April 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 36

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, in the Budget last month the

Minister of Finance projected a 4.9 per cent increase in revenue from personal

income tax, the same rate of increase, in fact, that he projected for the Budget

year 1990. Would the Minister like to explain his optimism, in view of the fact

that in those same documents, he predicts unemployment will increase in 1991 and

the rate of increase in personal income, which has fallen steadily since 1988

will again fall by nearly a percentage point in 1991. Do not the Minister's own

economic indicators foreshadow slower growth in income tax revenue than he has

projected in his Budget?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are reasonably confident about these numbers. The

employment rate will have increased over last year, and also wage rates

generally are up a bit, and as we know the income tax depends upon the amount

earned by whoever earns, and by the number of people earning, so we are quite

confident about those numbers.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted at the

Minister's confidence but the problem is his numbers contradict themselves.

Could I ask him this, Mr. Speaker, retail sales tax is the single largest source

of revenue from provincial tax sources and last year there was no growth in

retail sales tax revenue, and the Minister is projecting this year a growth of

nearly 5 per cent in 1991, a year which we obviously know is going to be much

worse than last year. With no growth last year he is predicting 5 per cent this

year. Will he again, Mr. Speaker, explain his optimism? Why does he think growth

in the value of retail sales will turn around from a negative 1.2 per cent in

1990 to a positive 0.7 per cent in 1991, when in the same Budget documents, Mr.

Speaker, he predicts growth in personal disposable income will change from a

positive 1.2 per cent in 1990 to a negative 0.5 per cent? What will cause

consumers to spend more when they have less disposable income?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the economy of Newfoundland is on the upswing,

or it will be. We are the single Province in Canada, with the possible exception

of Prince Edward Island, for which everyone is forecasting an upswing in our

gross domestic product, so the explanation lies in that.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the forecasts are indicating

that in the future, during the rest of the year, we may well see better; but if

the Minister thinks that the economy is on the upswing today, he had better get

outside the Confederation Building and see what is going on in the real world.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

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

this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: - let me ask the Minister this: Will he

admit that revenue forecasts for 1991 are out of whack with economic indicators

contained in his own Budget documents; will the Minister admit that he

deliberately manipulated revenue projections at the last minute, in order to

show a lower deficit in his Budget then otherwise would have been the case?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, this charge of deliberate

manipulation of the Budget figures, this may have been what Members Opposite

used to do, but I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, it is not something that I do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the Minister responsible for Forestry and Agriculture.

In view of the fact that the newsprint industry over the last

year or so has been experiencing a down-turn so to speak, and especially because

Abitibi-Price has started restructuring of its operations in North America,

could the Minister inform the House, if he has had any discussions with

Abitibi-Price concerning its operations in Newfoundland, recently?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon.

Member for his question and, in answer to his question, yes, I have had

considerable discussions with Abitibi-Price over the past months.

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

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister be able to inform the House then, in the

course of those discussions, if the possibility of any down-time in the two

mills in Newfoundland, namely Grand Falls and Stephenville, or the possibility

of their shutting of a mill altogether came up in those discussions?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Everything, Mr. Speaker, relative to

newsprint production in Newfoundland or Forestry in Newfoundland came up during

those discussions and I could tell the hon. Member to the extend that it can be

determined, Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls or in Stephenville will not necessarily

be affected by the down-turn as you say in the industry.

Abitibi-Price is taking 200,000 tons of newsprint out of the

system and that may include the shutting of a mill; but the best information I

have and the advice I get from the management is that the Grand Falls mill or

the Stephenville mill will not be affected by that particular decision.

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

supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: Would the Minister tell the House, if he

has been advised that because of the down-turn in the industry and the

restructuring of the Abitibi mills, especially in and around Atlantic Canada,

would have any effect on the commitment to develop a new Hydro Power Project at

the Grand Falls mill announced in November of 1989?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the

situation in the industry is having any effect on Abitibi's plans to develop a

power project on the Exploits River. That project is subject to an environmental

assessment study. It is subject, as we were told in the first instance, to

Abitibi-Price's doing the feasibility studies, identifying a joint partner and

on and on. But in as far as the hydro project itself is concerned, Newfoundland

Hydro is involved, it is under the auspices of the Minister of Mines and Energy

and specific questions with regards to the development of that particular

project should, in my opinion, be directed to the Minister of Energy.

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

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

Pertaining to the special committee of Cabinet that was set up in November of

1989 concerning the cuts to Abitibi-Price in Grand Falls at that time, could the

Minister tell the House the last time they met with Abitibi-Price, this total

committee, concerning the closure at that time in Grand Falls?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot be date

specific as to when the last time the committee met. The committee itself, the

committee of Ministers that was struck to deal with the close down of number six

and to help soften the blow and to help work out a redundancy package and to see

that the economy of central Newfoundland was - the blow was - that it did not

hurt anymore than possible, and in identifying things that could happen in the

central area that would help take up some of the slack as a result of closing

down number six. I cannot tell the Member - I will find out and advise him as to

when the committee last met with them, but I can tell him that as Chairman of

the committee, and that committee at some point wound up as far as the committee

itself is concerned, but I, as Chairman of the committee and the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture, have met continuously with Abitibi-Price whenever the

need arose from the time the committee was struck until the present day.

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

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

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Premier said, with reference to

the huge retro-active increases given to the Chairman and Members of the Social

Assistance Appeals Board, that the inference suggested by the Opposition that it

was a political favour being done by the Minister of Social Services for

friends, that that had not been made out. How can the Premier justify that

statement in view of the fact that of the five boards under the Minister's

jurisdiction, only one, the Social Assistance Appeals Board, was the subject of

appeal by the Minister of Social Services, that the President of Treasury Board

made an oral presentation to Treasury Board to reverse the earlier decision,

that was following representations by the Minister, that the present Chairman

and the former Chairman were campaign workers of the Minister, and finally, that

the former Chairman had publicly stated that the Minister promised to have the

rate of pay increased. What further evidence does the Premier require that it

was a political favour? I still do not understand that from all the questions

that have been asked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, it appears the hon. Member is

putting things that are not necessarily connected, together. I have not yet

heard from Mr. Noseworthy. If the former Chairman has something that he wants to

say I have indicated my door is open, and it is open and available to him and I

will hear anything he wants to say at any time. Now the President of Treasury

Board has also done a complete assessment of the manner in which that appeal

against the decision of Treasury Board was heard, and I heard the President of

Treasury Board himself stand in this House and say: I disagreed with the

original decision, it should have been a Level II. That was his opinion

personally.

So when the appeal was raised he had no trouble making an

argument because that is what he himself believed. And it was Treasury Board

which decided that classification to Level II ought to be changed, and they

decided in the case of at least two other boards that I know of. I am not sure

whether there were any others or not. But there were at least two others.

