May 28,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 6

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

On behalf of all hon. members I would like to welcome to the

Speaker's Gallery the former member of the Manitoba Legislature, Chief Elijah

Harper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I know it's not usual after

Your Honour has welcomed somebody for any member of the House to make any

comment, but I'm sure the House would readily consent to my saying a few special

words of welcome to a very distinguished Canadian in the person whom you've

welcomed, Chief Elijah Harper.

Three years or so ago during some very serious constitutional

discussions in this country I had some discussions with Chief Harper. He and I

both had substantial personal involvement in the affairs of the day. I don't

want this occasion to go without recognizing his visit to our Legislature today,

and without telling you that the purpose of his visit to Newfoundland and

Labrador at this particular time is to help support the Native Friendship

Centre. There are representatives of the Native Friendship Centre in the gallery

with Chief Harper. They are involved in a fund-raising campaign to help make up

for some shortfall of funds. I understand they had a very successful event last

night.

I want to publicly express not only the respect of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador for Chief Harper and his principles, but I want to

express gratitude to him for caring enough to come and help the Native

Friendship Centre in this Province, and to help speak for aboriginal people in

the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House

would like to welcome Chief Harper to Newfoundland and Labrador. It goes without

saying, and history will record, that in the past we had differences of opinion,

I guess, different philosophies on a particular issue at one time just as we had

with the Premier, but nevertheless we also recognize Chief Harper's efforts to

further the objectives of native people and we wish him well in that regard. I

do not think I would go so far as to wish him well in his political future. I

think that would be unwise of a party on this side of the House, nevertheless we

do welcome him here to Newfoundland and hope that his stay is successful and

productive.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce an

initiative of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Economic

Recovery Commission which will provide meaningful employment for many youth in

our Province. Today will mark the official launch of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Conservation Corps, a non-profit initiative designed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - to provide training and employment

opportunities for young people in the areas of environmental enhancement and

conservation.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Corps was started

by the Economic Recovery Commission more than a year ago in response to action

Item 21 in the Province's Strategic Economic Plan. That action item committed

the Province to establish a Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Corps which

would channel funds into socially useful activities that would both contribute

to environmental enhancement and provide valuable work experience and training

for its members.

Mr. Speaker, today government is announcing its full funding

support for this initiative through the Strategic Economic Plan and the Student

Employment Program of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations.

Government's total funding commitment to this project for 1993 is $330,000.

I am pleased at this time to announce as well that the

Conservation Corps has approximately twenty projects that will proceed almost

immediately. This is a reflection of the extensive planning that has gone into

the Conservation Corps over the last year. In 1993, there will be between

eighteen and twenty Green Teams, or groups of four young people, working on

projects throughout the Province. Five project supervisors will be hired and in

total eighty-five young people ranging from high school students to university

and technical school graduates will be hired this Summer.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Corps is targeted

at young people and is seen as much as a training opportunity as an employment

opportunity. All Green Team members will receive a one week orientation course,

delivered through the Westviking College on the West Coast with further project

training ongoing throughout the summer. As well, there will be follow-up

guidance and counselling at the end of project work. These features sharply

differentiate the Conservation Corps from any and all kinds of job creation

projects.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the members of the House of Assembly

and the people of this Province join with me today in congratulating the

Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Corps on their employment and training

efforts thus far, and to wish them well throughout the coming summer and in the

future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a

pleasure this morning to rise and respond to the minister's statement. We

certainly support any initiative that creates employment for the many unemployed

youth in our Province, especially in an area such as this, an area that is noted

as a growth industry and that will provide many jobs in the future. We hope that

this initiative by the government certainly is not the end but only a beginning

to create more employment certainly for the young people of the Province. I

trust that the monies that have been allocated towards this project are new

monies and are not monies that are coming off another part of the Budget

elsewhere. I also trust that the minister will table a criteria by which these

individuals will be hired. Once again on behalf of the caucus here we certainly

support such an initiative and hope that it will continue in the future.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform this hon. House

that today marks the start of Canada's Fit Week. It is the worlds largest

celebration of active living. This unique celebration runs from May 28 - June 6.

Fit Week is a major promotional campaign designed to stimulate greater

participation in physical activity and fitness. It aims to heighten the

awareness of the benefits of a healthy active lifestyle. More than 8 million

Canadians will participate.

In our Province, Mr. Speaker, approximately 1,000 residents

will involve themselves in this activity. There will be in excess of 500 events

taking place in upwards of 200 separate communities throughout the Province.

Because of the concern for the environment, Fit Week is making a special effort

in the 1993 campaign to promote activities that will give the environment a

helping hand. Communities throughout the Country, including many in

Newfoundland, will be organizing clean-ups, promoting a bicycle ride instead of

using the car and planning educational activities for children to help them

appreciate their environment. Fit Week provides a positive fun-filled

environment which encourages citizens to become more physically active and enjoy

the benefits of an active lifestyle.

The campaign will be kicked off today with Sneaker Day, and I

am wearing mine, Mr. Speaker, and all residents are encouraged to wear their

sneakers at work or play or anywhere they can.

To help us warm up for Fitweek in Newfoundland and Labrador,

I am pleased, as minister responsible for community recreation, sports and

fitness, to present a Fitweek T-Shirt to our Premier and to our hon. Leader of

the Opposition. I hope that throughout the week they will wear them to encourage

and promote physical activity and a more healthy lifestyle for residents of our

Province. They are beautiful T-shirts, Mr. Speaker, and I would like, possibly,

for one of the assistants to come forward.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to, first of all, thank the minister for giving me a

copy of his statement just before coming into the House, although, I suppose, in

view of the contents of the statement, one wouldn't need to read it in order to

respond, that's for sure. The question I always ask about this every time I hear

it is, Why do we have to be reminded? Why do people have to be reminded once a

year, on May 28 or June 6, for a week, in order to participate in some physical

activity - some sort of fitness?

One of the biggest problems we have in the world today is

people overweight, people smoking too much, people drinking too much, not taking

part in anything, and all of a sudden, for one week, everybody sort of gets into

the so-called fitness mode.

I see here there are upwards of 200 separate communities

throughout the Province participating. Why not every community in the Province?

is the question I always ask. I am into fitness myself, Mr. Speaker. I run. In

fact, I ran this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I found it very hard this week out around

the town. I almost wanted a seeing-eye dog with me in order to get around; but,

in any case, I run every day around 6:00 a.m., and if someone wanted to

challenge me to a ten-or-eleven-kilometre run any morning during the week,

including the minister, I could run.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: I challenge the minister to join me any

morning except Saturday or Sunday, in here, and he can join me any morning

around the City of St. John's.

The thing I always find, in here when I am running, when I

come up along by the university - there by, I think, Brinton Memorial, the high

school over here - it is despicable; it is terrible; it almost makes you ashamed

to be a Newfoundlander, to come along that road -not only there, but that is the

place where all the garbage is caught up in the fence. It is terrible. But it is

good to see that it is tied in with the environment - that is an excellent idea.

I go down the Viking Trail when I am on the West Coast; I run

towards the Northern Peninsula Highway down the Viking Trail and it is the same

thing. The sides of the roads are not fit to look at. I recall stopping there

one evening to watch two or three moose. And I stopped a car from the States.

They slowed down and I pointed out the moose. The people looked back at me, with

the window down, and I said: `Look, two or three moose right there.' `That's not

what we are looking at, Sir'. `Well,' I asked, `what are you looking at? I

thought you were looking at the scenery, the animals. `We are looking at the

garbage, Sir. We are appalled by the amount of garbage on the side of the road,

especially a beautiful highway like this going towards two heritage sites and

one of the most beautiful places in the Province.' This brings it to mind. I

tell the minister to take out his sneakers once a day, put them on every day,

and I challenge him, next week, to a run anywhere around the city.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform hon. members

that an

article that appeared on foreign overfishing in The Evening Telegram on

May 25 past, entitled, "Foreign Fishing Dropping Off" does not convey the total

picture of overfishing activity to date in 1993.

The

article in question focuses on the reduction in the

number of foreign vessels from 114 in May of 1992 to 103 in May of this year. It

further notes, seventy-six European Community vessels were fishing in the NAFO

regulatory area in May 1992, compared to forty-five this year.

I do not wish to dispute the reduction in the number of

vessels reported in the Telegram article, Mr. Speaker. However, I would remind

members of this House that the

article in question made no reference to the

actual catch of the vessels to date in 1993, compared to that caught in the same

period in 1992. For example, we know, that a number of Spanish vessels directed

a substantial fishery for Northern cod earlier this year, notwithstanding the

Canadian moratorium on Northern cod. We also know that the European Community

vessels are taking massive amounts of turbot outside of the 200-mile limit, a

stock which is not regulated by NAFO but which is an important straddling stock,

as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, approximately 100 foreign vessels are now

along the Continental Shelf, as we sit in this House this morning and see our

own fishing industry literally go down the drain. There are approximately 100

foreign vessels presently fishing on the Canadian Continental Shelf, yet, not

one Newfoundland trawler is fishing at the present time because of quota and

resource constraints. In this context, the impact of foreign overfishing is

real. We can take little consolation in minor shifts in foreign vessel activity

at this time.

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

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

Yes, the minister is quite correct. I guess it is very

disturbing to stand in this House as one member representing an area of the

Province - and, I guess, all of the people on occasions - to know that our own

big fishing company, Fishery Products International, has all of its processing

operations in this Province shut down as of this morning - very, very

disturbing, particularly when I look at my own area of the Province where the

plants of Marystown and Fortune are now down.

I want to say to the minister, you know, what really alarms

me is that some people seem to take consolation in that there has been a

reduction of, say, some ten or twelve foreign vessels fishing outside or on the

Continental Shelf. We cannot stop this battle until we have every foreign vessel

eliminated from those waters and sent home. That is what we have to keep

pursuing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Because, while the issue of joint

management is an admirable one, and one that we support and push for, and we

hope it will soon materialize, it is no good to have joint management over just

the water. We need something in the water to have joint management over, and if

we don't stop this foreign overfishing, then it is only going to be joint

management on paper. I think that is what we have to realize.

