon. gentleman should check his facts.

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

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

I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister is no doubt aware that there is a very serious concern being expressed on the Burin Peninsula, particularly by the medical profession, as it relates to the government's acceptance of the Dobbin Report and the potential for downgrading the medical service on the Peninsula.

Mr. Speaker, as the minister is aware, the doctors, the joint town and community councils, several councils on the Peninsula, have expressed a concern that there may be a downgrading in services as a result of the restructuring of the boards. Will the minister tell me today if there will or will not be any downgrading of any medical services at the Burin Peninsula Health Care Centre as a result of the Dobbin Report?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, there will be no downgrading of medical services anywhere as a result of the Dobbin Report. What the Dobbin Report does is make recommendations to government as to the boundaries of a number of regions that we are going to establish to administer health care in the Province, that we are contemplating rather than that we are going to, because the procedure is this: We are taking each of the regions, step by step, and conducting consultations with the hospital boards and the nursing home boards and whoever is involved there, including the medical people and so on, and then we will decide just how we are going to put it. What we are really putting in place are boards -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member stop yattering there until I complete my train of thought?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

DR. KITCHEN: What we are going to be doing is - and we have not come to the discussions that we will be holding in the Burin Peninsula area yet - in due time we will be holding extensive consultations with everybody involved and then we will decide what we are going to do, but in any event, it will have no impact on the pattern of health care in that area.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that a lot of the doctors do not share his view on this and they are especially concerned about the movement that will take place in terms of surgery which may be transferred as well as obstetrics, Mr. Speaker.

So the minister says he is going to have meetings with these people; can he assure me that not only will the health care services that are now in place be left there, but will he assure me, Mr. Speaker, that the clinics at Petit Forte and the other communities in the rural parts of the Burin Peninsula, will continue to operate as they are presently operating under the present board structure?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member persists in misreading what the Dobbin Report is about. The Dobbin Report has to do with the establishment of boards to provide regional services. Up until now, we are dealing with something like fifty boards, nursing homes and hospital boards and most people are thinking in terms of the institution they are operating in rather than in terms of the region, and as a result there is competition when there should not be competition and there is duplication of various services, not only medical services but other services as well, and what we are trying to do under this arrangement, is to set up a structure by which we can get the very best value for the dollar so that we can deliver better health care, not worse.

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

MR. TOBIN: This government certainly has no record to boast of in delivering a better health care and not worse I say to the minister. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: What does he say to the doctors who were on radio this morning expressing their concern about having people go to Clarenville to have babies in the future? Will the minister do what is right, once in his life, will he do what is right and do what is honourable and that is, say to the people of the Burin Peninsula, that the hospital board that you now have in place will -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if there is someone the Minister of Health should not take advice from it is the Minister of Justice, who, when he was Minister of Health before told the people of the Burin Peninsula that the best he could get them was an ambulance service to Clarenville.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to proceed with his question.

MR. TOBIN: Let me ask the Minister of Health, will he do what is honourable, not what the former Minister of Health did in the Smallwood administration, will he do what is right and what is proper, say to the people of the Burin Peninsula the board you have is working well and that we as a government will ensure that the board which is there will remain there and the health care facilities at Grand Bank, St. Lawrence and Burin will continue to operate under that board?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I will ask the hon. member to do is first of all read the report. Mr. Speaker, it should not be hard, it is only twelve pages.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, a final supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is no joke, I say to the Minister of Health and I have read the report, and I will ask the minister, I will repeat again: will the minister tell the people of the Burin Peninsula that the health care board structure that they now have will remain? That is the question, answer it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this government does not take a back seat to anyone in what we have done and are doing on the Burin Peninsula. I would like to tell the member that very shortly we will be opening a brand new health care facility in the Town of St.Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. KITCHEN: A tremendous institution which indicates that this government is committed to health care in this Province, including the Burin Peninsula!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, and there'll be a fairly lengthy preamble.

In February 1991 the task force on Agri-Foods, which was appointed by the Wells administration, recommended that the government close the Central Swine Breeding Station outside St. John's and terminate price subsidies for the hog industry. Now, two years later, the government is implementing those recommendations.

But that task force also recommended specifically that the government retain and continue to operate the Western Swine Breeding Station at Pynn's Brook in the Humber Valley. The report cites the Western Stations' success in artificial insemination and research. Perversely the government moved the Western Swine Breeding Station to the St. John's facility a couple of months after getting the report by trucking the animals and equipment from there to St. John's.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is: will the government now act on the recommendation of the task force report about the Western Swine Breeding Station and reinstate the research facility at Pynn's Brook?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible). You should worry about your nomination!

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

The question and answer is being shared between the Member for Humber East and the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I hear other responses going on, so much so that I can't listen to the main participants.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, what the House of Assembly and the people of Corner Brook in particular should find interesting is that the Western Swine Breeding Station was closed, as the hon. member said, in 1991. This is the spring of 1993, and that's the first time the hon. member brought up this issue in the House of Assembly. That comes to me as a major surprise.

The Hulan task force on agriculture is a Royal Commission report to this government the same as any other Royal Commission report to any government. We're implementing what we think is appropriate. I made it very clear when I first received the report that the recommendations that carried high price tags, such as the building of a new abattoir - I think it's recommended for somewhere on the east coast - would have to be put on hold until we were in a position to do it. So we're implementing the recommendations of the agricultural task force on a timely basis and in a way we think makes most sense for this Province, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. TOBIN: Why are you attacking (Inaudible)?

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is waiting to recognize the hon. member but there are other questions being asked. Of course, they've not been recognized. The Chair is going to recognize the hon. member momentarily.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Supplementary to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. If he checks Hansard he will see that I've asked questions and presented petitions calling for the reinstatement of the Western Swine Breeding Station. I refer him to Hansard for the fall of 1991.

I repeat my question. Will the government implement the recommendation of the Agri-Foods task force report specifically calling on the government to retain and continue to operate the Western Swine Breeding Station at Pynn's Brook? Will the government now reinstate that excellent research facility at Pynn's Brook?

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

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, the government won't be considering reimplementing the, or.... The service provided by the Western Swine Breeding Station is now being adequately provided by the Central Swine Breeding Station, which as she is aware is about to close, and I think will be closed by June 30.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. Given the status of the Island of Newfoundland as having no swine disease and being one of the few places in the whole world with a swine disease free environment, given the fact that your own Task Force on Agri-Foods praised the success of the Western Swine Breeding Station at Pynn's Brook, the artificial insemination and research done there for many years from the mid-70's until the summer of 1971, given the fact that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member knows very well that questions are not supposed to be prefaced with long preambles and the hon. member has been given some flexibility. I ask the hon. member please, to get to the question and observe the rules of the House.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: will the government as recommended by the Task Force Report on Agri-Foods, continue to operate swine breeding and research and will the government reinstate the research station at Pynn's Brook in the Humber Valley?

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

MR. FLIGHT: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. Mr. Speaker, the government has just announced publicly and in the House of Assembly, that we are intending to close the Swine Breeding Station in Portugal Cove within the next six or seven months or however long it takes to wind it down on an orderly basis. So, Mr. Speaker, it obviously would not make sense even to the member, even to that member, Mr. Speaker, to consider re-opening the Swine Breeding Station on the West Coast.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture: why did the Task Force on Agri-Foods call for the government to close the Central Swine Breeding Station outside St. John's but to retain and continue to operate the efficient and successful research station at Pynn's Brook? Given the rationale stated in the report, will he not reconsider and continue a small efficient successful swine breeding operation in the Province and locate it where the Western Swine Breeding Station operated so well for so many years, in Pynn's Brook?

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

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, in view of the decisions made and publicly announced with regard to the governments involvement in the hog industry in Newfoundland, the government has indicated publicly in the Budget, I have said publicly here in the House of Assembly and everywhere, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Newfoundland is withdrawing its support to the hog industry and as such, we will not be undertaking any obligations to the hog industry in as far as providing breeder stock, experimental or research.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo. Time for a short question.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs: Newfoundland and Labrador Housing comes under his agency, his department, Mr. Speaker, the Budget indicates that $1.7 million has been taken from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing for staffing and operating costs. How many full or part-time jobs will be eliminate and where will these cuts come from within the system? Where are they going to be doing the lay-offs, Mr. Speaker?

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

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. Member for Fogo came to that conclusion because I have not necessarily arrived at that conclusion yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: Under Section 13 of the Internal Economy Commission Act, I table the Report of the Commission of the Internal Economy for 1992.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that it is required, but out of an excess of caution, let me give notice that I shall on tomorrow move that the hon. gentleman from Burin - Placentia West be appointed a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I think it can be done by notice but I can't find the Standing Order offhand. So, just to make sure that we do accommodate the Opposition on it, to bring the Committee up-to-date, let me give the notice.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I believe that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair should have done this under Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, but if the House will permit, I will submit it now. It is under the authority of Section 3 of the Electoral Boundaries Act. I take pleasure in announcing the Chair's appointees to the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission. The members of the Commission are, Mr. John Nolan of Topsail Pond, Ms. Dorothy Inglis of St. John's, and Mr. Ray Baird of Corner Brook.