Whether or not Mr. Noseworthy says he was promised this by

the Minister, I will wait until I hear from Mr. Noseworthy, if he is going to

contact me. I am however assured by the Minister that he made no such

undertakings or promises and I accept that. I have no reason to believe

otherwise, as of yet, at least, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Noseworthy's comments were

quite public. But I will ask the question. On last Friday the Premier said: it

may well be that the credibility of the Board has been greatly diminished or

destroyed and we will have a look at replacing it. Those are his exact words.

Is the Premier aware that this view is one of course that is

shared by us in the Opposition, much of the public and by editorial writers in

this Province? Has the Premier now instructed the Minister to come forward with

a new list of nominees for the Social Assistance Appeal Board? And has he

instructed the Minister, or all Ministers, to bring forward names of qualified

people rather than political cronies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two question, Mr. Speaker. Have

I instructed the Minister of Social Services to bring forward a new list of

names? The answer to that is no. I am not finished with the overall matter yet

and I will make a decision then when I am finished with it.

The second question, have I asked Ministers to bring forward

new lists for all boards to replace the appointment of political cronies? Mr.

Speaker, the answer to that is, the assumption is incorrect in the first place.

One of the things that we did when we took office was stop the practice of

appointing virtually exclusively political cronies as the former government did.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We -

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

I ask the hon. Member for Mount Pearl to withdraw the phrase

that he just used.

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

was provoked.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: The hon. Member for Mount Pearl should be

moved to objective assessment of the public good instead of his political

propagation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: The answer to the question, Mr. Speaker,

is, we set about deliberately to put in place a policy that would provide for

balanced appointments to boards, and every time the Opposition sees somebody

that had some connection with the Liberal Party they claim patronage. Well, let

me restate to the House, and for the public of this Province once again, this

Government will continue to appoint to boards people from all walks of life and

all political persuasions, and we will not refuse, or shrink from appointing

persons who had connections with the Liberal Party merely because they are

Liberals and because the opposite side, even if we appoint only one, will claim

it as being patronage. We will continue the fairness and balance we have

established from the beginning, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the system is now worse than it

ever was, and it was the Premier who got elected on a promise to clean things

up. That is why the Premier got elected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member is on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier agree as well

to have the Public Service Commission make recommendations to Government on

appointments to boards which exercise powers of decision about benefits to

individuals, and would he do what he promised to do before the last election, to

remove political patronage from Government?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We are removing political patronage from

Government. Let me indicate to the House some of the patronage we have removed,

appointments by the former Members. The Economic Council, Alec Snow, PC

candidate, Newfoundland Hardwoods, Robert Verge, spouse of a Minister at the

time, Teacher's Advisory Committee, Merle Vokey, PC candidate, Community

College, Herb Brett, PC candidate, Community College Central, Shawn Power, PC

candidate, Labour Standards, Emerson Barbour, PC candidate, Workers'

Compensation, Ed Maynard, former PC Minister, and on and on. I will table the

list rather than keep reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

of political patronage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the Premier to continue.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared if Members want

the other seventeen names on the list. But I guess obviously they do not. But I

just use it to demonstrate the point, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I just use it to demonstrate the point,

Mr. Speaker, that we have put in place a system that provides for fair and

balanced management of the public affairs of this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, in

that process a significant number of the appointments will be people who have

leanings toward the Conservative Party, a significant number will be people who

have leanings or who have involvement with the Liberal Party, and there are a

significant number who have support for the NDP Party; and there are a

significant number who have no party affiliation. And that is the process we

intend to continue, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: My question is for the Minister of

Environment and Lands. Mr. Speaker, a week ago the Minister of Environment and

Lands made a statement in the House outlawing the dumping of old wrecks, and

this side of the House agreed wholeheartedly with that statement, Mr. Speaker. I

want to ask the Minister what is the Government's policy on the cleaning up of

car wrecks, what policy do you have?

MR. WARREN: A sensible question.

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you very much. I thank the hon. Member

for the question. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, before I answer the question,

that I have great difficulty in hearing the hon. Member's question, and I do not

ascribe that to just one side of the House. I have great difficulty in hearing

the question and I just ask for order so I can give an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. KELLAND: If I understand what the hon. Member said,

he recognized and supports the concept of more stringent penalties for people

who deposit wrecks. I have admitted that is really a deterrent for what might

happen in the future. I have also indicated through the public media that we are

trying to find ways and means of funding the clean up for that which is already

out there. And I have had a number of discussions with people in the industry

and the people in the municipalities. We have not reached a conclusion yet on

how we would exactly drive a major clean up for that which is already there. But

that will come in time, Mr. Speaker, with proper consultation and proper

budgetary allocations.

Thank you.

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

Extern, a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is annoying to me

and I am sure it is annoying to the Premier to see some of his colleagues making

a joke out of the old car wrecks. But I am sure the Premier is not in that frame

of mind.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, does the Government have any

mechanism in place to assist local groups who want to initiate clean up

activities on their own?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do have

mechanisms in place, I am not certain if the hon. Member is talking about

funding which is always a difficult problem. But in the series of consultation

meetings I have been having in recent months, we discussed in great detail with

the municipalities, as I have said already, and with various industries who

contribute to what goes into our landfills and what goes into the environment to

find ways and means of cost sharing clean up programmes. We do have programmes

to encourage communities and community groups to involve themselves in such

things as recycling and we do have a fairly extensive, I would have to say,

information program that goes into the schools by way of recycling contests,

information under project Wild and things of that nature to try to encourage

community groups to get involved themselves.

For example, in the Province right now two prime examples

come to mind where communities themselves can get involved is the case of Steady

Brook where they have taken it upon themselves to install a 100 Unit Blue Box

Program which is working, as I understand it, fairly well. I have recently

corresponded with the mayor to ask him to give me some updated information on

the successes or pitfalls of his particular program so we can apply that to our

ongoing consultation with other municipalities.

In Happy Valley - Goose Bay there is another type of method

with respect to recycling and clean up, is a community interest group who have

involved themselves with the local recycling company in the Province, and they

are on a volunteer basis and for fund raising purposes as well as cleaning up

the environment they have a collection bin project underway. A number of other

communities have expressed an interest to act as pilot communities for various

projects. And I would hope that sometime before the end of this year we will be

able to make a statement to introduce legislation that would provide the

Province with a Province-wide recycling program that we can all handle and live

with and share responsibility and cost in. However, that is probably only 10 or

15 per cent of our total waste management problem in the Province.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If

Government can not assist monetarily will they at least assist by giving free

permits, free directions, and advise rather than impeding and frustrating local

voluntary groups?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you. I am not aware that Government -

even the former administration, it is one I cannot lay at their doorstep - that

they have impeded volunteer and interest groups in trying to clean up the

environment. In fact we do everything we possibly can to encourage that kind of

involvement and I have done a few visits myself personally around the Province

in various locations. In fact just this week I spoke to a new environmental

group in the high school in Clarenville which has come forward on their own hook

and they are very interested in seeing the area cleaned up, and there are a

number of problems in the Clarenville area as there are in other places in the

Province.