I want to say to the minister and to the Premier - because I

think it was last week I read an

article in The Evening Telegram about some

comments that were attributed to the Premier, when really what he said, I think,

was in reaction to former Premier Peckford's tour, that he really said that the

message on foreign overfishing has been delivered. He seemed to indicate that it

is almost like it is good enough now if we leave this foreign overfishing issue

alone. He thought there was significant progress being made. I want to say, it

seems like again there are mixed signals coming from the minister and the

Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has expired. If he

could draw his remarks to a close.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: We must always, Mr. Speaker, continue

this battle against foreign overfishing or else we, as the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, will cease to exist.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, I directed some

questions to the Minister of Mines and Energy on the issue of privatization of

Newfoundland Hydro. His answers to me, and later, to the press were evasive, I

think, to say the least. He was far more direct last August when he was quoted

as saying in The Evening Telegram, at least, that: government had studied

privatization three years earlier and it was decided it would be of no benefit.

The proposal has been shelved since then.

During the course of my asking those questions on Wednesday,

the Premier shouted across the House and said: Ask the Finance Minister - about

some of the questions I was asking. The Finance Minister isn't here today, nor

is the Minister of Mines and Energy. So I would like to ask the Premier: Can the

Premier give the House a direct answer, a straight answer? Has he or his

government seen a more recent proposal or study dealing with this issue?

Specifically, I guess, is the Premier aware of any study or proposal being done

or that has been done on behalf of Newfoundland Power? Has he or his government

minister seen such a study or proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have seen no study or proposal done on

behalf of Newfoundland Power, other than the one to which the hon. minister

referred the other day, which was a proposal made a year or so ago -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Whatever it was. So I have seen no study

by Newfoundland Power. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be vague, I don't want to

avoid dealing with the issues. Let me state clearly what the position of the

government is on the matter.

The government, as indicated in the Budget Speech, are

looking at all aspects of privatization, of every activity that is managed by

government and could probably or possibly be better managed and be more

effectively done if it were in the private sector. So the government is looking

at every agency to determine whether or not it might more profitably be done by

the private sector.

The basic philosophy of the government with respect to the

matter is that if the private sector could do it equally well, and there is no

overriding policy reason for that matter to be managed directly by the

government, it is the government's objective to see that it is privatized, if it

is financially appropriate in the circumstances to do so. That includes

everything.

Now, Mr. Speaker, business circumstances are such that if

government is in fact negotiating privatization, or preparing for or assessing

privatization, even the fact of that could affect the way business is conducted

by that agency, or business is carried on by another entity that might want to

get involved in that kind of business, so it would be most inappropriate for

government to be discussing, at an interim stage, any of the details of any

reports, or any aspects of it. So the government does not propose to discuss

publicly any details of privatization discussions unless and until we are ready

to take a position on the matter, in which case the position will be stated

publicly very clearly, in adequate time to allow for public discussion of the

pros or cons of the approach; but we do not propose to be answering questions in

the House, or making comments publicly in any way, that might adversely affect

the operations of such a government agency in the meantime, or adversely affect

any other business in the meantime.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for the lecture and for outlining his

party's policy. I did not ask him any questions about their policy or anything

like it. He went on at length about the policy. Let me ask him specifically: Is

the government looking; has it seen; is there a proposal; is there a study

dealing with the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? Now that is a pretty

straightforward question, and it is not asking for details on negotiations or

anything else. So I am asking the Premier: Will he be direct and tell the people

of the Province? There are a lot of people who are affected by this and who have

an interest, not only financially, but there are employees of Hydro who are

concerned about it. I ask him directly: Is the government looking at studying;

has it seen; does it have a proposal; has Standard and Poor's, the Province's

credit rating agency, done any kind of a study or proposal, or made any

recommendations to the government on the issue of privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro? That is all we are asking. We do not want the details.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, of course there will be

studies, and if studies do not now exist there will be studies, on the

privatization of all - everything that is being considered. If studies do not

now exist, I can assure hon. members that there will be studies before anything

is considered, but I am not going to get involved in discussing any details.

How Standard and Poor's gets into it, I do not know. Standard

and Poor's is not the Province's credit rating agency. It is a general credit

rating agency that rates all provinces and governments and business corporations

and so on. Now Standard and Poor's have not, to the best of my knowledge, done

anything specific with respect to this - not to the best of my knowledge. No

such study exists by Standard and Poor's.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

The Premier has now said there is no such study done by Light

and Power, except the one that was done over a year ago, although the minister

himself said it was three years ago. The Premier just said that. There is no

study done by Standard and Poor's that he is aware of. Standard and Poor's is a

financial investment company as well, and they do work along those lines. I did

not say it was the Province's credit rating agency. It is one of the ones that

rates the credit rating of the Province. Okay, so there is no study or proposal

there from those agencies. Has the government itself undertaken any study, or is

it undertaking a study at the moment to look at the question of privatization of

Hydro? If it is not, tell the people.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have stated the

government's policy and I am going to stick with it. The position is still the

same. We have no intention whatsoever of discussing in an intermediate basis any

action that the government has taken to give consideration to this, or who is

doing studies, or what the studies contain, or whether it is the government or

somebody else, but I say to people, to the members generally, that the

government will not move without doing a full and thorough assessment of the

pros and cons of any such move. So of course, if studies are not now done,

studies will be done before any such action is taken but, Mr. Speaker, I state

again, nobody will be making any statements on behalf of government as to who is

doing what study for what purpose. The government will do a full and thorough

assessment of every single possible privatization before any action is proposed

by government.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will try one more I

guess. To use the Premiers own words, if studies are not now being done or done,

can the Premier tell the House are studies being done now?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question

thoroughly, I am not going to play these silly games with the Leader of the

Opposition.

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

MR. SIMMS: On a supplementary. The Premier has been coy

and evasive, in case he does not understand it himself, tell the people of the

Province, is the government looking at the privatization of Hydro now or has it

been looking at it for some time? Is there a proposal underway, is there a study

underway that you are looking at? Yes or no? Tell the people, don't be evasive.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, just bear in mind now the

specific question that he is asking to have answered. Is the government

considering privatization of Newfoundland Hydro? The minister stated the

government is considering possible privatization of every single crown agency

that can be run by the private sector. Is Hydro such an agency? Yes. Does he

need it included specifically? Does he not accept the answer? The government is

considering the possibility of privatization of every single agency of

government that can possibly be run by the private sector and we will seek to

achieve privatization unless there is an overwhelming public policy reason for

maintaining public involvement in the enterprise. So let there be no doubt about

that.

Now, the second point I want to make, the government will not

make any move whatsoever with respect to privatization of any agency at all

without first doing a complete and thorough assessment of the pros and cons of

it. That may or may not mean very extensive studies in the case of some of the

agencies but we will do whatever is appropriate and necessary in the

circumstances.

The third point that I want to make is, the government will

not deal with intermediate stage discussions on this because of the nature of

this. We could adversely affect the position of any one of the agencies

involved, we could adversely affect the position of other business interests in

a similar area in which the agency operates. So we are not prepared to make any

public statements on the issue at all unless and until the government is ready

to make known its position. In which case I undertake to make sure that we make

the governments position public in adequate time to allow for full public debate

of the pros and cons of any proposed discussions. Now, that is the final

definitive answer on all aspects raised and I am not going to play these silly,

twenty questions games of the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to

the hon. Minister of Social Services. The Budget presented in March and

re-introduced unchanged last week, cut funding to assist physically and

developmentally disabled persons to attend post-secondary institutions. During

the election the Premier promised to review these cuts. Is the minister now able

to tell those students that they will continue to get financial support in the

same manner and on the same basis as they did last year and in previous years?

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

MR. LUSH: All programs, Mr. Speaker, all programs within

the Department of Social Services are being looked at. In as much as they affect

the mentally delayed or the disadvantaged, I can tell the hon. member that they

are being looked at with a view to offering our people in all areas the best

services possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Can the minister indicate when his review

will be completed and when the students will know what support they can expect

or whether they can afford to continue with those studies?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain as to when the

department will be in a position to announce the program but hopefully it will

be done in time so that people will be able to direct and do the things they

have to do with respect to course preparation accordingly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South on a

final supplementary.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to

another subject. In February, three months ago, there were 64,000 individuals on

social assistance which represented a caseload of 31,000. What is the caseload

and number of people on social assistance this month and how many of them are

able-bodied young adults who are unable to find employment?

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

MR. LUSH: I do not have the figures off the top of my

head on both questions but I will undertake to get these statistics and provide

them to the hon. member as quickly as possible.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you get them this morning?

MR. LUSH: No, not this morning.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

For some time now, as I am sure the minister is aware, the paper companies in

the Province, especially Abitibi-Price, Abitibi for some time now and more

specifically Kruger over the past couple of years, have introduced the use of

harvesters in the Province in the logging industry. Could the minister inform

the House of his department's stand, or more specifically, I guess, his

government's stand with regard to the use of harvesters by the two paper

companies in the Province?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, this government's position and

my position in particular is, we would love to see a situation where logging

would continue to be carried out with the bucksaw, because as the hon. member

knows when the forest was being harvested with axe and bucksaw thousands of

people worked in the woods, and that is the way we would like to have it. When

the chainsaw came along the workforce required to cut the same amount of trees

was reduced a great deal, and when the skinners came along the same thing

happened. It is progress, Mr. Speaker. We would prefer that the trees in

Newfoundland were being cut providing the maximum employment but in order for

the paper companies to be competitive, to operate and compete with their

competitors worldwide, and to provide a quality sheet of paper, and to keep

their costs competitive they have to go to new technology, and the new

technology in this case is harvesters. Mr. Speaker, we wish there was a better

way but in order to permit the paper companies to operate competitively and to

keep the cost of wood down we accept the fact that some of the harvesting in the

Province must be done with harvesters as he is referring to.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the

minister realizes that when you introduce one of these harvesters to any

specific area each harvester puts at least twenty loggers out of work. Could the

minister inform the House whether he has had any discussion with Abitibi-Price

and Kruger concerning the loss of hundreds, and I suppose in another year or two

probably thousands of jobs in the logging industry? It cannot be increasing

technology at any cost. The other main concern is the very severe economic

environmental concerns expressed by people in the Province.

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the companies on

many occasions during the past four years. I have also met with the unions who

represent the workers this past four years and I caution the hon. member about

over dramatizing. The fact of the matter is that in 1989 there was just short of

800 loggers supplying wood to Abitibi-Price and today there are still in excess

of 400, so I do not know where he is getting the thousands and thousands of job

reductions. There has been a great reduction in the workforce in the woodlands

of the two paper companies but both the union and the environmental people have

discussed the harvesters method of logging with me and both groups accept the

inevitability of the companies using that kind of technology. I might point out

to the hon. member that all the wood being cut in Newfoundland is not being cut

by harvesters. As a matter of fact the companies are assessing whether or not

they should continue to bring more harvesters in or retain the level of

harvesters they use now and combine it with their normal way of logging.