Further, in accordance with the provisions of the act, the Chief Justice of Newfoundland has appointed Mr. Justice Mahoney, of the Court of Appeal, as the Chairperson of this Commission. The Chair would like to say that there is supposed to be an appointee for Labrador but, of course, since the legislation is before the House, the Chair will wait until the House approves the legislation.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,057 residents of the Province who direct their petition 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, the Daybreak Parent Child Centre located on 3 Barnes Road in the city of St. John's. It is critical that their service be one of the options available for families who need child development and parenting support and other specialized service.' What is unique about this petition is it is a petition from residents from all over the Province including Labrador City, Corner Brook, St. Anthony, Baie Verte, Mount Pearl, St. John's, Grand Falls, Windsor and other areas throughout the Province.

The comments of the Premier and others on the government side of the House with respect to the fact that this is a service only available in St. John's and therefore ought to be closed, or something to the effect that if we couldn't have one everywhere we ought not to support it in St. John's - the residents of the Province who signed this petition don't feel that way. They believe this is an important service being provided to children and they, no doubt, will agree with the statement made by Joe Whittaker, a junior high school teacher, who says that our teachers, guidance councillors, educational therapists and administrative staff spend endless frustrating hours trying to solve problems which could have been dealt with much less expensively and more effectively early in the child's life by a group like the Daybreak Parent Child Centre. Mr. Speaker, it is acknowledged by professionals in the educational field, the importance of this early childhood program at Daybreak, and I say, it is recognized by the community outside of the educational field, Mr. Speaker. Catherine Gregory, the President of the Basilica Catholic Women's League says they believe that Daybreak is a crucial element in attempting to ensure that families become stronger and eventually more productive members of our community. That is a strong statement in favour of the centre and I think it is useful to quote as well from a letter to the Premier by a well-known Newfoundland author, Helen Porter, who has written to the Premier and talks about the centre, which used to be called Teach-a-Tot. She says, 'On my visits there and in my chats with Ms Rabinowitz and other members of the staff, and some parents, I have been struck by what a positive influence Daybreak has been in our community and in our Province. What bothers me more than anything else in the world is the fact that so many children, through forces beyond their control, and often beyond the control of their families, are doomed to lives of physical, social and emotional impoverishment. What has been accomplished at Daybreak has done more to enrich and influence for good the lives of so many children and their families than any other agency I know of. I simply cannot believe that you and your government can even consider destroying such a positive force.

Instead of abolishing Daybreak, why don't you and your government investigate setting up similar services in other parts of Newfoundland and Labrador? Is there any way to convince you that you would be getting a huge bargain, just as you are now getting a bargain in the vital services Daybreak provides to the community?'

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if it could be put better than it was by Helen Porter, a recognized and well-known author and poet living in St. John's.

The parents and staff of Daybreak have been carrying on a valiant effort since the Budget was announced, to continue to pressure this government to change its mind. I know that the families and support group have been sitting in the galleries of the House of Assembly ever since this decision was made, and will stay here until the decision is reversed.

I hope that the government side is listening, that the backbenchers have been able to discuss this matter in caucus, that the government has seen the error of its ways, and will announce soon -hopefully within twenty-four hours - to the public and the parents and the workers of Daybreak that this service will not be destroyed by an uncaring and insensitive government.

I ask that that decision be announced as quickly as possible because this has gone on long enough. It was a bad decision. It is time for the government to recognize that it was a bad decision and to reverse it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. member for Burin - Placentia West, I would like to call to the attention of hon. members that it has been told to us by our technician that it seems to be a practice of some hon. members, when they are standing over their desks, to hold on to the microphones, or when they are speaking to move the microphones back and forth. The microphones, in their present positions, can pick up the sound. It is not necessary to move them around. And every time that happens and the damage is done it costs three hundred dollars. We would advise hon. members not to tamper with the microphones.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition of 1,057 people from this Province who, like everyone else in this Province, support the continuation of the Daybreak Centre.

It appears that the only people in this Province who don't support, or didn't support, the continuation of the Daybreak Centre were the men and the woman who sit on that side of the House of Assembly. For some reason, they decided it was time to attack certain groups in this Province, it was time to drag the money from people who were indefensible in this Province. That is what the Premier and his Cabinet did when they decided to put together this Budget.

It is time that the Premier and his ministers be brought to their senses. It is time they realized that there are people in this Province who need the continuation of the Daybreak Centre. It is time they recognized the significant contribution that the Daybreak Centre has made, and now it is time that these men and woman not only recognize that the decision they made was a bad decision, like most of the decisions they made regarding the Budget, but it is time they recognized that the decision must be changed. It is time they admitted, What we have done has been a tremendous blunder. The mistake is a terrible mistake - that we, as a government, as a Cabinet, have attacked people in society today whom we should not be attacking, by withdrawing half-a-million dollars from a several billion dollar Budget.

MR. HARRIS: Let's debate it tomorrow, Private Members' Day.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, that is not a bad suggestion, I say to the Member for St. John's East. Why does this government, who tomorrow has Private Members' Day, not lay upon the Table the Private Members' resolution that would debate the pros and cons. I know where the cons would come from, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to hear the defence from the members opposite as to why they scuttled that budget. I would like to hear the Member for Pleasantville, who, in a wishy-washy way, didn't have the courage to stand up and support it, like a man should in the Legislature if he believed in what he was doing. Instead of that, he put on some sort of a 'banana' statement regarding Newfoundland's stature in Confederation. What the Member for Pleasantville should have done was brought in a private members' resolution and asked this House to debate cutting half-a-million dollars.

MR. HARRIS: We can still give unanimous consent.

MR. TOBIN: Yes. No problem with this caucus in giving unanimous consent, and the member can speak for his. No problem at all, Mr. Speaker. We can do that.

But government have to be brought to their senses, they have to be brought to their knees. I am surprised when you see people who were educators, former educators like the two ministers up there, who sat around the Cabinet table and decided to slash half-a-million dollars from Daybreak. It is hard to believe that these two people, who were former presidents of the NTA, who were out there day-in and day-out promoting and defending the rights of education, when yet, the two of them could sit around the Cabinet table and cut from the Budget some very valuable money as it related to the operation of a very important educational group in this Province.

I don't expect the Minister of Education to know the difference, because he hardly knows his name, let alone the contribution that Daybreak has made to society. No one should be surprised by that. As a matter of fact, it was only a couple of weeks ago the Premier had to bring in the former Minister of Education to help solve a problem within the education system. So what confidence do we expect the people of this Province to have in the Minister of Education, when the Premier had no confidence in his minister and had to go out and bring in the former minister, who resigned, I would suspect, over a disagreement with the Premier?

In any case, this petition that was brought in by the Member for St. John's East is something we should all support - fifty-two members. I only hope and pray that the Premier and his Cabinet have listened to the pleas from the people of the Province regarding Daybreak - not just the Member for St. John's East and the Conservative caucus, not just us. All we are doing is defending the cause here in this forum as we were elected to do.

The people of this Province have spoken loud and clear, have sent a message to this government that what they have done is wrong. All we are doing here, our caucus with the Member for St. John's East, is putting forth the arguments that these people have asked us to present in the House, which we have a responsibility and a duty to do. And, not only should we do that, we believe very strongly in what we are doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. TOBIN: We hope and pray that it will have some impact upon this callous, uncaring government. For God's sake, get your act together. Announce today that Daybreak will continue and recognize the tremendous value it has been to this Province.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition here on behalf of some 219 residents of the community of Cormack in the district of Humber Valley.

The petition says: 'To the hon. the House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened,' and so on. 'The petition of the undersigned, the people of the community of Cormack, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador reinstate the electrical power subsidy that was eliminated in the Budget of March 18 1993.' It goes on to say: 'with regards to your petitioners, and so on, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.'

The petition is signed by some 219 residents of the community of Cormack, a small community comprised of some 760 residents. They do have a stadium. They have a recreational complex there in the form of a stadium. it doesn't have artificial ice like the other bigger centres in the Province. It has a nice little stadium there, one that the people are proud of. It was put there with very little government funding in the past number of years. The children in the community and surrounding areas use, Mr. Speaker, especially from about December month to April in the winter months of the year, to keep the children in the community busy for one thing and to make them active in skating, minor hockey, broom ball and so on. One of the things the government did in last weeks Budget, the Budget of March 18th, Mr. Speaker, was cut the electrical power subsidy for recreational facilities in the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that community received last year, there was always a maximum up to some $10,000 but that community, I think, received something like $5,000-$5,500 back last year from the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, a great sum of money in a small community such as that. A community that is operating a facility without artificial ice, therefore it does not consume as much electrical power as places like Deer Lake, Corner Brook, Stephenville or bigger centres in the Province. Members opposite, the hon. Member for the Straits of Belle Isle, St. Anthony has been hit very hard with this one. Hawkes Bay has been hit, White Bay, La Scie, Baie Verte, Bell Island, Stephenville, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Hampden, all those communities, Mr. Speaker, have been hit.