And that is the kind of thing we encourage. I personally

encourage it, my Department encourages it, and the Government as a whole

encourages cleanups, and would do anything we could. Money if we had it, when we

have it, and to the extent that we have it, and if not any kind of professional

or other advice that we can give. Only too willing.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister

of Justice. Early this month a young man who was at the St. John's Penitentiary

awaiting trial died at the Penitentiary. The news media reported that the young

man took his own life. Does the Minister have any concerns that the death of

this inmate was related to understaffing at the Penitentiary, was due to

deficient procedures or due to any negligence? And secondly, will the Minister

be ordering a judicial enquiry into the death of the inmate?

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In response to the

questions, first of all, I am satisfied that it was not due to understaffing.

There were two people in that particular wing of the Penitentiary and there were

two security guards on duty and there was a television camera in the cell. So I

am first of all satisfied that there was nothing in the staffing that would

indicate or contribute to any problem.

Secondly, the Penitentiary people are in the process of

reviewing the procedures and we will be looking at that. Thirdly, as to whether

or not there was any negligence, I do not think I can say with any certainty

because as of yet we have not completed the police investigation. And as to her

fourth question, we should have in hand the police report on the investigation

tomorrow. Following that we will be in a position to give a very quick answer as

to whether or not there will be a judicial enquiry.

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

Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Avalon Community

College which has been providing a very effective, basic education programme at

the Penitentiary in St. John's has had to cut that programme recently.

In view of the fact that the St. John's Penitentiary is by

far the largest adult correctional centre in the province, and in view of the

fact that the vast majority of inmates in all the adult correctional centres are

young men, men in their late 'teens and early twenties, many of whom lack basic

education, and most of whom, according to studies, with a bit of help, education

and training can go on to lead useful lives, will the Minister take steps to

reverse the reduction in the Avalon Community College education programme at the

Penitentiary? Will the Minister look at supplementing the Avalon Community

College resources either from Provincial coffers or possibly from the Federal

Government, since the Penitentiary houses inmates serving Federal terms?

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

MR. DICKS: Just a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker. First

of all, and I think it is fairly well acknowledged that a lot of the people in

our penitentiary system do not have good literacy skills. One of the things that

has been done in the past year or so since this administration came into effect

was that we did procure a plato learning system which is a computerized learning

aid to those who are not as well implemented in other ways. One of our concerns

is, and the Minister of Education has been very concerned about this, is to see

how we can preserve the current level of access by inmates to that system. He

and I are in the process of determining how what, if any, of these cuts may have

an effect on that.

As to the third question, I would certainly like to be able

to open up the federal coffers, not only for the Department of Justice but for

all of the Provincial programs which have been effected, but one of the things

suggested by the hon. Minister is that we might be able to approach the Federal

Government for funding as well just to preserve the programs as they contribute

significantly to the acquisition of equipment. So it is a problem that has been

recognized. The Minister of Education particularly is very concerned that we

enhance the literacy skills of those in the penitentiary. That is something that

we are looking at right at this time.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A final question to

the Minister of Justice. What steps is the Minister of Justice taking to provide

for the penitentiary in St. John's, number one: psychiatric services; number

two: guards against the over prescription of drugs to inmates; and number three:

controls on the administration of prescription drugs?

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows the

penitentiary itself is not large enough to warrant a full in house medical

system. There have been nurses stationed there at times and a different level of

on sight medical services, but first of all, with respect to psychiatric

services, for instance, one of the inmates was recently out at the Waterford.

There are psychiatric services that are provided from the private practitioners,

and as well I think that there is one in particular who goes and tends prisoners

needs.

The question of prescriptions is one that is generally of

concern, particularly where people are confined. This is something that I know

Mr. McNutt, who is in charge of the penitentiary system, has been monitoring.

What controls we place on them, Mr. Speaker, I guess are subject to much the

same as the general populations. We rely on the medical professionals who deal

with the inmate problems, psychiatric and otherwise to determine the appropriate

medication that should be given to treat a particular illness. Beyond that I do

not really think it is for lay people, including those who run our penitentiary

system, to be in a position to second guess doctors on it.

So, I guess, in essence to the hon. Members question, we as

much as any other part of Government or any other individual in the Province

rely on doctors who are experts in these areas to provide these services and to

prescribe the necessary medications. In terms of how we hand them out, the

guards, the ones who are prescribed, do play a role in making sure that the

prisoners do not have a whole prescription at one time so that they do not take

too much or anything like that. But beyond that we certainly do not make the

prescriptions.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries.

In light of the recent negative advertising that we have seen pertaining to the

effect the increasing seal population is having on some of our fish products. I

am wondering if the Minister has given consideration to or will he be taking

action to counter those negative ads in view of the fact of the damage that

could be done to our most important industry, the fishing industry?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker. We do not plan on doing

anything in any public way to focus still more attention on that very

unfortunate incident. The officials in my department have talked to the author

of that ad, the person who put it together who was obviously planning on placing

more such ads around the world. It is unfortunate that it happened. I am told,

by the way, this morning that one Mr. Brian Davies who was well known years ago

for spearheading the anti-seal hunt campaign has been in contact with some local

people hear involved in the seal fishery, who is threatening, if those people

continue to press for the right to re-instate the large ship hunt, that Mr.

Davies and company are threatening to make another appearance on the Island and

to pick up where they left off some years ago, protesting the seal fishery.

MR. SPEAKER: Question period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the

Departmental Salary Details for the 1991-92 fiscal year.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to

consider certain resolutions relating to the raising of loans by the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Before calling petitions I would like on

behalf of hon. Members to welcome to the gallery representation from the town of

Lewisporte in the persons of His Worship Mayor Janes, Deputy Mayor Powell, and

five councillors from Change Islands in the district of Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

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

West.