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

final supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: I want to let the minister know that I did

not say thousands. I said in another couple of years there will be thousands but

right now it is in the hundreds.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Four hundred. That's just with

Abitibi-Price. Did you check Kruger lately? Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I'll get into

that later on this morning, in debate probably. Could the minister inform the

House if he has had any discussions with the two paper companies with regards to

probably reinvesting some of the money they're saving with the use of harvesters

into other silviculture and reforestation projects in the Province, so that they

could hire the very loggers that are being laid off because of it?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we're discussing with the

paper companies their silviculture programs all the time. We're also trying to

convince the paper companies to use any money they may be saving in any part of

their operations to reinvest in capital investment in the mills, to modernize

and continue to keep the mills competitive.

I would also point out to the hon. member a very important

role that he may be able to play in the very near future with regards to

that they would continue to keep the forestry agreements that are providing the

funding for at least 70 per cent of the silviculture work going on in this

Province. That includes silviculture on Abitibi and Kruger lands as well as on

Crown. As I'm sure he's aware, his friends in Ottawa have indicated that they

don't intent to negotiate and fund those kinds of agreements. I can tell the

hon. member, if he thinks he has trouble in the woods now with silviculture,

wait until the federal government follows through and dead ends those

cooperative agreements, the forestry agreements, that are providing the funds

now for 70 per cent of silviculture work going on in this Province.

So he might do well, Mr. Speaker, to talk to his friends in

Ottawa and make sure and support us in convincing them that we should keep those

agreements in place.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct

a question to the Minister of Environment and Lands. The Goulds by-pass road has

been discussed for about two years, and the project was registered under the

environmental assessment process by your department over one year ago. This road

will run adjacent and parallel to the water line from Bay Bulls - Big Pond.

Since this line was constructed several years ago there has not been one

registered complaint with your department of an environmental concern regarding

that. So I ask the minister, why is this process taking so long, and will the

minister update this House on the current status of that project?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have to check

now to see where we are exactly in that process, but I'll certainly do so and

gladly bring the information back to the hon. member. It is not unusual for the

environmental assessment process to take from one to two years when we're doing

an in-depth look at something that has potential impact on the environment. We

do try to move as expeditiously as possible, but often there are hold-ups in

which we have to - information comes in to us, say from the Department of

Transportation, which would be the proponent in this case. Then we have to send

back for clarification, more information, that type of thing.

Often in our own department if there is an overwhelming load

of environmental assessments going on at that time, it can be slowed down a

little bit because of that too. Let me assure you that we have added new staff

last year to that division in the hopes of speeding up assessments and there has

been an improvement. I'll certainly check on the status of the Goulds highway

for you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually the

minister should admit the reason it's been delayed is that it has been sitting

on a desk until November. They didn't move on it from May 14 when it was

registered until November of 1992. I'd like to ask the next question to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

In light of the fact that the federal government is funding

this project to the tune of 100 per cent, and there is a dire need to reduce

traffic congestion through the Goulds area, if this environmental assessment

proves positive and gives a go-ahead, will the minister recommend the funding

for this specific road?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's very clear in

everybody's mind from every part of Newfoundland that their particular area

comes before everywhere else. What I will do as minister is take a look at the

needs of all areas in the Province and before I will say publicly I will be

working with the government and working with the Minister of Environment and

Lands. Then when the decision is made the hon. member and all people in the area

will be notified.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the government has placed a

great deal of importance in word if not in deed, on the potential of tourism to

the economy of our Province. We have all seen letters to the paper from out of

the Province tourists who praise the natural beauty of this Province, but are

surprised and disappointed by the litter strewn on our roads, shoreline and

wilderness areas.

I want to ask the Minister of Environment and Lands, if she

has any plans, first, to clean up the litter on our beaches and wilderness areas

and secondly, to encourage people to be more sensitive to the environment and

natural beauty of the Province?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thought that the announcement this morning made by the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations was a very positive step in that

direction. I was familiar with what was going on there and applaud that type of

initiative. As a government, we are currently developing regulations to deal

with beverage containers which make up a very large part of the waste stream and

once that is in hand, we will be looking at other types of litter. It is largely

an education process and our schools are moving in that direction; the

Department of Education does have a course now in high schools on Environmental

Science. As well, teachers are being encouraged on a number of programs backed

up by my department when it used to have the Wildlife Division. For example,

there is a very good environmental program that comes out of the Canadian

Wildlife Federation, but it is largely an education process.

The worst litterers are young men between the ages of

eighteen and twenty-four and I think we have - it has been studied and we

actually know who does the most littering, so I think it would be appropriate

for us, when we certainly have the money to do so, to perhaps aim some programs

at some of these groups who are known as prime litterers, but it is an education

process and will take some time.

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

Capes.

MR. MANNING: I welcome the announcement by the Minister

of Employment and Labour Relations this morning, Mr. Speaker, but I would also

like to ask the minister: has she considered a deposit system such as exist in

other provinces to encourage people to return used containers to some central

point, either for reuse or recycling?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Yes. We are looking at regulations now to

control the use of beverage containers and the deposit system is one of the

methods that we are looking at.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: We have one or two businesses in the

Province now who collect materials for recycling, but the kinds of materials

they collect is limited. For example, while they take aluminum soft drink cans,

they do not take other metal containers. Has the minister discussed this with

those companies, and is there some way government could assist in making it

possible for them to collect the broader range materials that can be used and

recycled?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had a little difficulty hearing the first part of the

gentleman's question, but I believe he said that some of the companies in town

or the two that are involved with recycling cannot take all types of materials

for recycling, was that it?

MR. MANNING: Mostly the materials that they collect are

soft drink cans and they do not take other metal containers and I was just

wondering if you have -

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Yes. One of the problems, Mr. Speaker, with

the whole recycling market is that the bottom is falling out of it. For example,

Nova Recycling can no longer take plastics because the company to which they

were selling them in the United States has gone out of business. They were

making some sort of a synthetic wood-type product with the plastics and they can

be undersold by natural wood and the business just went under, so the whole

recycling area is fraught with all types of problems. First of all, having a

market for recycled items and actually, the current thinking in that area is

that we have to focus more on reuse; recycling yes, but realizing that there is

a market for some things, particularly paper, is something that can be recycled

very easily but, other items do create problems because there is no market for

the materials for somebody like Nova Recycling to sell them to for reuse or

recycling.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Premier, it is about the new

section of the Trans-Canada Highway the provincial government is now

constructing through Corner Brook. The question for the Premier:

Will the government respond to requests from the Corner Brook

Chamber of Commerce and others in the area, to build lookouts so eastbound and

westbound motorists will be able to pull over and enjoy the fabulous view of the

Bay of Islands and the Blomidon Mountains?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Will the government respond? I think the

government has already responded, and my recollection is that the proposal was

considered some months ago. The recommendation, I believe, to government, was

that it not be done at this particular time because of the very substantial cost

involved. I am prepared to reconsider the matter because I agree with the hon.

member - it is a spectacular view - perhaps the most spectacular view from any

part of the Trans-Canada Highway in the Province right at that particular

location. However, as the hon. member knows, right at that location it may also

be extremely costly to build that lookout, but I am certainly prepared to ask

the minister to review the proposal and determine whether or not it can be done,

or how it can be done most cost-effectively. It is a terrific location and would

be a very substantial tourism asset to the Province to have a lookout in that

position, but my recollection is that it came up for consideration some months

ago and because of the very substantial cost involved I believe it was decided

at that time not to proceed with it, but I will check that and let the hon.

member know.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Premier for his response and would remind him

that the federal government is paying 100 per cent of the cost, and over $100

million is being provided over the next several years for the four-laning of the

highway from Massey Drive to Deer Lake.

A supplementary to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. The new highway is being built much closer to houses on the old

highway between the Corner Brook golf course and Massey Drive and in Maple

Valley than the property owners were led to expect. Will the minister

immediately respond to the home owners' requests for departmental staff to visit

them, see the problems that are developing, and discuss with them the

possibilities of the government purchasing their properties or appropriately

compensating them for their loss?

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

Transportation.

Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can assure the hon. member that I will be visiting that

particular area within the next two weeks, actually, and I want to familiarize

myself with not only the concerns of the people in that area but the staff of

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. When I go there I will

make note of it and it will be a top priority on my list, and when I come back

then I will inform the hon. member that this minister will do whatever is

necessary to deal with the responsibility of his department. I cannot make a

commitment at this point in time, but I will look into the matter and get back

to the member in two to three weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Humber East.

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

Premier.

The Premier may want to have the minister respond, but since

the Premier has a personal interest I will start by asking him. The new highway

in Maple Valley includes an ugly, steep, rock slope. What provision will the

Province make to beautify the hill?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I really wish the hon. member would make

up her mind as to... The Premier's office does not take responsibility for

beautifying solid rock faces. Solid rock faces have an innate beauty of their

own. There are many people who think that is absolutely spectacular and are

impressed by it. What the hon. member is talking about is the old quarry area, I

assume, which is a solid rock face.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) Maple Valley.

PREMIER WELLS: Which is a solid -

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) down from the new four lane -

PREMIER WELLS: You are talking about the slope over the

side? I do not know what the contract calls for. Most of these highway contracts

call for hydroseeding and surfacing, and I assume this is probably no different.

I can ask the minister to check it, but I am not going to go out and rake the

ground and seed it myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

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

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Workers'

Compensation Act." (Bill No. 8)

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could we begin,

please, with Motion No. 2, that is, the request of the Minister of Health for a

bill.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill,

"An Act Respecting The Control Of The Sale Of Tobacco To Minors," carried. (Bill

No. 7)

On motion, Bill No. 7 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. ROBERTS: Budget Debate, Motion No. 1, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion No. 1, the Budget Debate.

MR. ROBERTS: My hon. friend from Ferryland continues the

debate.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The great Budget

Debate - the debate about a Budget in which we don't even know the specific line

items there and about a Minister of Finance who proclaims that the Federal

Government is responsible for the reduction in our credit rating. When you just

look at the Budget and the areas of provincial revenues, it is not very

difficult to see that the reason for a reduction in our credit rating, by one of

the credit rating agencies, is because of this government's lack of initiative.

When you look back a few years ago and see $70 million in corporate income tax

received by this Province and $39 million anticipated to be received this year,

it shows that the business sector in this Province is in great difficulty and

there has been no effort to entice and bring new business into the Province.