The big thing with it is this, the bigger centres, Mr. Speaker, can pick up the shortfall, they always have it a lot easier to pick up the shortfall than those smaller communities. They have absolutely nowhere to go, only back to the same people that are paying their fees and so on in the communities. That is indicative, Mr. Speaker, it is what has been happening through this department ever since they changed the MOG system back in 1989, it is indicative. A complete and consistent trend of downloading on the smaller municipalities in the Province. They have nowhere to pick it up, no other avenues to raise the money except for cutting out some minor hockey and programs to the youth in those particular areas. This is a program that was much needed and is much needed in the smaller centres in the Province. In a small community such as the one I am talking about, namely this one, the community of Cormack.

I am sure that there will be other members bring petitions forward over the next while, although we may only have another few days in this session, but I am sure we will be back, I suppose, the latter part of April. Other members will have the opportunity to bring in petitions on behalf of their municipalities. I know that other municipalities in the districts of members opposite are taking up petitions. Although the minister is not here, there are other ministers here who sit around the Cabinet Table with this particular minister, the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and I am sure that they will express to him the concerns that I have pertaining to this particular petition and this particular subsidy being cut, as will members opposite. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the only one cut in the Budget but I am talking about this one because the petition directly talks about the electrical power subsidy that has been eliminated.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the next one to be eliminated will be the recreation director subsidy of some $4,500-$5,000 over the next little while. There might be more to come but I caution members opposite that this is striking right at the heart and soul of communities in this Province when it comes to recreation for the youth. This is something I think that they should look at and if at all possible, make some recommendations to their - even the backbenchers, to their members in Cabinet, to their Cabinet colleagues, to reinstate this power subsidy and to let the people and volunteers in those communities get on with the excellent job that they have already been doing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the petition put forth by my friend for Humber Valley on behalf of the residents of the Cormack area. It is a crying shame, Mr. Speaker, that this administration has now seen fit to download to the municipalities again, Mr. Speaker. The member alluded to the fact that there is only 500, 600 or 700 people in Cormack and a $10,000 electrical subsidy is a lot of money for a small community like Cormack. He said that this is the only recreational facility in town from, I think he said from December up until April, it keeps the people active for a difficult time during the winter. I have never visited the stadium in Cormack but back in 1975 or 1976, I visited Hampden, another community in the member's district, Mr. Speaker, and I was amazed at how well a natural ice surface worked in these towns. I think they were probably pioneers in this Province in the establishment of enclosed outdoor rinks originally, that they converted into a kind of stadium except that it did not have artificial ice.

$10,000 is a lot of money to small towns like that. More importantly, since recreation commissions and stadiums and so on operate as agencies of the municipality, these budgets have all been completed for months, and now, right in the middle of the stream, despite the fact that the minister promised that municipalities would have no more surprises in store for them, that what we found happening last year when we eliminated the road component, that would not occur any more, and we find in this Budget again, on the 18th of March, another attack has come on municipalities, the recreation in the communities by taking away several thousands of dollars from some small communities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the City of St. John's might be able to absorb it and the City of Corner Brook might be able to absorb these kinds of losses. For the 500 or 600 people who live in the Town of Cormack, it is an almost impossible task for them to raise that money. That is a lot of money, that is probably half what they can raise locally in that stadium for the year, and this $10,000 that is going to be eliminated might be the straw that breaks the camel's back and means that they will either have to have reduced operating hours or perhaps not be able to operate at all.

We find as the impact of this Budget starts to sink in throughout the small communities in Newfoundland, we find it out in Twillingate, we find it out in Lewisporte, we find it in Gander and so on throughout the Province, and the smaller communities with a finite capacity to generate money, there is not a whole lot out there. We spend all summer at festivals and special events trying to raise a few dollars to keep them going during the winter and now to find that $10,000 has just been taken away, is unfair -

AN HON. MEMBER: In some cases they only use five, they do not use ten.

MR. WINSOR: - in some cases they only use half of it, Mr. Speaker, probably because a facility like Cormack that does not have to have the expense of an ice machine going year round to keep the artificial ice there because it is natural ice, nature takes care of it, and to take that $5,000 or $6,000 or $7,000 or one dollar from a municipality which has contributed so much to recreation and not asked government for anything is uncalled for and unnecessary. It is a good facility, it is worth maintaining and this administration should reverse the steps that it took in the March 18th Budget and restore the electrical subsidy to the people of this Province.

It is too bad the minister is not here to respond and I am kind of amazed that a minister who spent so much time supporting recreation, supporting the cause of recreation in this Province, could now sit idly by and let the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, strip away things that he knows to be true. Maybe it is the Premier who does all that, Mr. Speaker, maybe if it was for skiing or yachting this subsidy would be reinstated, but for rinks where thousands of children enjoy the benefits, we cannot find support from this administration.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WALSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition concerning the schools. I have two petitions with basically the same prayer and because they are the same, I would like to present both of them at the one time.

Mr. Speaker, one petition concerning 1,333 names from St. Michael's parish on Bell Island and one from Holy Family parish in Paradise, concerning 643 names. The prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker: We the undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for 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 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 speak very freely and very readily in support of these petitions. I'm very pleased to say that I was proud to be here on the day that the Premier made his ministerial statement in the House of Assembly. Proud because at the same time he was delivering his statement he readily admitted that it was a joint statement. One that was being presented by him in our hon. House, but one that was supported by the leaders of the various churches which were represented here on that day. Very clearly in that statement being made by the Premier we showed that we concurred with their thoughts. We showed that we were committed to a committee being made up of the churches to go back and bring recommendations forward to our government.

In the prayer of the petition I think there's a line and sentence that really sums up what I personally believe and what I personally support. It says: we also support cooperation between the churches in education. I think that those who drafted the petitions, and those who put them together and asked people from across the Province - and in particular in this case from my own district, from Paradise and Bell Island - that they were saying that that is of importance to them. That shared services should be used where they are needed.

That in itself is a recognition of the kinds of times that we're living in in our Province and also a recognition that our Province has come a long way in not just the maintaining of our religious beliefs, but the willingness to share our facilities with other Christians.

In a letter sent to me by one of the priests in the parish he said, very quickly, that he believed that this is a principle. But he said in his letter, concerning the petition, that the names on the petition include both Roman Catholics and Christians of other sister churches. I think when that was stated he is also saying that in the community people are saying as well that the dollar that government has to commit to education must be taken as far as it can. They are saying in their petition that cooperation between churches is essential.

I support the petition. I support it because I come from that system myself. My early schooling took place with the Presentation nuns and my high school with the Christian Brothers in Corner Brook. That system is one that has augured well for all of us in the Province, whether it was Roman Catholic or other denominations. I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have added my name to the petition and that I support the prayer of the petition and all those who have signed it. It's a pleasure for me to present them on their behalf today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again it is a privilege for me to rise in this hon. House on behalf of 677 adults in the area of St. John's South commonly known as Shea Heights. Again it is on behalf of the great move by this government in protecting the denominational education system throughout this Province.

Let me read to you, Your Honour, the prayer of the petition: whereas the education of our children is utmost in our minds, and whereas the right to have a Christian education is already entrenched in our Constitution, we the undersigned are committed to the highest quality education for the children of our Province. We support Roman Catholic schools and we want to keep them, in the same way we support the rights of others to have the schools they desire. We also support co-operation between the churches in education, especially shared service schools where they are needed.

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

Now like the hon. Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island, the Minister of Tourism and Culture, I was extremely fortunate to grow up and be educated in the denominational education system. I do not know of any member in this House, and it shows day in and day out, on both sides, the quality of the individuals who have been brought up in denominational education. It is seen every single day. It is seen with the respect that hon. members have for you, Your Honour, and the Chair. It is something that has gone down for 500 years, and I think we all understand, but in saying that I think we also understand that over the years we have seen a tremendous amount of duplication and waste, if you want to use that word, in our system.

I think the Williams Report in some way enriched and enlightened us all to look at ourselves, to look over our shoulder and have a look at the system of education and try to refine it to give the taxpaying people of this Province the best system of education for the tax dollars that this government has to collect.