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

I have a petition I would like to present on behalf of 736

people from the community of Southeast Bight and the surrounding communities

supporting the people of Southeast Bight, Mr. Speaker. The prayer of the

petition is: the petition of the undersigned fully support the citizens of

Southeast Bight. They are concerned about the proposal for a ferry terminal, and

the community fully supports the efforts of the residents in trying to obtain a

road connection to the community of Southeast Bight. Mr. Speaker, the prayer of

the petition, probably I should say from the beginning, and I present it in

terms that it is from the people of Southeast Bight, what they have said is, we

the undersigned fully support the residents of Southeast Bight in their efforts

to obtain a road connection connecting them to the Burin Peninsula Highway, or

some other source, so that is the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker, and I

want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that some 736 people have signed

it.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe this falls within the

intent of presenting petitions in the House. Unlike some previous petitions the

hon. Member presented, they were not petitions but this one in fact is.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister

has a change of heart because he has never been as gracious as he has been today

in accepting petitions that were not formally -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker is suppose to make that

ruling, not him.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of South East Bight

have asked me to present this petition in the House of Assembly. I have a letter

that was sent to the hon. Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. They

have tried now on several occasions to arrange a meeting. On three occasions it

was cancelled at the last moment, but to be fair to the Minister I think the

last time it was cancelled was for a personal reason that was certainly

understandable to me at least, and I am sure by the other people. We understand

that and accept it. The people would also like, in a letter he sent to the

Minister, for him or his senior officials, but hopefully the Minister because he

has a tremendous knowledge as it relates to Placentia Bay, Mr. Speaker,

hopefully he will be able to go down and see firsthand what the people are

talking about. For my colleagues in the House who are not familiar with South

East Bight, and most of them probably are not, it is a community at the bottom

of Placentia Bay, one of three communities in Placentia Bay that has resisted

the resettlement program of the 60s. The people of South East Bight, like the

people of Petit Forte, and the people of Monkstown, decided back in the 60s that

when the Liberal Government of the day were trying to destroy their way of life,

trying to drive them from their homes, Mr. Speaker, destroy their school and do

whatever else they could to remove rural Newfoundland to urban Newfoundland,

which is something we are basically seeing again today, the people of South East

Bight, like the people of Petit Forte and Monkstown, resisted that type of

treatment by the elected Government. What has happened since then is that the

people of Monkstown have received a road connecting them to the Burin Peninsula

Highway. A former Leader of the Opposition who was a Member of the Conservative

Government at the time, Mr. Barry, played a very significant role in having that

road constructed for the people of Monkstown, and the Conservative Government,

again, sighed an agreement with the Federal Government in Ottawa that saw, and

hopefully this year will see the completion of a road to Petit Forte.

Mr. Speaker for the people of Petit Forte, a good deal for

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and a good deal for the Government of

Canada. Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not agree with that and I can understand

that he does not agree with it because the Premier has never demonstrated a lot

of faith and commitment to the people of Placentia Bay, particularly in that

area, even though he has visited there.

The people of South East Bight, Mr. Speaker, are now the only

people in that area who do not have a road connection and while a ferry service

was something that was planned to be put into place on a temporary basis, and

what would not be a significant amount of money, in terms of the money that

Government spends in other areas of this Province, the people of South East

Bight could have a road connecting them to the people of Monkstown and that is

not asking for a lot.

Now, I know that area very well; I have worked there for

nineteen years altogether, I spent ten years there as a social worker going back

and forth to that area of the Province and the people of South East Bight are

hard-working, dedicated, committed Newfoundlanders, who deserve no less, no

more, Mr. Speaker, but they deserve no less than other people living in

Newfoundland and it is time that the people living in these communities be

granted and given the same type of services that other (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave to

finish my petition as there was an interjection and support from the President

of Treasury Board? I would ask the President of Treasury Board, if I could have

leave to clue up, based on the fact that there was an interjection between both

of us in terms of whether or not my petition was ready to be presented?

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for giving me

a couple of minutes to clue-up. I want to say that the people of South East

Bight, and I say this very sincerely; I say it without any political motive,

that the people of South East Bight, have lived there and no doubt will continue

to live there. They believe, and I believe, that they have a right to the

services that the people in other parts of the Province have taken for granted.

They do not get a lot, Mr. Speaker, as there is not very much

Government money spent in South East Bight in the last fifty, hundred years or

however long you want to go; it is only in the past few years that they had

electricity; they do not have any road connections and the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation, is probably the person in the House more familiar

with it than probably I would be - Placentia Bay, being a native of Placentia

Bay and having travelled the area, and I am sure that when he gets up to speak

to the petition, which I know he will, that he would probably do what he can to

try and request or secure the necessary Government fundings, whether it is an

agreement with the Federal Government, whatever it can be, I can assure the

Minister of Transportation that if he goes to try to secure federal funding,

that it will be supported by myself and the people of South East Bight, but I

would hope that somehow, somewhere the necessary funding will be put in place to

secure road connection between the people of South East Bight and the people of

Monkstown and I sincerely hope that the Minister, before he makes a final

decision, on the type of ferry service which will be used, hopefully on a

temporary basis, and the type of terminal which will be installed in South East

Bight, that the Minister will, if he cannot make it himself because there are

times when Ministers' schedules are such that they cannot make it, but if he

cannot make it himself, Mr. Speaker, I hope that he will send his senior

officials, whom I would be glad to accompany to South East Bight, to look at

what they may do, and I believe that if they sit down together with the people

of South East Bight, they may be able to resolve the matter to everyone's

satisfaction, so, I submit that, Mr. Speaker, and I support the petition.

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

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

to rise in my place and support the petition so ably presented by the Member for

Burin - Placentia West, on behalf of the residents of South East Bight. Mr.

Speaker, I was fortunate when I was Minister of Rural Development to visit South

East Bight on two different occasions while dealing with the Rural Development

Movement in that area and I happened to be able to visit once in early spring

and once in summer time.

I found, especially in early spring, that it was extremely

difficult, to get to that area because of the weather conditions at the time.

Now, I do not think in the 1990s, 1992, I do not think it is a very unreasonable

request for a group of people, who are making a living in a certain region of

our Province to request a reasonable transportation system and I would say that

most of us in this Province today, would expect a reasonable transportation

system to be some type of a road link.

Almost all of the communities in our Province now are linked

by road, and we would expect, most of us, in the rest of the other parts of the

Province, to have at least a road link; some of us might want it paved, some of

us might want sidewalks, some of us might want a lot of other things, but I

mean, just a gravel road to a community is what the people in South East Bight

and their supporters are requesting in this petition.

Mr. Speaker, at the time I was in South East Bight I visited

Petit Forte. And the Petit Forte people at that time made a presentation, and a

very passionate presentation, I might say, on a road link for their community.

And granted it is expensive. But as the Member of resource policy committee at

the time, when I went to the community and listened to their presentation I

found it to be a reasonable presentation. They did not want extra services that

someone else is getting, they were not looking for pavement to make it more

comfortable to drive over their road, they were not looking for anything

exceptional. It was just: if you can give me the regular services that

Government would ordinarily provide Newfoundlanders and Labradorians I will make

a living in Petit Forte and I will be able to stay there and educate and raise

my children. That was basically their request.

Now the people in South East Bight now are making a similar

request. And on their behalf, the people who signed this petition also seem to

believe that it is a fairly reasonable request. It is a rather unusual request,

I suppose, in this day and age for people to be asking for a road link into a

community that they have lived in for hundreds of years. Certainly we would have

thought that consideration would have been given to upgrade all of these

communities so that they would at least have the minimum of transportation, such

as a gravel road.