We have seen a whole series of mini-Budgets that has been

responsible for the decline in our credit rating. We have seen a Minister of

Finance who indicates that the budgets of Ontario and Quebec, that are

projecting a real decline in growth by 1 per cent, are not going to have any

negative impact on his projections. In fact, he indicated his projections are

going to improve. They are going to be better than he has projected. That would

be a sharp contrast or turn-around from what it has been over the past two years

in which we have to come into the House in the Fall and bring in mini-Budgets to

be able to provide the financing and the direction for the balance of the fiscal

year.

There is talk in the Budget about harmonizing our taxes, our

GST and RST. I have great fear that the harmonization of these taxes is going to

be another huge tax grab for this Province. We have seen tax grabs occurring

with the elimination of the school tax, when the Province took over the balance

sheets of school boards. Taxes that were owing the school boards and collected

under the guise of education in the Province were gobbled up by this Province,

$11 million in past accounts, and just put into the general treasury of this

Province and not used for educational purposes.

We have seen a Budget that hit many areas of this Province.

In rural Newfoundland, it has hit electrical subsidies to arenas in this

Province and most arenas in this Province with probably one or two exceptions

are operating at deficits and have to be subsidised by municipalities. Once

again, it is an extra $10,000 that is being downloaded on each municipality. We

have seen a whole series of downloading on municipalities in this Province. We

seen government pass the burden and all claiming they have less in federal

transfer payments. Well, actually, in this Budget, we are going to be seeing an

increase from $877 million to $903 million in equalization payments across the

Province. We may have a decline in the government's projection in transfer

payments but there hasn't been a real net decline in transfer payments to the

Province. That is something that government is throwing out there as a red

herring to divert people's attention away from the real problem in this

Province, and that is being able to generate a source of revenue that is going

to be able to bring more dollars into the government coffers.

It is very sad when government has to look for their revenues

to the small number of employed people who are currently working in this

Province. We have seen that government are going to take another $34 million, in

personal income tax alone, out of the pockets of the few who are working in this

Province, over last year. They are going to be taking, in gasoline tax, another

$13 million from the working people of this Province again, and when we look at

each revenue item in this Budget, whether it be tobacco tax or whatever tax it

may be, they are gouging money from the working people of this Province and

there are no new monies coming in by expanding and having an increased workforce

here in this Province. If we are going to move out of this economic malaise that

we are in now we have to do something to broaden the tax base in our Province

and stop increasing taxes on individuals. We have seen in just four years, since

1989, an increase of 15 per cent in personal income tax paid by the working

people in this Province. We have seen an increase in gasoline tax and increases

in all aspects of taxes. We have seen a piggybacking of GST and retail sales

tax. That is another 1 per cent increase. The retail sales tax is now 12.84 per

cent, almost 13 per cent in the Province. It is at an intolerable level.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: It is piggybacked, and 12 per cent of 7 is

.84 per cent. It is 12 per cent. It is piggybacked. It is 13 per cent with the

piggybacking factor in this Province and if the tax were not piggybacked it

would be 12 per cent. We are collecting 12.84 per cent taxes in this Province.

We can see that retail sales tax in this Province is proposing to take another

$10 million again next year in an economy where there are less people working,

where they are already paying and giving more, more, and more. On top of that we

look at wage rollbacks in this Province taking another $70 million out of the

pockets of working Newfoundlanders and Labradorians again. It is time to get a

little bit of planning into the direction in which this government is going and

planning must come in a broadening of tax base. The cutting of services and

taxing people to death is not the answer. We have an economy that is getting

smaller and smaller.

The problem with our credit rating here in this Province is

not the sole responsibility at all of a poor Canadian economy where there are

less dollars for transfer payments. The economies of other provinces are not

projected to increase substantially at all, very marginally, and that is going

to have a negative impact on transfer payments in this Province. One of the

biggest concerns that credit rating agencies have with this Province is that our

debt ratio was too high in relation to our GDP and we are doing nothing to

increase that GDP here in this Province. And giving incentives to bring in

outside investment and new dollars into the economy is the only way we are going

to spread the tax base over more individuals. We have seen corporate income tax

go down from $70 million to $39 million over the past few years and, at the same

time, we have seen personal income tax go up by 15 per cent. We have seen tax

grabs with school tax and we have seen it with payroll tax and the payroll tax

is again a tax on jobs. This government's line of thinking is that you tax, and

tax, and tax to death the people who are working. You cut, you lay off and you

have less people working, then you have to respond with increased taxes again.

That has been the philosophy, that has been the direction this government has

been taking over the past number of years.

We then look at education. Education is very important in

establishing opportunities for people to be able to obtain jobs in the future.

We have seen how this government gouged $11 million out of school taxes that

were destined for education and didn't get there. We have seen this Budget now

cutting back on Memorial University of Newfoundland, so that they need $11

million to $12 million to balance their budget. We are going to see a greater

burden than ever before placed upon students in this Province in obtaining an

education. We are going to see a decline in the number of people attending

Memorial University. We are going to see a reduction in the education

attainments of people in this Province at a time when we can least afford it.

The Minister of Education indicated yesterday that only one

in six people who go into university with an average in the 60s really go on and

graduate. One of the reasons why there are only a few people graduating in that

category is because the colleges across this Province have huge waiting lists. A

lot of people go into Memorial University and try to spend a year there at least

rather than stay home unemployed, to have an opportunity to at least advance

themselves personally and obtain a little higher education or give them a little

start when they do finally get accepted after a year or two and three and four

years in these colleges. That is why a lot of people leave in the 60 averages

and go on to other post-secondary institutions here in the Province. The real

figure is not one in six, it is a step to go on. A year at university is not a

wasted year because you don't obtain a degree. I think it is a very valuable

learning experience and it prepares people for the careers they want to choose.

This Province has placed its education at a very, very low

priority. We have proclaimed that education is the step to success, the step to

filling the job market in the future. At the same time, it seems to be hitting

harder and harder on students in this Province when the student unemployment

rate is at sky-high levels, unprecedented levels, impossible to obtain work -

MR. GRIMES: That's not true.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and an opportunity to access funds to get

to university is becoming increasingly more difficult.

MR. GRIMES: Ten years ago the student unemployment rates

were higher than they are today. Never mind saying it is unprecedented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have had more students to be unemployed.

Right now, we don't have many students. Our enrollments are down, our

percentages are down. We have to look at it in terms of the total picture.

MR. GRIMES: Get the figures straight, now.

MR. SULLIVAN: We have school boards this year again. In

order to rationalize and to make the high schools across this Province, primary

and elementary schools, more efficient, it is important that there be some

rationalization. There is not a great difficulty in certain areas in closing

schools and trying to consolidate because of declining enrollments. But this

Province, this year, has put a cap, it has prevented consolidating schools in

this Province this year, because they have frozen any capital funding for new

schools. There are schools in this Province now that really need to close, move

to new communities, and to consolidate. With a freeze on the capital

expenditure, these schools are not going to be able to consolidate and provide a

better service.

If we don't want to have to spread our resources too thin, in

certain areas we have to amalgamate and consolidate schools to make them more

efficient, and this government is not looking beyond its nose. Capital funding

has to be provided to be able to consolidate and make something more efficient

down the road. We are looking at short-term goals here in education and in

consolidation and improvement of services. We need to be able to provide the

same opportunity for people all over this Province here to get an education.

The minister indicated, when he eliminated the school tax,

that we would provide equalization payments to boards in rural Newfoundland and

other areas that don't have the same opportunity to be able to access the

supplies and equipment they need to be able to enhance their education levels.

For the first time since 1986 this government, last fall, after promising they

were going to eliminate school tax and increase equalization, removed from the

education budget - and it was brought back in 1986 - $11 million in

equalization. By a stroke of the pen, $11 million was removed from the budget

that was given to school boards this year. On top of that $11 million, they

gouged $11 million more on school taxes, for $22 million siphoned from the

education system last year, that was committed and raised and budgeted and

planned under the guise of education. The whole Province and the school system

in this Province is suffering as a result.

For the schools that are currently existing, that need to be

repaired and upgraded, the funding is not there. Memorial University's funding

is cut - $1 million I think for the entire maintenance at Memorial University, a

multi-million dollar facility - tens of millions of dollars. Funding to be able

to just do the normal maintenance operations there, is becoming increasingly

difficult. The direction we are moving in today, we are going to reduce the

University down to a very small manageable institution for the elite who want to

go on and get a degree.

We are seeing now, a crisis in our educational system in this

Province. The crisis is not just here in the primary, elementary and secondary

system. There is a crisis in post-secondary education in this Province. There

are students who cannot get into courses. I have a student in my district who

will have to wait possibly four or five years. In fact, I think the person is

140 or 150 on a list for a university course that is taking twenty-five people,

who is in her fourth year. People are going to have to wait three and four years

past completing their courses to get the few courses that they need now to be

able to graduate. So we have a great problem here. We have people in the

Province who cannot afford to spend seven and eight years from the time they

enter until they graduate. We have to look at keeping our educational

institutions with a fair chunk of the funding.

This Province needs educational dollars as a higher

percentage of the total budget than any other province in this country. We have

a longer ways to go. We need a plan that is going to put into place over the

next - we will say twelve or thirteen years, from Kindergarten to Grade XII -

that is going to raise the levels of people to a standard that is equal to those

of Canada. To do that we have to start today and have it built into our system

and progress it right through the system over the next twelve or thirteen years.

We are failing to set expectations and goals and monitoring

process. There is a lot of rhetoric, but there is no substance, and with

rhetoric - I know we need dollars; I know these are tough times, but certain

times we have to direct funds in tough times into areas where they are going to

get the greatest result - and there is no greater result than in education.

Over this Province we are seeing also, with health care, it

is at its lowest level ever. We have cutbacks in hours of clinics. I think a

clinic is closing, I believe, in Main Brook. In Northwest River there is a

reduction in hours, and Grand Bank and Whitbourne and other areas are all having

reduced access to medical services. In areas that are a little far removed from

the city it makes it a little more difficult and costly to have to commute to

the city to get some basic medical services.

This Province is on a narrow road and it is facing very

difficult economic times, and we are not making decisions that are in tune with

the tough economic times. It is important that monies have to be directed toward

a result. There has to be a planned approach - not just a Band-Aid approach to

what is happening here.