Mr. Speaker, I do not need, because I think it was adamantly said by the Premier of the Province in his statement, reaffirmed by the Minister of Education, and again reaffirmed by I think it was Pastor King who represented the churches. I think I can remember with some degree of accuracy what Pastor King said, that he was extremely pleased that this government had the foresight to protect the denominational education system. However, he also agreed that there was room for improvement to get the most for our educational dollar.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is with great honour that I stand in this hon. House on behalf of 677 adults in my district and present this petition.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Your Honour.

You called Orders of the Day, which is what brought me to my feet. Could we begin, please, with the second reading debate on Bill No. 20? I wonder if one of the Pages - I only see one in the Chamber - would be kind enough to let the gentleman from St. John's East know that we are going into this, because I understand he has an interest in it. If you would be good enough to call Order 12, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No. 20).

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

MR. ROBERTS: Your Honour, this is a very straightforward Bill and I shall make a very straightforward speech. The Electoral Boundaries Act that has been in force since 1973 provides for the appointment of a four person commission every ten years to review the electoral boundaries of the districts into which the Province is divided for the purpose of electing people to the House of Assembly, and then making recommendations to the House. The commission as we know does not set the boundaries.

Your Honour, in whom the appointment is vested by the statute, and wisely so in my judgement, earlier today appointed the four members required by the present Act. Required and authorized. There is a belief that we should have a fifth member. Your Honour indicated earlier that should the House authorize the appointment of a fifth person you would be minded to appoint somebody who lives in the Labrador portion of the Province. I obviously subscribe to that and as a member of the government am happy to bring forward a government bill which would provide for the increase of the commission from four to five.

That's the only thing the Bill does, Mr. Speaker. In my judgement it's a worthy aim. With that said I will commend the Bill to the House of Assembly.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the legislation that would change the electoral boundaries commission act to add a fifth member to the commission.

In doing so I'd like to take the opportunity to say how disappointed I am in the government when given an opportunity by the ten year examination of electoral boundaries not to have taken the opportunity to do something that is long overdue in this Province. That is, to take action to ensure that we have in this Legislature an equal number of men and women.

The House last year debated on Private Members' Day a resolution put forth by this hon. member to propose the setting up of a committee to study the way in which the House of Assembly Act could be amended to decrease the number of districts from fifty-two to twenty-six and provide for dual representation. That each district would return to this House two members, one man and one woman.

We had a full debate on this issue in this House. I recall the feeble arguments made by the representatives of the government, and back bench and front bench, as to why they couldn't go along with this. Why they couldn't ensure that we would have the kind of affirmative action necessary to make sure that this House had amongst its members an equal number of men and women.

I don't recall them all now. Most of them were fairly trivial. I think one of them was you can't tell people who to vote for. What we were proposing was a method to allow people to have a choice of voting in their districts twice. Once for a man and once for a woman. Or I suppose if you are the type of male chauvinist who didn't want to see any woman in the House of Assembly you wouldn't have to vote for a woman at all. You could vote for just one man.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You could just vote for one man. So the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island wouldn't be forced to vote for a woman because he could exercise his franchise in such a way that he only voted for the man of his choice. If he didn't want to have any women in the House he could -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Tourism and Culture on a point of order.

MR. WALSH: I'm wondering would the Member for St. John's East allow a question? I ask the Chair if we could ask him a question? I'm just wondering why in the past, if he has such a desire to see women in the House, why he would -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible).

MR. WALSH: - why he would challenge women for the nomination on a number of occasions and defeat them, and actually run against them publicly to defeat them? I almost won in the Bay of Islands in 1979.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There's no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure whether the Member for St. John's East yielded the floor for the question, but just to tell the hon. -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I'd remind hon. members that when the Chair is speaking hon. members should be listening.

The hon. member rose on a point of order. It wasn't a point of order. He was trying to get the floor. The hon. member should ask: would the hon. member permit a question? If the hon. member yields, well, that's fine. If the hon. member doesn't yield, well then, he just has to take his place and remain silent.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, the Liberal members, whether back bench or front bench - I think maybe the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island was a back bench then; now he is in the second row, so perhaps he is moving up to the front bench, but one can see by the kind of comments and questions that particular member makes, how trivial they see this issue and how much they are prepared to trivialize the important issue of the representation of women in this House. That is how important the hon. member thinks this question is.

For example, the gross distortion and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by the hon. member certainly indicates how he regards this issue. He may know that the New Democratic Party - I know he ran for the NDP at one time back in 1979 and -

MR. WALSH: 1971.

MR. HARRIS: 1971 was it? I am sorry. So some time ago he ran for the New Democratic Party. It is a shame he did not stay in the party and learn from the other members of the party, particularly the women in the party, the importance of affirmative action. If he had, he would not be trivializing the issue right now.

He may know that in 1987 when I ran for federal office there was a contested nomination, a first for our party, I may say, in the federal field in this Province when there were two candidates seeking to represent the same district. I was one of them and I happened to win the nomination. That was my first time seeking the nomination as it was the other person who was involved.

I suppose the problem of nominations is really one of the problems that has traditionally made it difficult for women to be candidates. What my proposal would do would be to ensure that we would not have to, and parties would not have to, pick and choose districts for affirmative action, but that each district would be an affirmative action district. Each district would be certain to have a woman representing that district as well as a man. I think that is a far more desirable approach.

Mr. Speaker, I say I am disappointed because that was the best argument that government came up with. I believe the Minister of Finance, the current Minister of Finance who was then Government House Leader, had another problem. He said they would be quite willing to support the proposal - all Liberals on that side of the House would be quite willing to support that proposal - if, in fact, it had just provided for two members. That is, if the resolution itself did not say that there must be one man and there must be one woman. If it just provided for dual membership, or dual ridings, and leave it to the parties to make that decision, they could support it, he said. The government members could support that resolution if it had provided for dual ridings and let the parties decide on representation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I made the suggestion that if that is the case - if the government members could support that particular part of the resolution, then they simply had to amend the resolution to delete the requirement that there be one man and one woman, and leave it up to the parties to ensure that in all of these dual ridings that we would then have, there would be a party responsible for ensuring that they had one male and one female candidate, thereby ensuring representation of 50 per cent women in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the response to that suggestion, that they should amend the resolution, by the Minister of Finance, the then Government House Leader, was that no, no, the government caucus had taken the position that they would never amend Private Member's resolutions from the opposition side of the House; that they either would support it in its entirety or if they could not support it in its entirety they would vote against it. This was the statement of high principle from the Government House Leader of the day, the current Minister of Finance, and he was stating presumably the policy and the principle of the government caucus with respect to Private Member's resolutions. So that was how they weaseled out of that one that day.

Now a couple of weeks later the Member for Torngat Mountains made a Private Member's resolution to the House and that resolution was to change the name of the Province from the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and seek appropriate constitutional amendments. Well, just to show you how consistent were the principles of the government caucus and the government House leader I ask you what do you think the government did in response to that resolution? You do not have to go back to Hansard. I guess most hon. members will remember what they did. The government amended the resolution which was supposed to change the name of the Province from Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador and they amended it to set up a committee to study it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what happened to the principle which said several weeks earlier, on an important resolution having to do with the representation of women in this House, when they said it was not their policy and they had taken the position that they do not amend Private Member's resolutions? A very flexible principle, Mr. Speaker, especially when on the second resolution, the resolution regarding the name of the Province, all hon. members on the government side and on the opposition side indicated they were in favour of the proposal, but the government did not want to do that, they wanted to set up a committee so that the Member for Eagle River could bounce around the Province during the summer months collecting opinions from people in Labrador and Newfoundland on the name of the Province.

That is what they did, Mr. Speaker. So much for the principle that the government would not amend Private Members' resolutions. It was a weaseled principle designed by the government members and by the front bench of the Liberal caucus to weasel out of the very fine proposal for affirmative action to ensure representation of women in this House of Assembly would be on an equal basis, that there would be twenty-six women and twenty-six men, half women and half men in this House regardless of the number of seats.

Now the New Electoral Boundaries Commission was the perfect opportunity to enshrine this principle into law, the perfect opportunity to get the new Electoral Boundaries Commission to take the number of seats, divided it not into forty-two new seats as the legislation now proposes, but to divide it into say twenty-one to twenty-six, or twenty-one to twenty-five seats, each to be represented by two representatives, one man and one woman. Now, if government wanted to weasel out of the affirmative action side of it and leave it up to the parties as they suggested in the House, they did not have to say there must be one man and one woman, they could still have dual ridings.

We had an election last night in Prince Edward Island where for the first time in Canadian history a woman was elected Premier of Prince Edward Island and in that province they have thirty-two members of the Prince Edward Island Legislature and they represent sixteen districts. Simple. They do not have any problem having dual ridings in Prince Edward Island. Two representatives are returned from each riding every time they have an election and it is up to the parties there whether they run one man or one woman.