I support the petitioners in this case and I would request

too - and I know the Minister is familiar with the area, with South East Bight

and Petit Forte and Haystack where he originally came from no doubt, he is

familiar with that area - that when he gets the opportunity that he will go to

the community and speak with the people in that area who very desperately would

like a road link but they also need to stay in their community so that they can

provide a living for their family. And if the Minister gets a chance some time

in the spring or early summer when the House closes, I would advise, that he

take a trip to that area. And go there by boat, and then it would be the

comfortable time to go there in the summertime. If he really wants to see how

tough it can be to get back and forth there, go there in the wintertime. But I

do not expect that and I know the Minister is busy. But it certainly would not

be impossible for him to visit that area sometime this late spring or summer and

listen to what the people in that area are saying.

And with that I support the petitioners and I would request

that the Minister also support them and make plans. I mean, they want you to

make plans to get a road into their community sometime. I am sure if you went to

the community and said: alright, well we will start to do some design work or we

will see if we can get a route picked out, that in itself would be beneficial to

the people of South East Bight, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a

few minutes to speak on this with a moderate degree of knowledge, having gone to

both Petit Forte and South East Bight and knocked on every single door in both

communities some three years ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: So I have a little bit of knowledge of

what the situation is. And it may be true. The Liberal Party may have gotten one

vote in Petit Forte. But it cost this Province millions upon millions of

unnecessary dollars to do it. And let me tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

Prior to what happened in the last action when the hon.

Petit Forte and South East Bight, paid the full cost of it as part of the terms

of union. Now, the hon. Member wanted to make sure that he was re-elected so the

government of this Province undertook to take on - instead of getting the

Federal Government to pay the cost of the road and provide the cost of operating

it - the former government in this Province agreed to put up $2 million of

Provincial funds to build a road, the Federal putting up $6 million or $7

million altogether. Then the Provincial Government of that day undertook to

operate the ferry from Petit Forte to South East Bight at a cost of about

another $350,000 a year to operate, besides the cost of putting the terminal

there, which we were not paying before, which the Federal Government was paying.

The government, in order to get votes for the hon. Member,

the government of that day made the taxpayers of this Province undertake that

responsibility. And it is going to cost the taxpayers of this Province -

unnecessarily - millions and millions and millions of dollars in the future,

when it was really a Federal responsibility.

I do not say the road should not have been built there. I say

the Federal Government had its responsibility and if it wanted to change it from

operating a ferry - which was costing the Federal Government, I believe, about

$500,000 or $600,000 a year. So in a few years they are out of it scot-free with

no more responsibility, and we have transferred the burden to the taxpayers of

this Province. Just so the hon. Member could get his handful of votes in Petite

Forte and South East Bight. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member comes back before

this House again saying, 'we should have roads for the people of South East

Bight.' I agree, Mr. Speaker. I support the fact that we should have roads for

the people of South East Bight, but it is a federal responsibility. They skinned

out of the financial responsibility under the terms of union and the people of

this Province should not be saddled with it. We, Mr. Speaker, have more concern

for the people of this Province than to enter into that kind of political deal,

which is exactly what the hon. Members did and cost the tax payers of this

Province more millions and millions not only to build a road there, but millions

more to continue to operate the two roads to Petite Forte and South East Bight.

It is not that we disagree with the road, Mr. Speaker, we disagree with saddling

the tax payers of this Province with responsibility to take the federal

government off the hook for their proper responsibility under the terms of

union. We will not do that, Mr. Speaker. We will do everything that we can to

co-operate to ensure that the federal government properly discharges its

responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

This petition is over. I recognize the hon. the Member for

St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my privilege to

rise and present a petition to this House on behalf of a number of residents of

various communities in Newfoundland, mostly from southern Labrador from

Charlottetown, Williams Harbour, Pensons Arm, also some residents of Roddickton

and various residents in and around St. John's. These petitioners, Mr. Speaker,

are of the undersigned Friends of MUN Extension who state that:

whereas MUN

Extension has provided and continues to provide an essential service to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

whereas no other agency is capable of

providing that service, MUN Extension should be re-instated. Your petitioners

respectfully request that the hon. House take such action as may be necessary to

ensure that Memorial University re-instates its Extension Services and that it

be funded and equipped to provide the services it has traditionally provided.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this petition is one of literally dozens

that have been presented in this House, all of which have the same prayer, but

they come from different parts of the Province and all around, particularly from

rural Newfoundland, expressing the same sentiment, Mr. Speaker. That sentiment

is embodied in the prayer of the petition, but it is also in many other places.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Government Members are

getting a bit tired of hearing from their constituents, they are getting a bit

tired of hearing from rural Newfoundlanders about what it is that this

Government is not doing to help MUN Extension. Now some of the comments of the

people of this Province are expressed quite eloquently themselves in letters

that they have written, some to this Government and some to Dr. May of the

University where I am sure the Government would be quite happy to see them all

directed.

I want to read from a couple of these letters that have

recently been published that expressed the feelings of these people which are

quite contrary to those expressed by the Minister of Education, by the Member

for Eagle River, by other Government Members in responding to petitions and

responding to this issue. These people, Mr. Speaker, are quite praiseworthy of

MUN Extension and what it has been able to accomplish for them. One, for

example, that appeared recently in the Evening Telegram was a letter sent from

the Inshore Fisherman's Improvement Committee and signed by the secretary of

that organization. This committee, Mr. Speaker, represents 2,000 fisherpeople in

Bonavista, Trinity and Placentia Bay which recently met, and they expressed

their considerable anger and disappointment in the university and the Government

towards what has happened. They say that MUN Extension was an important friend

and teacher to their group since it began five years ago. They had the support

from three different field workers from the department, the Extension Services

helped them with research, their annual conference doing various jobs while

their members were busy fishing. An important part was making videos from our

conferences that we used all over the Province and in Ottawa to help educate

people in Governments and Governments about the fishery.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, they were presented with an award

from the Provincial Adult Education Association for their efforts in promoting

fishery education. Mr. Speaker, what they say in this letter is that you or the

Government people may say there are other agencies in rural Newfoundland and

Labrador to help us, but that is not true. That is what they say, that is not

true. We have gotten the type of service from Mun Extension that is not

available anywhere else. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government may say that it has

failed, but there services available elsewhere, but that is not true and these

are the people who use the service of Mun Extension.