We had a Budget presented to this House back, I think, on

March 18th. We had it presented again just a couple of weeks ago, and we still,

over the two months since its initial presentation - almost three months - two

months into our fiscal year, at a cost, I think, of over $200,000 per day, and

we still have not decided where the salary and wage cuts are going to be. We are

debating every day, in sessions the estimates, and where funding for each

department is, and the various divisions, and what funding is available, and

there is no clear indication up to now where these wage restraints are going to

occur specifically. The total Budget shows compensation measures reduction of

$70 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know where yours came from. It came

right off your salary.

MR. SULLIVAN: It does not say where.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yours came right off your salary.

MR. SULLIVAN: That is correct, but a big concern - to

debate budgets and divisions, it is possible that certain divisions are going to

be eliminated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No division is going to be eliminated at

all? Is that what the minister is saying, that there will be no divisions

eliminated at all to achieve this Budget of projected compensation measures of

$70 million?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) compensation reductions.

MR. SULLIVAN: Strictly compensation reductions?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) division has absolutely no

expenditure other than compensation (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, so the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations is saying that there will be no divisions eliminated; that it

will strictly be a wage compensation of approximately 4.5 per cent across the

board in every division - proportionately? Is that what the minister is saying?

MR. GRIMES: We are in discussions, as the minister has

said, with the unions. The compensation of individuals is what is being

discussed. It is not whether or not a division is going to exist or not.

MR. SULLIVAN: Certain divisions carry certain

responsibilities, and there are certain inherent costs built into administering

divisions. There are currently about, I think, eighty-some divisions in

government. There are probably far more divisions than government could really

function under. It becomes cumbersome when you get divisions with small numbers.

Sometimes it is more efficient to look at a total picture.

The minister is indicating there is going to be a straight

wage and salary cutback applied strictly to each salary level. Well the time

will tell exactly. We hope that it will be before November that we find this

out, with the next mini-Budget or Ministerial Statement. Up to now we have not

had any clear direction whatsoever since March 18th, exactly where it is going

to come, except here, when the bill was introduced here in the House on members

salaries which was a straight cutback. Other than that, we do not have any other

indication where it is occurring, so I think it is about time that the

government started to address real direction and show some economic foresight

and some action. We will be in a sad state of affairs if we keep going on the

current direction we are heading.

We indicated back in March we could not wait, the fiscal year

was coming up and there was an urgency, there was a great urgency back in March

with the fiscal year and to get a Budget in back in early March, there were

deadlines in which they wanted to reach this. To date, here we are, almost three

months later, and we still do not have the areas of the Budget where the cuts

are occurring, so, Mr. Speaker, the Budget as it was initially called a Budget

of truth and hope; there is not much truth in the Budget, I can see a lot of

deceit and false figures in the Budget and I do not see much hope in the Budget.

In fact, I think it is more a Budget of despair, a Budget of depression and so

on, and in tough times, tough decisions but fair decisions have to be made

directed where it is going to have a result, but this government has not taken

those steps, we still have a Budget lingering since March 18th, the same Budget

rehashed and presented again, and we still have no clear direction what is going

to happen specifically within that Budget and here we are debating estimates

that we do not even know what the specific numbers are, so, thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take advantage of

this debate to say a few words on this Budget, but before I get into the meat of

my speech, I want to pay tribute to the new members on both sides of the House

who made some great speeches, it is obvious that there is a great deal of talent

as a result of this last election which we just had. I must say I am pleased to

see the level of talent on the Opposition benches, I am convinced that the

talent which they displayed will ensure that they are going to be over there for

a good many years and I certainly wish them well in that, but, Mr. Speaker, I am

overwhelmed with the amount of talent in our own back benches and I say to my

colleagues in Cabinet, that we had better watch our Ps and Qs because there is

just as much talent in the back benches on this side of the House as there is in

Cabinet, I can assure hon. members that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before getting into this Budget, I should

give hon. members some background as to where this Budget came from, what this

Budget grew out of. To start my background, I have to go back to May 5th, of

1989, hon. members will all know what happened on May 5th, that is when the

first Liberal government in seventeen years was sworn in to take over the

responsibility of governing this Province.

The first thing we did, Mr. Speaker, was, open up the books,

open up the ledger. We had to see just what kind of government we were

inheriting, what was the state of the Province, and, Mr. Speaker, when we opened

the books, Sir, what a shock, what a shock we got! The first thing glaring at us

and staring us in the face was a bill for $24 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was that for?

MR. DECKER: Sprung, $24 million and, Mr. Speaker, when I

looked at that $24 million I thought about the fishermen on the Great Northern

Peninsula, I thought about Johnny Edison up in the Straits, he was on the radio

this morning talking about Mr. Cashin. I thought about the struggle he had to go

through to earn $10,000 a year in order to feed his family; I thought about the

fishermen off St. Mary's, I thought about the loggers, the hon. Member for

Humber Valley this morning talked about the loggers who were being displaced

because of the mechanization in the logging industry.

I grew up in a logging family; $15,000, $20,000 was a good

income. My grandfather was a contractor in the logging industry, if he could

clear $20,000 a year, he was doing good, and $24 million of his hard earned

money, his taxes, that is what was staring us in the face, we had to pay it off.

We looked at the teachers pension fund, Mr. Speaker. About to

go busted in the year 1996. All those teachers who over the years had

contributed to this fund, secure in the knowledge that when they retired they

would not have to go on some welfare list, but they could collect pensions from

the fund that they had paid into. Mismanaged by the previous administration.

About to go bankrupt in the year 1996. That's what we saw staring us in the face

in 1989. The public service pension fund. About to go bankrupt in the year 1998.

That's what we saw. About to go bust.

The Workers' Compensation Board. I thought of a constituent

up in my own district who got injured in the lumber woods. A tree fell on him.

Had his back broken. He's relying on payments from the Workers' Compensation

Board for the rest of his life. That fund was about to go bust before the year

2000. That's the mess we saw staring us in the face. The Baie Verte mines, which

had been bailed out year after year by the previous administration came up with

a debt - I believe it was in the $40 million range. Forty-odd million dollars

had to be paid off by the Province.

Fainter souls than ours would have shrunk from that task. As

a matter of fact, fainter souls than us did shrink from this task. We all know

those famous last words of Brian Peckford, who said that he did not have the

guts -

AN HON. MEMBER: Didn't have the ruthlessness.

MR. DECKER: Didn't have the ruthlessness to do what had

to be done, Mr. Speaker. What a cop-out. Mr. Rideout, that flurry of a few days,

thought that he would sneak in an election without calling the House into

session. He thought he would sneak into, with all the hype of the leadership

campaign, when they were fifty-something per cent in the polls. They thought

that this was a good way to sneak an election in, get back into power once more,

and then not have to take the responsibility for it.

Hibernia. Look at all the hype, all the shouting and

screaming that the previous administration had about Hibernia. They had every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian going out and taking their last red cent and

investing it by mortgaging their houses. But you know, there was nothing done

with Hibernia. It was nothing only just a puff of hot air. Nothing had been

done. They talk about the Atlantic Accord. We've been trying to straighten that

mess out ever since we've been in power. No agreements had been signed. No deals

had been made. The only one who benefitted from all the Hibernia hype that the

previous administration won two elections on was one Mr. Peter Lougheed. Does

anyone know who Mr. Peter Lougheed was? Former premier of Alberta. The former

Tory premier of Alberta, who was paid millions of dollars for legal work for

Hibernia. Why? As one of the former ministers explained: our lawyers in this

Province don't have the expertise.

Because we have the common garden variety of lawyers. My

colleague, the Member for Naskaupi, who is now the House Leader, is really a

common garden type of lawyer, therefore we couldn't trust his firm to have

anything to do with Hibernia. The hon. the Premier, who at that time was in

practice in this Province, he didn't have the capability, according to the

former administration. He was the common garden type of lawyer. The hon. Member

for Humber East, who was an outstanding lawyer in this Province, I would think,

probably one of the lawyers who we will boast about - she certainly did a great

job when she was minister of justice - she was the common garden type. So the

Hibernia thing was nothing only hot air, it was all used for political purposes.

The departments of government were running themselves. I

heard former ministers on that side of the House admit that. I remember when I

was a boy growing up and some Sundays we'd have chicken for dinner. Of course,

we didn't go to a supermarket and buy a chicken that was all cleaned. My

grandmother would go out to the barn, take a rooster, and cut its head off. When

she did that, Mr. Speaker, the rooster would probably run around for three or

four minutes going all over the place with no head. Now, that is what the

departments of government were like for seventeen years, prior to May 1989, they

were running around like roosters with their heads gone, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: We accepted the challenge to try to clean up

this mess which had been perpetrated by seventeen years of non-rule, of

non-governing. Mr. Speaker himself, the Member for Humber West, accepted the

challenge of cleaning up Justice. My colleague in Mines and Energy had to take

the Hibernia thing in hand, and what a job he did, Mr. Speaker. My colleague for

St. John's Centre, who at that time was the Minister of Finance, had to clean up

the mess that the Department of Finance was in, and I want to publicly pay

tribute to the tremendous job that hon. member did, Mr. Speaker. It was

impossible to get into this building any hour in the morning but his car was

parked in the space for the Department of Finance. No matter how late at night

anyone came up near this building his car was parked in his lot. At one time I

thought the thing was broken down it was there so long, but no, the light was on

in his window because he worked day and night to try to straighten up the mess

that we inherited, and at that time, Mr. Speaker, we were being watched. The

credit rating agencies around the world were watching Newfoundland and Labrador

like hawks. Remember now, we had the lowest credit rating in all of Canada. We

were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. That is what we were doing, Mr.

Speaker, when my friend who is now the Minister of Health and was then the

Minister of Finance took over.

I can tell people in this Province without any fear of

contradiction, that had we not won in the nick of time, had the Rideout team

been re-elected, I can guarantee people in this Province that today we would not

be here as a government. There would be six or seven members of a commission and

that is who would be running this Province today. A lot of people do not realize

just how close we came to losing our provincial status just as we lost our

status as a nation back in the 30s. In the nick of time we came in and the good

policies which were developed by my colleague, the Member for St. John's Centre,

saved this Province. That is what happened.

What about the Department of Development? I only wish today

that my friend the Member for St. Barbe was here to hear me and support what I

am saying because he knows the kind of mess he found when he took over the

Department of Development. It was known throughout the Province and throughout

the world as the excursion department. Every first class seat on every airline

in this Province was booked by delegations who were going to Japan, and

delegations to Norway. We would have saved money had we bought a hotel in Norway

rather than all the rent we had to pay out for people who were making their

annual trips to Norway. Norway almost became to us what Mecca is to the Moslems.