If the government believed it was possible to allow the parties to exercise an affirmative action in the area of representation by each party nominating a man and a woman for half the number of seats we have now this government could have done it. They had the perfect opportunity and they turned it down. I want to go on record as saying how disappointed I am that the government, after having indicated itself when this private member's resolution was before the House, that they could see, and they could go along with having dual ridings, but not with the Legislature insisting on one man and one woman. But just dual ridings and that the parties do it.

They have not taken this opportunity that they now have to redefine the electoral boundaries in such a way so that we have half as many seats with dual ridings, dual representation, two people representing each riding, each voter to have two votes in each district, Mr. Speaker, with an opportunity to have affirmative action, equal representation of men and women in this House for a period of time to ensure that that would be considered the norm in political life in this Province.

I am disappointed and I think that the government in failing to take this opportunity has revealed their real position on the issue of affirmative action. They aren't interested in equality of representation in this House. They aren't interested in ensuring that there are half women and half men in this House. They aren't interested in taking measures that will ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador women are represented in this House in proportion to their representation in the population.

I will support the addition of one more commissioner to see that the people of Labrador are represented on this commission, but I'm bitterly disappointed that the government has failed to take principled action and ensure that we will have equality of representation by men and women in the next House of Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to have a few words on this Bill. People present for the debate of the Private Member's motion of the Member for St. John's East on changing the district boundaries to have half the number of seats with a man and a woman representing each district will recall that I supported that motion.

I've seen for many years now affirmative action for men in politics. The present Minister of Justice and Government House Leader has been the beneficiary of affirmative action for men. He was appointed to the Cabinet from private life and served in the Cabinet for many months before he finally earned election to the House of Assembly and was able to sit in this Assembly. Others of his generation were the beneficiaries of affirmative action for men as practised by the late Premier Smallwood. If women are ever to catch up we have to have comparable conscious efforts for women.

I supported the motion of the Member for St. John' East, as did some of my colleagues in the official Opposition, the Member for Grand Bank, the Opposition House Leader, among them. So I share the disappointment expressed by the Member for St. John's East in criticizing this Bill, in criticizing the failure of the government to bring forward a reform to the electoral boundaries legislation to provide for the innovative approach suggested by the Member for St. John's East to instantly achieve equality of representation of women and men in the Province.

As for the content of the Bill, which is a simple measure to increase by one the number of people on the boundaries commission, let me say that I don't see that it's necessary to increase the size of the commission and the resulting cost to have balanced representation by geography, by sex, and to ensure that we have a representative group. I do think it's extremely important to select for the commission people who, together, have a comprehensive knowledge of the geography of the Province.

I have to say that the last electoral boundaries commission - the commission that worked in 1983 and reported in late 1984 - sadly lacked a good knowledge of the geography of western Newfoundland. They proposed boundaries for districts in the Humber area that really make no sense. Their recommendations indicate that they really didn't know where people live in that region. Apparently, they didn't realize that people live in a community called Humber Village or that people live in a community called Hughes Brook.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: The Minister of Justice is asking where Humber Village is. It is in the Humber Valley across the river from Little Rapids.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should get outside the overpass once in a while.

MS. VERGE: But Little Rapids and Humber Village are now in different districts. Hughes Brook is on the North Shore of the Bay of Islands, actually, across the Ballam Bridge, named after one of the early colleagues of the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Yes, Mr. Ballam was elected to the National Convention and then was elected as the first member for Humber after Confederation and served for many years as the Member for Humber. After the Humber district was divided into West and East, he was elected as the Member for Humber West, which comprises the present ridings of Humber West and The Bay of Islands. He continued until Premier Smallwood ordered him to retire in 1966, because Premier Smallwood was getting nervous about rising PC support in the Corner Brook area and decided to go to Humber West himself. He then practised affirmative action for males in politics by pointing to a young Liberal, Clyde Wells, who was a lawyer in Humber East and anointed him his running mate. So, in 1966 we had Premier Smallwood running in Humber West, succeeding Charlie Ballam, who was put out to pasture, and Clyde Wells running in Humber East.

But I digressed. I was answering the Minister of Justice's question about the location of Humber Village and Hughes Brook. Hughes Brook is on the North Shore of the Humber Arm of The Bay of Islands. You get to Hughes Brook after you cross the Ballam Bridge named after the late Mr. Ballam. It is immediately before the communities of Irishtown, Summerside, now amalgamated - amalgamated by choice but sadly disappointed by the lack of funding from this government.

At any rate, those communities, Humber Village and Hughes Brook, are not in the same districts as their neighbouring communities. Humber Village is in the district with Deer Lake, in Humber Valley district and Hughes Brook is in the district with Deer Lake, Humber Valley district - crazy - and that is because the people who made up the last Electoral Boundaries Commission were from Eastern Newfoundland, from the Eastern part of the Island of Newfoundland, and were not familiar with the geography of the Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for trying to ensure that the new boundaries commission is made up of a group of people who have, among them, a full knowledge of the geography of the Province, a total knowledge of where people live, where communities are located, which communities naturally and logically should be grouped together in the one district. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't see that it is necessary to increase the size of the commission or drive up the cost. After all, this is a time when we have to pinch pennies. We have to question every proposal for expenditure and instead of spending more for this boundaries commission, I would propose giving the money to the Daybreak Child Parent Resource Centre and the Dunfield Park Child Parent Centre in Corner Brook. There are better uses for this money. It may be a small sum for the government but it can be important to many needy people in our Province.

So, on those grounds, Mr. Speaker, I personally do not support this bill. I agree with the objective voiced by the government but I don't think it is necessary to increase the size of the commission or drive up the cost, to achieve the goal of having a commission with comprehensive knowledge of the geography of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. the Minister speaks now, he will close the debate.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROBERTS: Do you want to speak on the debate?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I do.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, sure of course.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill 20, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act," Mr. Speaker. My understanding of this bill, Mr. Speaker, would be to amend Bill 62 to allow a larger number of people to be appointed to the boundaries commission. Specifically, the Minister of Justice spoke earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker, and he suggested that what the government intends to do, is appoint a resident of Labrador to the commission. Now, they are to be commended for having representation from Labrador on the commission, and I want to thank them for that.

Mr. Speaker, again though, we are seeing what this government does. They want the people of this Province and, more specifically, the people of Labrador, to feel that they are going to be gaining something by having a representation on the commission, itself, while, in point of fact, with the implementation of this commission the intent of this government, is to reduce the elected representation to the House of Assembly. So they have been devious again, Mr. Speaker, this government is being devious again, and they are attempting to hoodwink the people of all of Labrador and the people of this Province, by suggesting that because Labrador will have representation on the Electoral Boundaries Commission, then they are going to get full representation and have a fair hearing and we will probably retain our four elected representatives to the House of Assembly, whereas we all know that the stated intention of the Electoral Boundaries Act, was to save money.

To save money they suggested, is why they would pass this act, but, Mr. Speaker, while I, as many people in this House, feel that that is honourable, that we should be attempting to spend money very wisely, I don't think we should necessarily do it by cutting down the representation in this House from Labrador, and that is what is going to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What else is said?

MR. A. SNOW: We have heard the Premier suggest that it would be undemocratic to have anything other than representation by population. We have heard the Minister of Justice suggest the same thing, that we should have representation by population. According to an interview that I read in a Labrador newspaper - and I assume that it was correct, I didn't see anything in subsequent newspapers denying that he had made those remarks, so I assumed it was correct what they had said, that it was the Minister of Justice who was speaking to the paper, to the editor and suggested that.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that geography and other aspects have to be taken into consideration when you are considering representation from areas, and distance from the populated areas, distance from the capital - those things should be taken into consideration. I firmly believe that we should not have any split seats in Labrador and I want to be on record as saying that I am opposed to any split seats. I think what we need is what we have there today, where we have the districts defined geographically if you will, recognizing Labrador's unique geographic position. Mr. Speaker, it is not to be tied with the Island portion of the Province, and I think is what should be kept. Of course, we know that it was a Progressive Conservative Government that brought in legislation previously that guaranteed Labrador four seats. Again, I want to emphasize that while I commend the government for its efforts to amend the legislation or propose new legislation that would allow it to have a Labrador representative on the Commission, I feel that it should also amend the legislation to allow Labrador to retain its four seats.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister speaks now he closes the debate.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I would like to respond to the comments made by the members who have spoken. Let me first deal with the gentleman from Menihek, who just finished his remarks.

He said that it was the stated intention of the government to reduce the number of seats from Labrador. Now, given his habit of sending out Hansard to his constituents, let me ask him to include this statement with his, that his statement could not be more incorrect. The government have no stated intention of reducing the number of seats in any part of the Province. We asked the commission to recommend how one could divide the Province into between forty and forty-six seats, if recollection serves me correctly, and then we have laid down some special rules that will, in my judgement, benefit the true and proper needs of the people of Labrador, as well as the people who live in other rural or geographically distinct parts of this Province.