Another letter, Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I gather the Member for Eagle

River is not too happy to hear that some of his constituents have to present

petitions to this House through other Members. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of

his constituents, in fact, have had to write him, to take him to task for being

unwilling to present petitions in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, they have sent a letter. They

had to send it around to other Members and to the media to make sure that it

received public attention. Mr. Speaker, they are not happy with the fact that

the Member for Eagle River is only representing part of his constituents. They

say, they are ignoring the petitioners from Mary's Harbour who say that they

need Mun Extension and that they would like to see it continued.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all over this Province there are

constituents of these Members over here, and of other Members who are unhappy

with this Government's decision to let Mun Extension die. The Fogo Island

Development Association, Mr. Speaker, has also written to the Editor of The

Sunday Express, and to the President of the University, and they say to Fogo

Islanders: Mun Extension can be looked on as a parent in the rebirth of our

Island community. We were nurtured through our problems. We were fed information

and training to allow for self-sufficiency and like all parents do we were

watched over with a keen eye of concern now you have killed it. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that expresses very eloquently what has happened here. This Government

has killed Mun Extension and they should try and revive it and change their

minds.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

petition put forth by my colleague for St. John's East on behalf of Mun

Extension. And this is not the first or second or third or fourth time that this

has occurred. I too received numerous letters from constituents. Last week I

read a part of one that came from the Fogo Island Development Association where

they asked the President of the University and asked this Government to reverse

a wrong decision that affected the lives of so many people in rural

Newfoundland. And this particular petition from the people of coastal Labrador,

as the papers have indicated in the last number of days, that have been sent to

their Member, but for some reason he has been muzzled and not allowed to speak

on their behave to represent the best interest of the people, I think, of Mary's

Harbour, Charlottetown and numerous places, and I think the Member has been told

that in spades in the last number of days what has happened.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think last week one day the national day

of mourning I think it was called, a national day of protest because of the

death of Mun Extension, the papers, without exception, talk about the

unforgivable decision to abolish Mun Extension. Mr. Speaker, we on this side

concur with this, the role that Mun Extension has played in the development of

rural Newfoundland can never be overlooked, never underestimated and indeed it

should have been enhanced if rural Newfoundland is to survive.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the very agency that the

Minister of Education referred to who would do the job, the development

associations. He said, the development associations are out there and they will

do the job. Now, Mr. Speaker, the letter is from the development association

imploring the Minister to keep Mun Extension because of its role. The other

agency he referred to was the community colleges, and we already know the fact

of the community colleges in this Province. Their role has been diminished, and

some of them are in danger of closing next year when the Minister does his

re-adjustments. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just passed me a letter, I will not

read it all, but it is signed by Yvonne Rumbolt, Dorothy Earle, and Glennis

Butt. I do not know if they are from the district of the Member for Eagle River

or not. 'Dear Mr. Dumaresque, We were disappointed and upset when you the

elected Member for our district '-

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

point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I must rise to my feet again on a

point of order because Members opposite obviously have nothing to say about the

petition. In speaking to a petition they are suppose to deal with the

individuals whose names are on the petition, and the prayer of the petition and

once again they are into a situation where all they are trying to do is trying

to make slanderous comments about a Member on this side. Now. Mr. Speaker, if

they have nothing in their heads to say about MUN Extension they should not get

up and start getting on with these irrelevancies.

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

order.

MR. WINSOR: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. Hon. Members know

when they are speaking to a petition they should keep themselves to the prayer

of the petition, the material allegations of the petition, signatures, so on and

so forth, so I ask hon. Members to please keep that in mind. It is the job of

the Chair to enforce the rules but it is also an equal responsibility and

obligation on the part of Members to follow the rules.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: A good ruling, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the

matter, Mr. Speaker, is we are addressing the petition and the concerns of

Newfoundlanders out there about the loss of MUN Extension and the inability of

Members to articulate these concerns in this House of Assembly as they have been

asked to, Mr. Speaker, because these people of Coastal Labrador recognize the

value of the contribution that MUN Extension has made and they have asked this

House to ask us, through this House, to ask Government to reinstate funding for

MUN Extension so that they can continue to do the work. Mr. Speaker, it is

incumbent on this administration to accede to the request of rural

Newfoundlanders by the thousands who want to have MUN Extension reinstated.

Thank you.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since a number of my constituents have been named in this

petition, and dealing with the issue that I am on the public record for, I would

just like to take a couple of minutes to outline again my position on this

issue, and to indicate to this House in a rational way what the issue is all

about. As the Member for Fogo was going to be reading in his letter on MUN

Extension he said there were a number of statements being made in that letter

regarding my position on MUN Extension. Mr. Speaker, what the letter said in a

number of ways obviously had nothing to do with MUN Extension staying. As a

matter of fact there was one sentence, I think, in the whole letter that said,

we want you to keep MUN Extension for doing the things for south eastern

Labrador that they did for the Labrador Straits. As I have responded to these

particular individuals in my riding, Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Labrador Straits,

I grew up when MUN Extension came to the Labrador Straits and I saw what they

did, and they did an excellent job. They came into the Labrador Straits with a

community development role in mind. They were the impetus that got a number of

people in the community into leadership positions and they were the impetus in

being able to get the community organized in community councils, development

associations, fishermen's committees, and other ad hoc committees that reacted

to different issues of the day. They did a good job in that, Mr. Speaker, and I

want to assure the Members opposite and all the people of this Province that I

commend them for what they have done. But as I indicated earlier to this House,

for seven years now there has been no presence of the MUN Extension in the

Labrador Straits except for a three month contract position, simply because of

the fact that MUN Extension themselves realize they had fulfilled their mandate

in that particular area. They had done their job. They came and they went happy

enough. Same thing as they have always done in northern Labrador. There was

never a MUN Extension office stationed in northern Labrador.

And when you look at the community development role and the

impetus that they were in providing leadership to various members of that

community, in southeastern Labrador they are saying: do what we did in the

Labrador Straits. Well, in southeastern Labrador we have three development

associations where there was only one in the Labrador Straits. We have three

outreach workers in offices in that area where there is only one in the Labrador

Straits. We have full councils operating in all these communities and local

service districts. Very active fishermens' committees that are doing a wonderful

job of being able to promote our area and our future in the fishery in that

area. And the community colleges, very prevalent all along the coast.

So let's be fair in all of this. If this Government, or if

any government, had money to really go out and put into whatever whim were to

come to their minds, I am sure nobody would on this side want to see anybody

lose their job, whether they work for MUN Extension or for any other part of

this Government and any service that can be provided. But when we have to make

judgements, when we have to reflect upon ourselves and say: is this going to be

the way it is? I would submit that if the MUN Extension was not taken away by

the University, then I know that the MUN Extension was planning to take their

office away from Mary's Harbour as it was. Because again they were realizing

that their mandate had been fulfilled. So all along the Labrador coast there

would not have been one person working for MUN Extension in six months' time.

That is the reality.