Everybody had to go to Norway. The previous Minister of Health was preparing a

trip to Australia. I do not know why.

MR. ROBERTS: Even worse, he was preparing to come back.

MR. DECKER: As my colleague points out, he was even going

to buy a return fare. I spent four years in the Department of Health and I could

not see any rhyme or reason why the Minister of Health would have to go to

Australia. My colleague for St. John's Centre is now the Minister of Health.

Have you been to Australia yet? The hon. member has not been to Australia so why

in the name of goodness were they preparing these trips. My colleague for St.

Barbe took over that and he meshed all several departments into one and came up

with the Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, bright and shiny, ready

for the 21st Century. That is the kind of thing we did.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in my own case and being a man of very

humble upbringing, not given to going out and bragging, I have to say with some

humility that the department I took over was in one terrible mess as well. They

used to build hospitals not based on need. They would build hospitals to satisfy

poor, old Bill - down on the Burin Peninsula. Poor old Bill. We cannot close

this hospital in Grand Bank because he might not get reelected - or poor old

Brian, we should not close his hospital. They did not use any professional

method to decide whether or not they were going to change the role of an

institution. They built hospitals based on whether or not they were in Tory

districts; based on whether or not they could get one of their own people

reelected, and all of this sort of thing.

Well I went in and took that mess, and with all the humility

that I can render, straightened it up so that today I am given credit - and I

hate to brag over this - I am given credit across this nation as the one single

minister in all of Canada who saved Medicare. The Globe and Mail - I can bring

articles if anyone doubts what I am saying, and pass them around - and every

other province in the great nation of ours is trying now to follow in the

footsteps that we in this Province have led.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of these four years, in all the

departments which were running around like headless roosters, we took all these

departments and whipped them into shape. What we did in the past four years was

lay a solid foundation. The foundation is now there. The credit rating agencies

today are saying to Saskatchewan: You should be like Newfoundland. You should

take your cue from Newfoundland. They are saying to Ontario: You should take

your cue from Newfoundland. They are saying to the Dominion of Canada: You

should take your cue from Newfoundland.

Now just as I have been given the credit for saving Medicare,

the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Finance and the present Minister

of Finance, well may be given credit in the not too distant future for saving

the Dominion of Canada, because we are the first government in this nation of

ours to have the backbone to do what had to be done - to have the integrity to

tell the people the truth, and not trying to hoodwink them into supporting us at

the polls. We are the first Province to do it, but now you notice that all

across the land other provinces are following in our footsteps.

We just saw a tremendous majority for our Liberal colleagues

in Nova Scotia, who went out and said to the Nova Scotians: The gravy train is

gone. We have to face the truth. Here it is; and the people of Nova Scotia,

seeing what happened to this good, upright, solid, fair Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador, they said: That is what we want. They went to the

polls and turfed out the previous administration and put in a good, clean,

Liberal government because they want exactly like Newfoundland has.

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe we are going to see that happen again

on the federal level when the people of the country go to the polls, and they

must go before November. Their time will be run out; they must go to the polls.

They are going to say: What do we want? What kind of government do we want for

the next five years, ten years, fifteen years, twenty years? We want a

government like is in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we want. Where are

they going to look? I know where they are going to look. Hon. members opposite

know where they are going to look - and the future is not too bright for anyone

who goes around with any connection to the present government in Ottawa.

So, Mr. Speaker, we had four years in which we laid the

foundation. We put in place the Economic Recovery Commission. Now before the

election hon. members over there thought they were going to make this a big

election issue. The hon. members on the other side talking about the Economic

Recovery Commission, I heard them say: Oh, that is their Sprung. Huh - some

Sprung, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say Mr. Chicken. Do you remember Churchill's

statement: Some chicken, some neck?

AN HON. MEMBER: Some neck.

MR. DECKER: Some chicken, some neck. Some Sprung, Mr.

Speaker. The Economic Recovery Commission laid the foundation for the long-term

viability of this Province. They helped to come up with our economic strategy,

which for the first time in the history of this Province, lays out a blueprint

of where we are going to go. In that blueprint stress is placed on anything

which is associated with the sea. We are an island, a great part of our Province

is an island, the other part of our Province is bordering on the sea. How can we

think about industries of the future unless we think about the sea from which we

came? The economic strategy says that we, in our education, we must develop

skills that are related to the ocean. We are now not far away from the day when

in the Marine College, which is now a part of the University, we will be

offering degrees in marine sciences, we will be offering degrees with major's in

different marine technology, Mr. Speaker. We will become a forerunner in

educational skills that are related to the ocean.

I would suggest to any person in this Province who is looking

for some career of the future, pick something that is related to the sea because

that is where the future of Newfoundland lies. That includes the fishery, that

includes secondary processing, that includes designing of ships and offshore oil

rigs and it goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. So one of the main parts of our

economic strategy is to continue to build around the sea, and do not forget the

fishery, Mr. Speaker. Times have changed but with the right management, once we

get joint management of the fishery and get that industry where we want it to

be, there is going to be a long-term fishery. Albeit it will be different from

that which we had in the past but there is a long-term fishery. As a result of

these four years of putting the foundation in place we now have the most

efficient health care system that we have ever had in the history of this

Province. We have a very efficient health care system.

In education, Mr. Speaker, I am following in the footsteps of

my predecessor, the hon. Dr. Phil Warren. The previous speaker spoke about the

school taxes, yes, let him continue to speak about the school taxes and let him

clamour and scream all he likes but they are not going to get the school taxes

back. They are not getting the school taxes back, they may as well get used to

it, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you what the school taxes did. My district is in a

less affluent part of this Province. Mr. Speaker, the average income for all

school taxes collected in the district that I represented, was $103 per student.

My colleague who represents Bay d'Espoir, the average income per student was

sixty-three dollars. That was the school taxes which they are clamouring for and

they want back, but the average in Labrador West and the average in St. John's

was $405 per student, now, where is the equity in that? Where is the fairness in

that, where is the balance in that, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for Humber

Valley wants it back?

They fought us tooth and nail when my predecessor, I know

what he went through, I know how desperately he fought to have it abolished and

abolish it he did, Mr. speaker, and I want to pay public tribute to him today

for the great work which he did and I want to assure the people of this Province

that as long as we are here that hon. members can fight all they like, they are

not going to get the school taxes back.

MR. FLIGHT: But the Tories will bring it back.

MR. DECKER: Now, Mr. Speaker, we put in place an economic

strategy and we straightened out the mess in all the departments. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we are not going to sit back on our laurels and say great, everything

has been done, because we know it is not. We have simply laid the foundation and

on that foundation now we are going to build and I say to Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians as our Budget Speech was, it was realism and hope. The foundation

is there, now we can start building. One of the first things we started building

was announced in the Speech from the Throne. Hon. members will remember when His

Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor, read the Speech from the Throne he talked about

a social strategy. A social strategy must go hand in hand with the economic

strategy which we have in place, one is dependent on the other. The economic

strategy will pay for the social strategy and that is the Liberalism coming

through this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, when we are showing our concern for

the less fortunate in our society, and one of the things we are looking at that

hon. members will be pleased to hear, one of the things we are looking at again,

the Economic Recovery Commission is doing a tremendous amount of work in this,

we are looking at the possibility of a guaranteed annual income.

If some way, we could come up with a guaranteed annual

income, we could change the face of our Province, but we will need co-operation

from the federal government. Remember this, there is $1.3 billion being spent

today by various forms of the safety net; $1.3 billion being spent on about

225,000 people, which averages out to somewhere around $4,000 per person, per

year. The money is being spent. If we had some way to re-assign some of this

money and put it into the form of a guaranteed annual income, we could have a

base so that the bare fact that a person breathes, the bare fact that a person

lives, would mean that his base is not zero but his base is $4,000 or six or

three or whatever it would work out to, and I believe if it is possible for us

to come up with some kind of a guaranteed annual income, it would make it much

easier for us to assure our people that there basic needs are taken care of,

food, shelter, clothing and then on top of that, the person can seek work or

make work himself, take some job or whatever the case might be to supplement his

or her income, but the basic income, Mr. Speaker, I believe -

This morning the Member for Humber Valley, talked about the

mechanization of the logging industry and I relate to some of the things he

talked about. My grandfather could cut 20,000 cords of wood a year. For that he

needed 500 men, who went in, stockpiled and drove it out in the spring of the

year, they towed it in boats but it took 500 people to do it. My father could go

in with 100 men and do exactly the same thing. Some years later, I went in, Mr.

Speaker, with twenty-five men, five skidders, a tractor and a couple of trucks

and we produced exactly the same amount. Five skidders, twenty-five men, we

produced 20,000 cords of wood per year.

Now when you look at all that technology and you could take

every single sector of the economy and you will see that mechanization is

creeping in, and one of the rules of government is to ensure that the work which

is lost by the lack of manpower, the work which is lost because of

mechanization, the work which is lost by computerization, we have to make sure

that the profits which are generated from that are redirected so that every

person in society benefits from it otherwise we must stop the industrial

revolution; otherwise we must stop mechanization. We must turn the thing around

and become the masters of mechanization. We must become owners of the slave, who

now is the machine. The Roman Empire, the people had their slaves; in this day

and age we have mechanization but we have to make it work to our advantage and

this is where the concept of a guaranteed income is going to fit in, and where

we have the Economic Recovery Commission working on it, we have officials within

government in all departments, especially the social sector, Mr. Speaker. The

Deputy Minister of Education, the Deputy Minister of Social Services, the Deputy

Minister of Health, the Deputy of Environment and Lands. These deputies are

working together with the Economic Recovery Commission to build on that

foundation which we put in place for the past four years.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is coming to a close, so in

closing, I want to summarize it by saying this: that over the last four years,

we put in place a foundation on which Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can now

build proudly, and that is why when the hon. Minister of Finance got up and said

that this was a Budget which blended realism and hope, I could relate to what he

was saying because that is exactly what it is. We faced the facts of life, we

dealt with them and now we can say to our people you have a foundation, here is

hope, get out and build on it, and that is where we are.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to take a few minutes and

congratulate the new members who are sitting in the House of Assembly today just

after the recent election, and congratulate the new Speaker, the Member for

Humber West, on his appointment as Speaker and look forward to working with him

over the next three or four years, as long as he will be there. I am sure he

will be there that long, unless he gets elevated to a Cabinet post like the

former Speaker.