I don't want to go over the debate we had in the House before Christmas but I do not want to let my hon. friend's remarks stand unchallenged. I would say to him that rather than simply make his remarks here in the House - and I don't, obviously, begrudge him making these remarks, I welcome him making them - he should also make representations to the commission. I cannot do so as a minister of the Crown. I hope there will be wide-spread representations from throughout Labrador and throughout the Province, because there is an interest in Labrador and there is an interest in the rest of the Province in these points.

I hope people will make the representations to the commission. That is where they should be made, not simply here in the House where we are all open to the suspicion we are simply making them for partisan points. Now, I don't fault that - this is a partisan process - but I say to my hon. friend for Menihek, he should be organizing himself to make representations to the Mahoney Commission.

Let me make a reference to remarks made by my friend, the Member for Humber East. She, I think, has underscored the wisdom, if I may, of Your Honour's approach to this. You have named three persons: Mr. Baird, who sat in this House - Ray was elected in 1979, 1982 and 1985?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Three elections. He served as a Table officer. He was Deputy Speaker, if memory serves me. I wasn't in the House after 1985, but I was here after 1979 and 1982. After 1993 I expect to be here, as well. We will see about that. Ray Baird sat at the Table. He was Deputy Speaker - I'm sorry, Deputy Chair of Committees. He was elected three times.

John Nolan sat in the House. He was elected in 1966, lost by a hair's breadth in 1971, was re-elected in the 1975 election in the new Conception Bay South seat, had an unfortunate accident in the 1979 election and, I believe, tried his hand in a by-election and didn't win. John Nolan served in the House with distinction and in the Cabinet.

Dorothy Inglis, although she has never served in this or any other elected Legislature, to my knowledge, has stood for election a number of times and has a deep knowledge of the political process. Judge Mahoney, who was appointed, one assumes, because he was a judge, also was a member of this House, served from 1966 to 1971, and was briefly a member of the Smallwood administration.

Let me talk about the three Your Honour has appointed. All three have an intimate knowledge of the political process. In my view, that is what the Electoral Boundaries Commission should be made up of. I suspect it is no accident, Your Honour, that these people represent the various organized political parties in this Province.

Finally, the remarks of my friend from St. John's East - we have dealt with these in the House before. I don't need to repeat what was said. We do not accept his point of view.

MR. HARRIS: I don't accept yours.

MR. ROBERTS: He does not accept ours. Fine, we will have to agree to disagree. Your Honour, I would ask that the bill be now read a second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House now, by leave. (Bill No. 20).

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

MR. ROBERTS: If my friend for Eagle River would take the Chair, or the member for - maybe the Member for Menihek should take the Chair. No, I mean, any member may take the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (Dumaresque): Order, please!

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No. 20)

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.

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 Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have directed me to report Bill No. 20 without amendment and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No. 20)

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, could we go into Committee of Supply, and let me say it is our intention not to ask the House to sit beyond the time when the supply is adopted. If it is adopted by 5 o'clock as we hope may be the case then I shall move the adjournment at 5 o'clock until tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: I am in the hands of the House as always, Mr. Speaker. It is not our intention to ask the House to do any other business today. When the Interim Supply debate concludes today I will move the adjournment of the House today.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Not quite yet, Mr. Speaker.

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

Committee of the Whole on Supply

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Bill No. 12.

The hon. the Government - Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are on the Interim Supply debate, as I understand it. That is twice now, both the Speaker and now the Chairman have introduced me as the Government House Leader. I do not want to accept that position quite yet but in thirty or sixty days, perhaps. Who knows what the crystal ball may bring forward? You never know. I want to follow on a line that was taken yesterday by my colleague the Member for Burin - Placentia West when he was talking about municipal capital grants funding.

He expressed some concerns he had about one particular community in his district and I want to talk about a community in my district, the town of Garnish. We have now been six or seven years installing a water and sewer system for the town of Garnish and there is about $3 million in the ground now. Some of the system is functional and operating. Some of the householders there are accessing water through temporary lines. They have run their own hoses into the system. One section of town that is not done has received a very high ranking from the Department of Health. There are very serious health and environmental concerns there. Another area of the town that needs to be done is where the school is located, which is not yet serviced, but we have run into a problem this year. Every year for the last six or seven years there has been an allocation of money to continue with the water and sewer system at Garnish but this year under the government's water and sewer capital works program so far there is not a penny that has been allocated or budgeted for the town of Garnish and I find that most regrettable and disappointing, Mr. Chairman. The residents of Garnish, particulary the town council who have done their utmost to manage that small community very, very well, I have to say.

They have been very prudent, always present balanced budgets, even though very difficult with the small number of residents and with the tax base that they have available. It has been very difficult for them to consistently present balanced budgets to the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, but they have done that. They have been very good managers of the limited financial resources that they have had in the Town of Garnish, and they are very, very disappointed this year that the government has not seen fit to allocate money to that community for the continuation of their water and sewer system. It is most regrettable that government has seen fit not to do that.

Yesterday I had the occasion to meet with the minister for a few moments to impress upon the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs the serious situation in which the Town of Garnish finds itself, and to impress upon the minister the need for reconsideration, to see if somewhere that minister could find some money to continue with the Garnish water and sewer system because it is...

Usually the struggle was, if you could get a water and sewer system started, then each year there would be an allocation of money to continue with the project. You may not get as much money as you wanted to complete certain phases, but at least the system was kept going and kept being installed, but this year we have run into a brick wall with this minister and this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Garnishee some money, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology says, but it is a real serious problem for them.

Since I have become the member for the district we have had considerable money spent on improvements and repairs to existing water and sewer systems. There have been three communities that have requested a start on new water and sewer systems, namely the towns of Garnish, Point May and Lamaline. We have been fortunate enough that this year we will see the completion of the water and sewer system in Point May. Last year we were able to get a start on the Lamaline water system, but we have run into the real problem - and again Lamaline will continue this year - but Garnish is the problem this year in that there has been no money allocated to continue with their system, and there are areas of the Town of Garnish that are in desperate need of water and sewer systems because, like many other towns in Newfoundland and Labrador, for many, many years the people accessed water through their own wells. They got rid of their sewer through septic tanks, and what we found after a number of years is that the seepage from the septic tanks was polluting the wells. So it was just a matter of time before it got so bad where a proper water and sewer system had to be installed, so we started that several years ago, and we were making progress - very good progress - I say to members opposite, until this year.

Now the town this year has presented a balanced budget to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. They are paying their way, I say to - well the minister is not here to hear this, but I am sure that he will read Hansard tomorrow - the town is paying its way. They have been very prudent, very well managed, and it is most regrettable and disappointing that with about $3 million now spent installing that water and sewer system that we do not have any money this year.

As I said, I discussed the situation with the minister yesterday. I have asked him to give serious consideration to the request from the Town of Garnish, on behalf of the residents of Garnish, to have a - sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: We will give it to you next year.

MR. MATTHEWS: No, giving it to me next year is not the answer, I say to the Minister of Health. Giving it to the people of Garnish next year is not the answer. There are areas -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Well the minister goes on to say: Well we will not give it to them next year.

I say to the Minister of Health that you may not be giving anyone anything next year. The Minister of Health might not be giving anyone anything next year. It may be someone else who will be giving something to people next year, I say to the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Do you want it or don't you?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, yes, we need it very badly, I say to the Minister of Health. The people of Garnish need it this year to continue with their system, and they do not think it is a joke, like the Minister of Health thinks it is, who has been privileged to water and sewer services I guess all of his life, or for the most part.

The people of Garnish do not have that luxury yet - all of them. They do not have that luxury yet, I say to the Minister of Health. Some of them do, but they all look forward to the day when they can access a good water and sewer system, and we were making great progress, I say to the Minister of Health, until this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened?

MR. MATTHEWS: I will tell you what happened. Government changed its whole structure, its whole municipal operating grants, its whole financing structure. The Town of Garnish went into accessing a water and sewer system when the requirement was to pay 20 per cent of fixed revenues, I think it was, fixed revenues. Then of course, the whole game plan changed in mid-stream when the Wells administration took power. They changed all that, which inflicted very hard financial hardship on municipalities, but having said that, the Town of Garnish and the town council have been very good managers of their limited financial resources and have continued to pay their way and present a balanced budget. Having said all of that, even with the Department of Health, who have looked at certain areas of that town and have identified very serious environmental and health concerns that this year the government has seen fit not - I say up until now because I am still hoping that perhaps something will materialize in the next few weeks if the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs can find some slippage or some communities that do not take up their money that perhaps Garnish will be reconsidered.