And I find it a little bit unbecoming of hon. Members to

continue to try and patronize Labrador, to continue to stand up here and say:

you have to need these types of things because we believe that you are

undeveloped, immature, you do not have the ability to stand up for yourselves

and speak for yourselves. But let's be rational, let's be fair. We have done I

believe what is right and proper on the coast of Labrador, and we pay particular

gratitude to MUN Extension. They were really beneficial to our community and we

will always remember their contribution to us. But at this point in time,

priorities have to be established and I believe we are doing just fine in that

regard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present a

petition on behalf of 1,143 residents of Labrador City and Wabush -

AN HON. MEMBER: Eleven hundred?

MR. A. SNOW: Eleven hundred and forty-three residents of

Labrador City and Wabush, who petition this House of Assembly. The prayer of the

petition, Mr. Speaker, is: We, the concerned citizens of Labrador West, present

this petition against the cutbacks at the Captain William Jackman Memorial

Hospital in Labrador City.

Mr. Speaker, the 1,143 people who have signed this petition

have grave concerns over the cutbacks at the Captain William Jackman Memorial

Hospital in Labrador City. The administration of the Hospital Board has

suggested that the level of cutbacks that the people of Western Labrador are

going to have to live with is adequate, that is their term not mine, adequate.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to this House adequate health care in

Western Labrador is not good enough. It is not enough for this Government to

provide merely adequate health care. They should provide a good quality of

health care that had been provided over the previous thirty years in Western

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this cutback of $870,000 represents about 12 per

cent of the Budget, which I am led to believe is one of the larger cuts of any

Hospital Board in this Province, to an area, Mr. Speaker, that is very much

isolated in northern Labrador. An area that in order for a patient to get to an

alternate hospital here in St. John's it takes eight hours, an eight hour

turnaround time for a patient to get from an accident in Labrador to a hospital

in St. John's. So can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the amount of fear that is in

the peoples minds in Western Labrador with the fact that this cutback in the

quality of health care in Western Labrador is going to do. Can you imagine what

this is doing to the people living in Labrador, the fear that is in the people

and the families of the people residing in Western Labrador.

We are now getting to have an older population. We need more,

we need an improved health care in Western Labrador. We are getting an older

population, and we also have an increased population, I say an increased

population in relationship to what the population had been three or four years

ago because of the layoffs and during the global recession of the early 1980s

created 3,000 to 4,000 people reduction in our population, now these people have

come back to work in Western Labrador and they need an improved health care.

And, Mr. Speaker, the closure of eight beds is not fair to the people of Western

Labrador. The 40 per cent reduction in physiotherapy services represents about

3,500 patient visits, Mr. Speaker, for patients going to visit the

physiotherapists in Western Labrador. The reduction in this service is not fair

to the people who contribute the most to this Provincial economy.

The 10 per cent to 15 per cent reduction in surgery is not

fair, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested the fact that the 10 per cent to 15 per

cent reduction in elective surgery, the present resident surgeon may leave the

area, Mr. Speaker, and that would leave our area of Labrador without any

surgeon, and again I emphasize the isolation of Labrador that we are eight hours

away from a hospital if indeed we cannot get the services in Western Labrador.

The reduction in the specialists visits, Mr. Speaker, a 15

per cent reduction has been recommended by the Board. This is not fair to the

people of Western Labrador. And we are going to see that people are going to

spend more money to travel to places such as St. John's or to another province,

maybe they would have to go to Quebec City or Montreal. The fact that our

hospital will not have a speech therapist, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine 20,000

people will not have the use of a speech therapist now. These people will not be

able to jump in their car and drive an hour or fifty minutes to another

community, to another hospital. They will have to spend almost $1,000 to come

out here to the Island to get to see a speech therapist, Mr. Speaker. That is

tremendously unfair.

Mr. Speaker, these cutbacks are very real cutbacks, and

another thing that concerns the people of Western Labrador is the fact that

there may be further cuts that the Board may have to institute in the hospital

because of the lack of funds -

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

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

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, there may be further

cutbacks that the board may have to recommend because of a lack of funds

provided by this Government. I would certainly hope that the Minister and his

colleagues in Cabinet would reconsider and give further grants of monies to the

Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in western Labrador to provide a good

quality health care in western Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

petition of 1,143 residents of Labrador City and Wabush protesting the

Provincial Government cuts in funding to the Captain William Jackman Memorial

Hospital there. My colleague presented the petition ably. The reason I am rising

to support the petition is that first of all, I have a concern about the health

care of people in Labrador West. I believe residents of Labrador City and Wabush

deserve good hospital service. It is the same as residents of other parts of our

Province.

The second reason I am speaking in support of this petition

is that I believe the recent reduction in Provincial support for the hospital in

Labrador West amounts to a threat to the unity of the Province, a unity of the

island with the mainland portion of the Province. Many of us are now worried

about the future shape of Canada, about the future relationship between

Newfoundland and Labrador and other parts of Canada. Some people are worried

about the survival of Canada through all this. I would say to the Premier and

the Members opposite that they should never make the mistake of taking for

granted the unity of Newfoundland and Labrador. Geographically there is the

division of the Strait of Belle Isle. At the same time, of course, Labrador

shares a huge boarder with the Province of Quebec. Labrador City and Wabush, the

area we are now addressing, is in close proximity by road to Fermont and to

other parts of Quebec. And as the Island part of the Province. As the Provincial

Government alienates Labrador more than it has been alienated in the past as it

withdraws provincial funding for vital services in Labrador West, there will be

a natural tendency for the citizens of that part of Labrador to look for

replacement services in Quebec. What could be more natural.

My colleague from Menihek, in speaking earlier in the House

of Assembly made the point that the residents of Fermont, Quebec have used the

Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital in Labrador City and the Government of

Quebec has compensated the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for those

services. I understand the compensation is such that our Provincial Government

actually gains through services to people from Quebec. But if the Jackman

Hospital budget is cut, as it has been, if the Jackman Hospital downgrades it

services, then not only are residents of Labrador West, residents of our

Provinces going to look for alternatives in Quebec, but the Government of Quebec

is probably going to be there to provide those services, and the people of

Fermont will no longer be using our hospital services.

So, I think it is extremely important not only for the

Provincial Government to provide a good level of health care and other public

services to all residents of the Province, but also for the Government to pay

particular attention to the residents of Labrador to try to cement the bonds

between the Island and mainland parts of the Province, to signal an attitude of

appreciating the contribution of people in Labrador, and of understanding their

basic needs. If the Government fails to do that, I am afraid we may pay dearly.