I would like to take a couple of minutes, or a few seconds,

to publicly thank the people of the Humber Valley district for reelecting me

again and asking me to represent them again for the next three or four years in

the House of Assembly. It is my third election and it shows, I suppose, that I

have the confidence of the people, although during the election campaign I did

not know who was running against me. I did not know whether it was Gary Gale,

the teacher from Hampden, or whether it was the Premier. He spent so much time

in my district, I got all fooled up.

When I get at meetings I get questions on the candidate, Mr.

Speaker. He spent so much time there - six times in the district. We had the

federal member, Mr. Tobin, going from door to door for three weeks, thousands of

dollars spent, had the Premier on television talking about the district of

Humber Valley going red. The only thing red after election day was the Premier's

face and the bank account of the Liberal campaign headquarters in Deer Lake.

Those are the only two red things I saw. Thousands of dollars were spent on

signs. Someone got sucked in during the full month campaign in the district of

Humber Valley, I can assure you.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments I would like to make. I

suppose when you get up to speak you always have this hesitancy, and if you know

you are going to speak for a couple of hours you are jotting down notes and

probably getting something to refer to, but whenever the speaker before you, if

you listen very closely, especially in the Budget Debate, you do not have to jot

down everything. You have your speech all in your head because the member who

spoke before really feeds you all the bait.

Now the first comment I would like to make, especially after

the Member for the Strait of Belle Isle just spoke, is pertaining to the health

care sector. Mr. Speaker, if anybody in this Province, and more specifically

anybody in this House - there are fifty-two members in this House of Assembly,

and if there is one member in the House of Assembly who is not getting an

average of eight to ten calls a week concerning emergency service at the

hospitals of this Province, then I say there is something radically wrong. I

will go on record today, speaking for the west coast of this Province, that now

has twelve intensive care units in the Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook

to serve all western Newfoundland and the south coast - parts of the northern

peninsula, because further down Grenfell looks after St. Anthony.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twelve.

MR. WOODFORD: Twelve intensive care units in the hospital

in Corner Brook.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many people?

MR. WOODFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, the number of people does

not matter here because we have to talk about geography as well. The member

knows full well what the geography is like on the northern peninsula. We are not

as fortunate as the minister responsible for health now, where he can run over

to the Janeway; he can run over to St. Clare's; he can run over to the Grace;

and if he is not satisfied there he can run over to the Health Sciences

building. What do we do?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I know what I am talking about, and it is

alright for the member... You are in another world, Sir. You live in another

world, like a lot of your colleagues sitting in Cabinet; but the time you get

out -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I will give you names. You are not in the

office long enough to get your names. Someone else is doing it for you. I do my

own work in the constituency.

AN HON. MEMBER: It shows.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is right. Sure it showed - for

three elections.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Get on with it.

MR. WOODFORD: I am getting on with it, and what I am

saying is factual. I know the member does not like it, but if you cannot stand

the heat, get out of the kitchen because you are going to get more of it.

Mr. Speaker, people on the west coast of the Province have

been shortchanged because of what's happening. Especially, one, in the health

care system. I get calls every other day concerning emergencies. People out in

the corridors. For someone to stand in this House - especially a Cabinet

minister today to stand in this House and tell me that's not true, and to hear

the Minister of Health get up yesterday and say that the hospitals are

over-built. I challenge him to come out there to a public meeting with me

anywhere and tell me they're over-built.

Come out where you have to go down where the sick and the

helpless and the dying are. That's not being dramatic. That's not trying to

create fearmongering. I know what I'm talking about, and I can present names and

I can present letters, Mr. Speaker, because it is factual.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them! Table them!

MR. WOODFORD: Table them. Yes. The member should table

some of the calls he's after having over the last few weeks since he's been

elected. I have to go back again to what I said first. There's no need of him.

He won't get any calls. I'm sorry about that, I apologize. Because you're out of

touch with what's happening in rural Newfoundland. I'm very sorry about that and

I apologize. I really mean it. Because you're out of touch with what's happening

out in the boondocks, in the rural areas of this Province. What's happening with

people out there who - told by a doctor in Corner Brook to go on to St. John's

for an appointment. Drive in either in a car or in a CN bus. They haven't got

the money to fly, unless it's a total emergency altogether, and then hesitantly

they'll out him on Medi-Vac. Hesitantly and reluctantly.

I'll just recount the one last week. Drove in to St. John's

for her appointment, her and her daughter, sixty-eight years old. Walks into the

Health Sciences Complex. Went in to see a doctor. Waited two hours, went in, ten

minutes: sorry, we can't do anything for you, you have to come back in two

weeks' time for another appointment. Five hundred or 600, 700, 600 kilometres?

Turn around. They didn't have the money to go to a hotel. Stayed in a hostel

that night and then returned to Deer Lake the next day. Come on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Come on. Only one? Mr. Speaker, I can go on

and on but it seems like it's just falling on deaf ears. I say to members

opposite, especially members in rural areas of the Province, the Member for St.

George's, he is going to find it. The Member for Terra Nova is going to find it.

Members outside the metropolitan area are definitely going to find it. It's just

as well to be fair and honest about it, and it's just as well to admit to it.

They have to be getting the calls. They're not isolated to

just my area. No way. It's happening all over this Province, and members

opposite, especially in the back benches, are going to have to start speaking up

for their constituents and do the same as other members in this House are doing.

Because it is happening, and it is happening all over this Province. It's just

as well for them to admit it.

I asked the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture some

questions this morning pertaining to forestry and harvesters. This is a very

serious problem. I know that the minister, and the administration, can't tell

Kruger or Abitibi-Price to stop using harvesters. I'm well aware of the fact

that mechanization has to come. That with change and progress and all as it is

that has to come. I'm well aware of that. What's happening is that there are

hundreds of loggers losing their jobs because of the harvesting, of new machines

moving into the - especially Kruger on the west coast of the Province. Not only

the loss of jobs, but the environmental problems that those harvesters are

causing are really dramatic.

We'll forget that part of it. I'll go back to what the

minister at the end of his speech mentioned about what's happening with the

savings, and that's exactly what I said. The savings from the use of those

harvesters - I'm not saying you have to stop them. You can't stop them. There's

no way to stop them. There are only so many areas in the Province they can cut

anyway. The other areas where a logger and a timber jack and the porters have to

go in to get the - that's still there. The harvesters, there are only certain

places they can work, period.

The other thing about this is that we have the federal

government, through ACOA, and the provincial government, through Enterprise

Newfoundland, helping fund those harvesters, and at the same time putting

someone (inaudible) -

MR. FLIGHT: Helping the harvesters (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Helping the company. ACOA funds the

harvesters, and if they want a small interest loan or a small business loan, or

a conventional or a term loan, the company can get it through Enterprise

Newfoundland, just like any other company in the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Well, I can only speak for my area. I mean,

that is a loan, it is not a grant. ACOA is a grant, that is what I am saying. So

it is a little bit unfair when you talk about the loggers being put out of work.

I think the company, especially Kruger, can put something in place so they can

accommodate the loggers who have been displaced by the harvester. I think they

really can, by increasing reforestation, silviculture programs, and so on. I

think something could be accommodated.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: I know all about - that's right. But the

minister knows full well what those big companies are like. We have been held

hostage for years, right back to the 1930s, with regard to Bowater and those

other companies in the Province, and I think the time has come where we will

soon have to say `enough is enough', the same as we are saying to others around

the Province. We are saying it to the hospital boards.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) Abitibi (inaudible) hundreds of

millions of dollars (inaudible) years. Where do you think the savings are going

to go if they find a way to get cheaper wood?

MR. WOODFORD: If you could see the books of Abitibi or

Kruger -

MR. FLIGHT: I have seen them.

MR. WOODFORD: We can't see them. I know we don't have the

luxury of looking at their books, but as far as I am concerned, they are soon

going to have to be challenged in no uncertain terms. We are doing it to

hospital boards, we are doing it to school boards, we are doing it to

municipalities, yet, we can't touch a big company in the Province.

I know, at a time now, when unemployment is high and so on,

it is a bit hard to try to address that problem. Again, I said it before with

regard to the timber rights in the Province. We, as Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, can't go out and cut enough lumber, cut a log, to build a home,

because we are controlled by someone else. I can't build a cabin, I can't put a

road down to the lake. In some parts of the Province I can't even put a line in

the water.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere soon, somehow, that is going to have

to be addressed. I firmly believe - this is a personal opinion; I've said it in

the past and I will say it today - we have to have - if we had control of our

offshore resources and control of the fishery, we should have control of one of

the biggest industries, and the best and biggest resource in this Province

today, and that is our forestry. We do not have control over it.

If I want to get a permit on Crown land I have to go to the

minister and get a quota to cut x number of cords of wood or x number of cords

of wood for the mill or x number of cords of wood for the saw mill industry. I

have to get it. As a Newfoundlander I have to get it. That is very hard to come

by. Today, if you go for a commercial saw mill licence in the Province, you are

history, you might as well forget it. If you go for a domestic licence you will

get it, but where are you going to get the logs to put through the mill? It's

rather hypocritical in a way. If you want to build a cabin, you can't do it. If

you go to Crown lands, you have a chance, you go in the draw. But everywhere

around you, you go into moose hunt, the gate is closed. It is terrible.

MR. FLIGHT: We are over-cutting Crown limits by 100 per

cent (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: On Crown limits. Sure. Do you know what is

happening now with Crown limits? It is another indirect - I say direct - cause

of the harvesters. Because all the jobbers - the union fellows and the jobbers

are being put out of work, so what they are doing now is going to Crown lands

and getting permits to cut x number to try to sustain them over the period of

time.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, that is for the supply. I notice now

that Abitibi has to bring in probably 30 per cent of their cut this year from

Labrador. Well, that is coming.

MR. FLIGHT: So how do you -

MR. WOODFORD: I am talking about the control of the

resource. As I said, it is a personal opinion, but I think there are a lot of

other people in the House who probably have the same idea, who would probably

like to see it. I know it is not going to be easy. It is not going to be done

overnight. I realize that also. It is going to take a long, drawn-out process to

try to regain some of the timber rights in this Province, I can assure you.

A lot of things are happening for the positive in the

forestry industry, as well, especially in areas of the Province where it hasn't

been utilized before. I can refer to down in the district of the Minister of

Education, around Roddickton the and Hawke's Bay area. A lot of things are

happening with regard to a saw mill industry and so on. And that is where the

new jobs are in forestry today, they are in the sawmill business.

MR. FLIGHT: We have to find the wood, though.