So, I just want to go on the record, Mr. Chairman, as making those few points. It is the Interim Supply Debate, we are providing supply to the government to run the Province. Included in all of that are the running of municipalities, water and sewer systems, transportation expenditures, hospitals and schools and so on. So, it is an opportune time to go on the record here in this House of Assembly on behalf of the people of Garnish, to once again ask the government to give very serious consideration to an allocation of money to continue with that much needed water and sewer system, so that the people of Garnish can be like most other people in Newfoundland and Labrador and have a water and sewer system. So, with those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks on Interim Supply as it regards my particular district. It having been formerly represented by the Premier, there appears to be within the environs of government generally the idea that somehow in Green Bay the streets are paved with gold and that there are no social or economic needs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The community of Brighton, I must admit, seems to have been born under a lucky star and has had water and sewer projects approved for the last three or four years. Nearby, Triton, has received nothing this year. Pilley's Island, Beaumont, Lushes Bight, Robert's Arm, Port Anson, Miles Cove and South Brook have received nothing. Springdale finally received something. King's Point, Rattling Brook, Harry's Harbour, Jackson's Cove, Little Bay, Beachside have received nothing and are extremely upset about it. Nickey's Nose Cove, Silverdale, Langdons Cove, and Shephardville are also very upset that they received nothing. I thought, Mr. Chairman, for the record, that the communities of Green Bay and the way that they have been treated by this administration over the last four years should be put on the record. Thank you very much.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson, on this Interim Supply Bill debate, I would like to make a pitch for interim funding from the Province to provide continuity for the Dunfield Park Child Parent Resource Centre in Corner Brook.

Chairperson, Dunfield Park is a high density subsidized rental housing complex, owned and operated by Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. A year-and a-half or so ago, the Housing Corporation renovated one of their units, renovated space for the purpose of having a community centre. The community centre comprises the Child Parent Resource Centre. It has been operating for a little more than a year now with federal funding from the Child Care Initiatives Fund. So, the Province was involved from the beginning in providing the space and fitting of the premises to meet the special needs of the Child Parent Resource Centre but the first year of operations have been paid for by the federal government. The Health and Welfare Canada Child Care Initiatives Fund has covered salaries, supplies and most operating costs. I suspect, although I am not sure, that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation has provided the space rent free, as well as utilities.

At any rate, it has been a cooperative venture but what is really important is that it has been extremely successful. It has given a boost to a whole neighbourhood, the participants, the parents, the children, siblings, neighbours.

The child care workers speak of the first year of operations of the centre in glowing terms. Included at the centre are: early childhood development programs or child care programs for preschoolers. I believe there is also an after school program for primary and elementary schoolchildren and also there are activities for parents. The program in many ways is similar to the Daybreak Centre that many members have learned a lot about in the last two weeks, since the Wells government made the regrettable mistake of cutting funding in the Budget, a mistake, which I hope is being corrected as I speak.

At any rate, the Dunfield Park Centre now has to close because the federal child care initiatives grant runs out tomorrow, at the end of March, at the end of the federal fiscal year, but, Chairperson, there is the promise of new federal funding through a new program called Brighter Futures. Brighter Futures will be delivered by Health and Welfare Canada, it is being targeted at young children at risk, and I use the phrase "at risk", that is the term used in the Health and Welfare Canada philosophy stated in their published documents.

Brighter Futures will provide funding for projects serving the target group, children at risk, which are jointly selected by the federal government and provinces. The spending obviously will be in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. What is happening is that the federal government is negotiating bilateral agreements with each of the provinces; the agreements are referred to by the bureaucrats as protocols. I understand there were meetings of federal and provincial officials in St. John's last week on the proposed protocol, Brighter Futures protocol for this Province, and I was told by representatives of both governments that those meetings were quite successful and that arrangements are almost complete for the Brighter Futures protocol for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, Chairperson, Brighter Futures is going to provide over a million dollars in the '93-'94 fiscal year for our Province, that is over a million dollars of new federal money for Newfoundland and Labrador, for young children at risk, as well as families of young children at risk. The Brighter Futures money will continue to flow for five years, so as government funding goes, as government commitments go, this is a long-term commitment. Now, Chairperson, what I have asked the two governments to do: I have asked the federal minister responsible, the hon. Benoit Bouchard and I have asked the Premier of this Province, is to get together and provide continuity for the Dunfield Park Child-Parent Resource Centre.

If the provincial government gives a small amount of interim funding or bridging funding, that program can continue to operate, it will not have to lay off its staff tomorrow, it will not have to deprive children and parents of the benefits of the programming at the Dunfield Park Centre, and as soon as the Brighter Futures funding comes on stream, presumably the Dunfield Park project will be the beneficiary of a grant since it is ideally suited to the program. A funding commitment to the Dunfield Park Centre or the sponsoring group, which actually is the Corner Brook Citizens Action Child Care Committee, can then be spent in part to reimburse the Province for the bridging funding.

So all that the Province has to do is to spend a small amount of money now to keep going an excellent program, a program which has been judged by a variety of professionals in the Corner Brook area, from child protection workers to social workers to health care workers, to be extremely valuable, and then, as soon as the Brighter Futures protocol is concluded and signed, which should be only another month or so, the Province can get back the money from the Corner Brook group.

Chairperson, even if the protocol, the federal/provincial agreement, is not signed until part way into the fiscal year, and we all know that these things tend to take longer than they should - Brighter Futures should have been in place last Fall but the federal government dragged its heels and the program is slow coming on stream - even if Brighter Futures is not on stream until part way through the new fiscal year, the federal money will be provided with effect from April 1st, and the total amount that will be coming to our Province is over a million dollars a year for five years. Now wouldn't it be a pity if that Dunfield Park Centre has to close because of a crack between two programs, or because of a crack between two governments?

This is an Interim Finance bill, and what I am advocating is provincial interim financing, or bridge funding, for the Dunfield Park child-parent resource centre to allow that program to continue, to prevent the sponsoring group from having to lay off staff and downgrade the service, for the relatively short time before Brighter Futures is finalized.

That is not much to ask, and the federal program will not require any provincial involvement. The federal money will be provided on a 100 per cent basis with no cost-sharing requirement on the part of the Province. The Province gets to shape the guidelines which will govern the choice of projects funded within the broad parameters laid down by the federal government, and then the Province, with the federal government, will rank the applications and choose the applications.

Chairperson, this new federal money obviously is also well suited to the Daybreak Centre, so the fact that the federal money is on the horizon makes the provincial government decision to abandon Daybreak all the more reprehensible.

Now the Premier has used as an excuse for giving up on Daybreak, for pulling the plug on Daybreak, the fact that the Province is not supporting comparable centres in other parts of the Province. He seems to have the attitude that if some people in the Province are suffering, if some people in the Province are without, if there are children in the Province who are needy and being neglected, then we should neglect all the children. It is the lowest common denominator approach.

Well, Chairperson, that is a terrible attitude for a Premier to take. It is completely devoid of compassion, and that is very troubling to people who have watched the Premier and the government talk about and respond to this crisis.

Chairperson, surely as the Leader of the Opposition has said, one excellent parent-child resource centre in the Province, whether it is in St. John's or Corner Brook or Bonavista, is better than none, and two are better than one. The fact is, with the Brighter Futures federal funding, it will be possible to continue Daybreak which all along in any case was being funded 50 per cent by the federal government through the Canada Assistance Plan. As well it should be possible to continue the Dunfield Park, Corner Brook program without any gap, without any interruption, and it should be possible to start other comparable programs in other places in the Province. Chairperson, in this Interim Finance Bill there should be provision for interim or bridging funding to keep alive and to keep operating the Dunfield Park Centre in Corner Brook. The Premier has specifically referred to the Corner Brook centre in trying to excuse the inexcusable in trying to defend the government's decision to cut Daybreak. Now, I trust the Premier has seen the error of that decision and is in the process of restoring funding to Daybreak, and I hope at the same time his mind will be big enough to allow for him to order interim funding for the Dunfield Park Centre to allow that centre to continue to operate and provide much needed services to needy children and their families in that area.

Thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to join in the debate on Interim Supply. I know we are probably only going to debate the matter for this afternoon and possibly this evening.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend. I will only be a second.

I know hon. members are asking whether the Estimates Committees will meet this evening, because a number have spoken to me. Given we are not certain at this stage as to whether the House will be meeting tonight let me say I have advised the Chairs that it might be appropriate that the committees do not meet this evening. Now, if we should get the House to the point where we adjourn then we will consider we have done a good day's work, pat ourselves on the back and take the evening off anyway. It is not for me to tell the committees what to do. They are masters of their own faith but my suggestion to the Chairs of the three Estimates Committees is that they not meet this evening. I only make that as a suggestion but if they really insist that is up to them, but in the interest of organizing the staff and organizing our own personal schedules I thought hon. members would like to know. The other thing is given that we will not be using Wednesday for government business, for which I understand there will not be consent, we will be dealing with the motion standing in the name of my friend for St. John's South dealing with oil tankers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. ROBERTS: I understand he has a problem. We were going to end severance tomorrow but we will not because of him.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to make some remarks on the Interim Supply Bill prior to the close of that debate, whether it be this afternoon or this evening because I think the Interim Supply Bill in a situation like this is deserving of some comment. We are asked to give Interim Supply to tide the government over until it can pass the Budget that has been presented to this House, a Budget that was described by the Minister of Finance as a Budget of truth and hope. I pride myself as one who has some knowledge of the English language and I am afraid I have to say that those words have been mangled more than they could possibly be by the Minister of Finance in describing his Budget as a Budget of truth and hope. It is rather a Budget of deceit and despair and not truth and hope. We have a Budget that is presented to this House with a bottom line that then subtracts $70 million, $70 million taken out of the Budget but not shown in any of the figures where it is coming from. That, Mr. Chairman, is not a Budget of truth, it is a Budget of deceit.

They have said, Mr. Chairman, that the Budget figures will be reduced by $70 million but have not told us from where or how they will come. They have also said that there is a figure of perhaps $4.5 million coming out of what they have now called third-party grants. These are grants to organizations which get major sustenance from the government, so-called non-governmental organizations. A lot of them were agencies doing the work that government should otherwise do, some of them in the field of health prevention and public information such as the Newfoundland and Labrador Epilepsy Association.

Some of these organizations such as that one, Epilepsy Newfoundland and Labrador I believe is the official name of it, are doing work in terms of providing not only public information to members of the public and the clientele of the Department of Health, but also to the public health nurses, who are direct employees of the government. They use these organizations as a direct source of information about these important diseases that afflict, unfortunately, too many of our citizens. But the only source of up-to-date information on research, on the nature of the disease, the problems, how people can help to cope with these diseases, and how families can help to cope with a family member who has a disease such as epilepsy, how they can cope, this information comes from these so-called non-governmental organizations, the ones that the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is kicking out of their premises on the 31st of March.

These types of organizations, Mr. Chairman, which the government is cutting off from financial support - we do not know by how much, we do not even know by how much. We are asked for Interim Supply and we have not been told which organizations the government intends to help continue to exist or which ones it wants to see die, such as Daybreak, to pass an Interim Supply bill, while these organizations are left out there dangling in the uncertain knowledge of their future because this government hasn't had the guts, Mr. Chairman, to even table in this House a list of the organizations from whom they are removing funds!

MR. TOBIN: That is a good point, 'Jack', a good point.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the Official Opposition have asked on a number of occasions for the Minister of Finance and the Premier to tell the people of this Province, tell the members of this House, which organizations are going to have the rug pulled out from underneath them and wool pulled over their eyes. This government wants to pull the wool over the eyes of everybody on this side of the House. I know they have already done it to the back benches over there. The back benches on the government side have already had the wool pulled over their eyes and they are accepting it. They are sitting there and allowing this Interim Supply bill to go through without even asking and without even knowing which organizations, which support groups for parents, which non-governmental organizations, are having their budgets slashed, their sustenance removed, their very lifeblood drained by the government that they are sitting there supporting. They don't even know, and they are not protesting the fact that the Minister of Finance and the Premier have refused to date to table in this House the information that has been requested. Yet, they want Interim Supply to continue to go on, and carry on, and we don't know what they are going to do because they haven't told us. They haven't even told us what their plans are with respect to the privatization of major corporations in this Province.

'All speculation,' says the Premier. Well, it may be speculation for those outside of the government. It may be speculation if someone from CBC speculates on it, or someone from The Telegram, or someone, even, on this side of the House might speculate about it, but the Premier knows. The Cabinet knows what their plans are. And yet, in the absence of answers from this government, in the absence of answers from the Minister of Finance, in the absence of answers from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation about the future of the George V Institute, in the absence of answers to all of these questions as to what is going to happen to the people who are promised office space from the Harvey Road fire, who have been unhoused because of the fire, on which I am told the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation wants to collect $3 million in insurance, these are the people who don't know the answers to the question of where they are going to be housed.

Those people are not only going to have to pay rent, but are also going to have their economic support from the government withdrawn. None of them even know that. The fifteen agencies that now use space in the George V Institute, and were using space, or were promised space on Harvey Road, are left out in the cold. They are left out in the cold by this government and not only told that they will not have a place to live and conduct their operations, they have not been told yet whether or not this government is going to be removing whatever support they have given to them in the past.

We know they have already been told by the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that they are going to have to pay their own rent, that 1994 will be the last year they will get any support, Mr. Chairman, and after that they will be on their own. We know they are taking at least that much away from them, starting this year, continuing next year and down to zero the year after. They don't know whether they are going to have any other support from government this year, the next, or the year after. These agencies are doing the work that government, itself, should have responsibility for, in the field of social services, in the field of health prevention and health information. The Consumers Organization of the Disabled are providing services and information to disabled people who need more than the general services of government, they also need support. And not only do they need support for themselves and their families but also provide information and network support to the government, itself, and to government agencies. This government has not introduced a Budget of truth and hope. It has been a Budget of deceit and despair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Does someone else want to speak? If not, I will finish it off?

AN HON. MEMBER: Finish it off.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank hon. members for granting leave for me to continue.

The Budget is not a Budget of truth and hope, it is a Budget of deceit and despair, and the despair comes from the doom and gloom being preached by the Premier and by the Minister of Finance about the future of this Province. We are led to believe that there is no hope except that at some magical time, some mystical time in the dim future, perhaps the twenty-five years encompassed by the Strategic Economic Plan, perhaps by some reason, the private sector is going to do what it has been unable to do for the past 400 years and that is provide adequate and full employment for the people of this Province. There is no way that this government can rely on and expect the private sector to do that job. It can't be done, Mr. Speaker. If it could have been done, surely it would have been done in the last 400 years. There needs to be leadership from a government which is prepared to commit itself to doing what has to be done, to make sure that the people of this Province are given the opportunity to be employed, to work and to be productive members of our society, not by some mystical, long term, twenty-five to fifty year plan that expects the private sector to generate, in this Province, jobs that it is not capable of doing. There has to be a challenge to the status quo. A challenge to the very policies that this government supports. The policies of free-trade, the policies of deregulation of major industries, airlines for example. The policies of support for the regressive GST that has seriously affected the confidence of the business community in this Province and all over the country. There has to be a rejection, not support for the reduction of transfer payments, not the understanding that the government offers for the reduction of transfer payments to this Province but rather a challenge to the system of transfer payments that leaves this Province unable to provide the level of services, comparable to those offered elsewhere, with comparable rates of taxes.

We need to see a major challenge offered to the Government of Canada and the people of Canada, Mr. Chairman, to change our economy from an economy based on high unemployment, high interest rates, an unnaturally high Canadian dollar, all part of the policies of the Government of Canada and a challenge to introduce policies that are protective of the Canadian economy, that look after the needs of the people of this country and in particular of this Province to have employment and opportunity. It needs to be bold steps, Mr. Chairman, not the doom and gloom offered by this government, not the despair offered by this government as part of its Budget of deceit and despair. That is the challenge that faces the people of this Province, Mr. Chairman, and faces the government of this Province. A challenge that it has walked away from and decided rather than to provide the truth and hope that they promised and that the people of this Province need, they decided rather to twist those words and give them no meaning at all by suggesting that this Budget of deceit and despair is really a Budget of truth and hope.

Mr. Chairman, this government does not deserve to have Interim Supply. It cannot be trusted with the affairs of this Province, it cannot be trusted to come forward and be honest with the people of this Province about what their plans are and should not be granted Interim Supply, and this member will be voting against it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

RESOLUTION

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1994, the sum of $1,016,202,000."

Motion, that the Committee report having passed the resolution and recommends that a bill be brought in to give effect to the same, carried.

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

I think there is a consent among all concerned to stop the clock as we go into the three readings now. Otherwise we will be back here this evening and I do not think anybody wants to be back here this evening.

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 Verde.

MR. L. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply has considered the matters to it referred and has directed me to report that it has adopted a certain resolution and that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.

On motion, report received and adopted.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

On motion, a bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year Ending March 31, 1994 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service," (Bill No. 12) (Reprinted), read a first, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment, tomorrow is Private Members' Day. As I've said, I understand members are not minded to give unanimous consent to dispense with private members' business tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: No, I - Mr. Speaker, hon. members may put down what motions they want. The motions for tomorrow fall to be determined by members on this side. My understanding is the motion by the Member for St. John's South is the one we shall be debating tomorrow.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I'm sorry?

MR. MATTHEWS: What is it? What is the resolution anyway?

MR. ROBERTS: The resolution calls upon the Government of Canada to do those things which they ought to do and to stop doing those things which they ought not to have done with respect to oil tankers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.