MR. WOODFORD: That is what I am saying, we have to find

the wood. The wood is there if we could put what should go into pulp wood into

pulp wood and what should go into a log into logs. I have to take a few seconds

and commend the minister. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to access

roads in this Province on the forestry and agricultural part of it, I have to

commend him on some of the actions he has taken. He has made some excellent

moves with regard to access roads in the Province, in consultation with Kruger -

I don't know about Abitibi, but with Kruger, anyway, on this 50/50 cut with

regard to pulp wood versus logs, especially in the Chouse Brook area of the

Province, Gold Cove, and now the White River road area of the Province. I mean,

that is a good move and where I see something positive being done, I will be the

first to say that it is positive and I will be the first to commend a minister,

or whoever is responsible for doing it. That is auguring well for my area and I

know it will auger well for the rest of the Province. As I said before, the only

place where you can get any new jobs in the forestry industry is in sawmilling,

because the mills are only taking 200,000 or 300,000 cords of wood, regardless.

That is all they can take. But a sawmill can run through in perpetuity as long

as they have sales, like the Roddickton mill now, if they want to cut all year.

MR. FLIGHT: (Inaudible) log supply.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, with a log supply. Mr. Speaker, do I

have four minutes left? I was going to say, I knew I spoke fast but I didn't

think I spoke that fast.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments pertaining to the

forestry industry and the health care sector. The Member for the Strait of Belle

Isle mentioned the Sprung greenhouse, the $21 or $22 million Sprung greenhouse.

Mr. Speaker, people in this Province have very short memories. You talk about a

Sprung greenhouse being labelled by an administration. What about a Churchill

Falls? What did Newfoundland Hydro get out of Churchill Falls last year? They

got $26 million out of it and Quebec Hydro got $867 million, one year, one

Sprung. If we had what was going into the coffers of Quebec Hydro for one year

we could look after the people of this Province forevermore. We wouldn't have to

worry about any more Budgets, current account or capital account deficits.

Memories are very short, Mr. Speaker, and the only thing is, that message can't

get across to the people because they are too hungry and don't have the energy

to fight anymore. They have a job, a full-time job now, in looking for one. They

have absolutely nothing to do, nowhere to go, no hope, no vision, and every time

they turn on the radio or television they hear a minister, or the Premier,

talking about the negative attitude. Even if they changed that part of it and

came on in the evening and showed something positive. For the first time yet,

last night I heard something positive coming out of the lips of the Premier of

this Province and that was pertaining to the Hibernia development and the

possibility of further oil development in the next couple of years. That is the

kind of stuff we want to hear. We know these are hard times. We know the

unemployment rate is high. Everybody in this Province knows that, but in order

for the business sector in this Province, private citizens, and residents of

this Province to do something, they have to be preached to, they have to be

told, and not hear this negativism. Let them hear something positive and that

will, little by little, change their attitude.

A businessman came to me last week and talked to me about a

$300,000 investment in the town of Deer Lake, asking what did I think he should

do, because of all the negative talk that is around, and so on, and he said: If

there were only some positive talk, I have the money. I don't need government

money, I can put something in place here. Well, I said: `Boy, it is one thing to

take a foolish risk, it is another to take a calculated risk. You make up your

mind.' I didn't want to go out on a limb and say do this or do that. I was

always an eternal optimist, even when times were bad and things were not working

right. But here is an individual who wanted to invest $300,000 of his own money

and was a bit hesitant because of the negative attitude that was being preached

around the Province.

You talk about people with their own money. How come

Newfoundland Hydro, how come the Minister of Mines and Energy, how come the

Premier and his Cabinet Ministers have not acted on the mini hydro sites in the

Province? Proposals were called last year for fifty megawatts but they are not

going to look at them until July. Companies with their own money and one company

with $12 million of their own money, ready to go, not a cent of government

money, not a copper, not a penny, they are not asking for any help, no

environmental assessment required, the environmental assessment was waived, and

they are there today sitting in their offices and can't do a thing. They can do

absolutely nothing.

They wanted to go in and go to work, although they didn't

want to take the power until 1996, Newfoundland Hydro was not going to accept

any power, but I can understand that, as well, because Newfoundland Hydro was

supposed to have their own little kingdom over there and they want to try to

preserve it, and by putting out proposals for four megawatts or five megawatts

or ten megawatts or what have you, in this case a total of fifty megawatts of

electricity, that, little by little, would erode their power, pardon the pun,

from Newfoundland Hydro, and I can see, probably. why.

But the government, the ministers of the day, have the final

say with regard to Newfoundland Hydro and they can dictate to them at any time,

what and what not to do and that, in this case to me, Mr. Speaker, is wrong,

because those projects should be proceeding and creating jobs at a time when

government says they have no money, but yet, at the same time, we have private

entrepreneurs in here, offering to do something, create jobs without any

government money and the one I am talking about in this case, Mr. Speaker, is

the four megawatt project on Rattling Brook on the Cat Arm Road.

I have three more projects in the district which are much

bigger. One is a six, one is a ten and one is a twenty megawatt, but that one is

ready to go and can't see the light of day. Newfoundland Hydro will not give

them - now they are going to call and say they are going to look at proposals

again in July, and I will venture to bet, that they will be back again the end

of July saying: Well, we have to ave another look at it now, we will look at it

again in January,' even when a company is willing to go in and put the

infrastructure in place and wait for four years before they get any money out of

it, not a cent of government money, not a copper. I just don't understand the

rationale behind it. I just don't understand it. I brought it up here last year

and the Premier said: `There is an environmental assessment needed.' There was

not, it was waived. I checked that out and it was waived. So, those are the

kinds of things that I would like to see, that don't cost one red copper. Those

are two projects, and I can name more, but I can't name individuals, I can't

name companies - very close to the scene and very close to what is going on in

the district; but that's it; I guess we will just have to wait and see what

happens.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned also that he has a new

social strategy come out in the Throne Speech. In order to have a social

strategy, Mr. Speaker, you first of all, have to have a social conscience; that

is the first thing before you can put a social strategy in place. He mentioned

about school boards, about the school tax -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, members here don't want the school tax

back, that is a fact, but where has it gone? It certainly hasn't gone to the

school boards. Where has the money gone? School boards are not getting it. The

monies that are being collected are not going to the school boards. It was a

good idea that they were going to be brought up on par with other areas in the

Province and were going to be averaged out so that they could enjoy the same

benefits as school boards, we will say, on the East Coast of the Province,

especially in the St. John's Metropolitan Area.

School boards are having a hard time of it, Mr. Speaker, and

every school board in this Province today is in trouble. They're in trouble.

They find it hard. I have a school board in my area with something like a

$250,000, $300,000 deficit. How are they going to address it? Where do they cut?

They've cut to the bone. Now they've got to start cutting the bone. There's

nowhere else to go. Something has to give, something has to suffer.

Those are the very basic essentials. Health care and

education. If we haven't got that, we haven't got anything. Those are the two

areas in this Province today where there have to be some improvements.

I often hear members opposite - especially the Member for

Eagle River, just about every time he gets up - nail the federal government,

nail John Crosbie and the feds. Only for the federal government today in this

Province the unemployment rate would be about 40 per cent, 45 per cent. You take

ACOA out of this Province, you take the UI out of this Province, and you take

the federal-provincial agreement on forestry, on tourism, on rural development,

and all kinds of other agreements that we don't hear about every day, and you've

got a lot more than 44 per cent of your income coming into the Province from the

federal government.

I don't agree either with all that the federal government is

doing. I'd be the first to say that. One of the things that I don't agree with

today, although it has nothing to do with this, is the appointment of senators,

that's going on now in Ottawa. As far as I'm concerned it should be done away

with, if anything. No appointments. Just do away with it completely. But only

for the money that's coming in today from the federal government into this

Province the unemployment rate of 20 per cent is just based on - it doesn't

include the people on NCARP. It doesn't include anything to do with the

moratorium, the package, or anything else. It's just a - everything but the

fishery. You can imagine the 20,000 or 25,000 people who would be added to that,

what it would amount to with regards to percentages rising and UI in this

Province.

I would like to touch on students. Student employment

program. I found it - an application and a letter from the minister on May 17

put on my desk, dated May 12, deadline May 7. That was extended after to May 19.

How can businesses - when I got it May 17 how can I expect businesses out around

my district to get applications in by May 19? It can't happen, it's wrong. Every

student in every district in this Province has the right to a job, a few weeks,

or a couple of months' work, to help them through the school, help them through

their university, or their trades school in the Fall of the year. They haven't

got the same opportunity to do it. I know there are other districts in the

Province, and other areas in the Province, that were told beforehand, that had

access to those applications. It's going to be interesting to see what's going

to happen over the next couple of weeks pertaining to those projects in the

Province.

On the general economy, all you have to do is look in the

Budget. You talk about forestry, you talk about - it reminds me of what's

happening in the trucking industry in the Province, pertaining to especially the

people who are hauling the logs and hauling the pulpwood to the mills in Corner

Brook and Stephenville. Last year, the year before last, two years ago in the

Budget, the Province in a deceitful and deceiving way increased registration

fees, motor registration fees, fines. It was never announced in the Budget. The

only things that were announced were the cuts, Department of Health certificates

and so on like that. When you look at the estimates in the Budget there's no

trouble to see why. When you see, for instance, fines and forfeitures: $8

million last year, and the previous year, something like $2 million or $3

million.

I have people in my area now, truckers in my area, who are

just getting ready to pack it in. Every time they go down the road, every time

they cross the scales or get handy to the scales, if they smell them at all, or

see them at all, that's it, they're fined. If they don't get them on the actual

weight of the wood on the truck - I mean, it doesn't make sense. They've been

for the last few years asking for a different scale and a different rule with

regard to the measuring and the weighing of trucks and they do not have it. We

have them going in now and getting fined $600 and $700. How does the trucker

know? Members opposite must have truckers in their districts that have been hurt

by this. They have to, especially down on the northern peninsula highway, I mean

getting $600 or $700 fines, their profits are gone but hon. members just do not

seem to take it seriously. This is ruining these little small operators with

one, two and three trucks and every time they go down it is anywhere from a

ninety to a $700 fine, Mr. Speaker, and it is no trouble to see, when you see an

increase in fines and forfeitures in the Budget. Where is it coming from? I

would venture to bet that 50 per cent of it is coming from truckers in this

Province. Vehicle and drivers licenses, up $5 million in one year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Speaker, I was going to say we almost heard it all from the Minister of

Education but he left a little bit, he did not have time to finish it all.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the other

speakers that have spoken since we resumed, since the general election and offer

my congratulations to all those members who were elected or re-elected to the

House of Assembly. It is good to see so