We may basically exacerbate the feelings of alienation between the two parts of

the Province, we may undo much of the bonding that has happened over the last

twenty years, and we may, in effect, drive the people of Labrador to look at

alternatives such as independence or such as some kind of association with

Quebec, either a sovereign Quebec, an independent Quebec, or we hope a Quebec in

a revitalized Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I want to address this petition

which was presented by the hon. Member for Menihek, and which contained, I

understand, 1100 names of people in the Labrador city area. Mr. Speaker, we are

getting conflicting messages from Labrador West. On the one hand a group of

people can go and get 1100 names on a petition of people who are concerned about

the health care cuts in Labrador, and then we listen to the media carrying

stories about citizens groups who attempted to have a public meeting, invited

everyone to wear arm-bands, but they could not get anyone who were not members

of the committee to even wear an arm-band, Mr. Speaker, so the message is a bit

conflicting. I realize that, and that is why, as soon as the House closes this

session, I am going up to talk with the people of Labrador City. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that people in Labrador City are no different from people in the Strait

of Bell Isle, people in St. John's, or people anywhere else, they want an

adequate health care system which is better than we had in this Province before

this administration took over. We had a health care system which was totally

unorganized, and which was going off in fifty different directions, with no

correlation between primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care. Everything

was allowed to go off in different directions but we took control of the health

care system and we are putting in place an integrated health care system which

applies to the people in Labrador City, the people in Nain and the people in

Coastal Labrador. It is the first time in recent history that the health care

system has been taken over and we are attempting to take over a system and make

it adequate for Labrador West and for all of Newfoundland and Labrador. The

Jackman Hospital in Labrador last year had forty-three beds in operation. Do you

know the occupancy level? It was 50 per cent, one half of the beds were

utilized. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that nine of them were occupied by chronic care

patients. We are restructuring the hospital in Labrador West so that it meets

the needs that are required. One of the problems in Labrador City was the mental

health department. When we took over the people who were there were overworked.

There was inappropriate use of that centre. We sent up consultants from the

Department of Health and we closed it down for a month so that we could bring it

back better than it ever was before. That unit is now open and that is where the

need is. You see, Mr. Speaker, health care is not a few bricks and some mortar,

health care is services, services which meet the needs of our people and that is

what we are doing. We are going about this Province and we are matching services

to the needs that are there. We are not one bit torn up about building new

buildings, we are more concerned with meeting the needs of our people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member, when he presented this petition

on behalf of his constituents, talked about the fear of the people in Labrador

City. I want to address the fear of the people in Labrador City, and the fear of

the people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, because what we have witnessed

in the past number of weeks is a group of people who are trying to instill fear,

fearmongering with the people of this Province, fearmongering, for nothing only

purely political reasons, the lowest basis of reasons. They are trying to

fearmonger the people of this Province who know that this Government is

entrusted with a sacred trust of delivering a health care system and we take

that very seriously, Mr. Speaker. We have to prepare for a day in fifteen years

time when this Province will have to pay the total cost, and we have to put in

place a system that we can afford, a system which is better than we ever had

because it will be adequate.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Humber East, when she

addressed the petition, raised a rather noble approach. She talked about the

unity of Canada. Now, she has taken the emphasis totally away from health care

and she has taken it to the unity of Canada. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

she would make a presentation to the Spicer Commission at the earliest possible

date to see if there is something that can be done with this situation in

Labrador City so that we do not have to have anything to do with the unity of

Canada. It is a rather unique

interpretation she has given to this petition, and

I do not particularly share her concerns that the unity of Canada, or the unity

of Newfoundland, is somehow threatened by this, nevertheless it is a novel

approach and I certainly will give it some thought over the weekend and see if

she has any points on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 4, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, to consider Certain Resolutions and a Certain Bill related thereto,

Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I got carried away,

diverted by some comments made by the Premier and the Government House Leader,

which I will not get into at this point in time, because -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Two points behind the Reform Party,

nationally, Federal Tories you are talking about, are you?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, sorry, oh, I thought you were talking

about us; we are gone down below the GST, are we? That was the saying anyway,

one thing about that, Mr. Chairman, you have nowhere to go, but up, when you are

down like that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Oh, the interest rate, okay. Anyway, Mr.

Chairman, we are back on; the issue and the topic today is Bill 15, "

An Act To

Amend The Gasoline Tax Act", for those who may be interested in knowing what we

are debating today: "An Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act".

Now we debated this on Tuesday for a full day pretty well and

during that debate of course, what the Minister is attempting to do with this

legislation I think, was made known to the people of the Province, hopefully

through the press; now, I am not sure that the press did much justice to the

arguments which were being made to this legislation by Members on this side of

the House, that is not unusual but, I am not sure that they really have shown

the people of the Province exactly what it is the Government is intending to do,

by bringing in this legislation.

The argument was made and it was pointed out that what is

happening with this legislation in a nutshell, is that the Minister has decided

to freeze the tax rate, so that, if the taxed gasoline price actually drops,

then the tax that used to drop with it, which was an ad valorem tax, will not

now drop, if the price of gasoline drops, it will stay high, so, if the price of

gas up here and the provincial gasoline tax is up here, in the past, it was an

ad valorem tax, and if the price of gas went up, the tax went up, if the price

of gas came down, the tax came down.

But what has happened now with this legislation that the

Minister of Finance is bringing in, he is bringing in this kind of a tax, that

if the price of gasoline drops, the tax does not drop, the tax stays up, so as

long as everybody understands what it is we were saying, it is unfortunate that

the press has not sent that message out there, but that is what the Minister is

trying to do. Once again, trying to gouge the taxpayers of the Province, trying

to rip them off and trying to grab as much as he can in the way of taxes.

Now I suppose, that goes without saying for any Minister of

Finance; that is expected of a Minister of Finance I suppose, to grab as much

taxation as he can, and this Minister makes no bones about it; he is not one bit

embarrassed by it, he is not one bit shy about confessing and admitting. He said

when he introduced the bill on Tuesday I believe, words to the effect that I am

doing this because we want revenues and that is it; we are protecting our

revenues, protecting our revenues. Never mind protecting the consumer, never

mind giving the consumer a little break, we are protecting our revenues.

Now I want to ask the Minister of Finance, since this debate

is one that can go back and forth, we can feel comfortable in asking the odd

question here and there, and sitting down, because you can get up, you do not

have to speak for ten, two minutes or whatever.

On Tuesday past, just towards adjournment, I say to the

Minister, my friend from Menihek, put forth an amendment, and he will recall

what the amendment is supposed to do, I am sure he will recall the amendment, in

fact I think he indicated he had some interest in it. It seemed that it was a

sensible amendment to propose and essentially what the Member for Menihek was

suggesting, that there be an amendment which would provide that the tax rate

border communities, Labrador border communities, gasoline tax rate will

essentially not be discriminatory towards Labradorians; in other words, the tax

rate would be as close to the Quebec tax rate at all times, because in Quebec,

it is only across the border, it is only a few miles, the price of gas and the

tax is lower, so what is happening, is that people in Labrador are going to

Quebec, a few miles away across the border to buy their gas, so that does not

help -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, the Minister of Finance, I am hoping

will get up and tell us. People in Labrador are not that stunned. If that is the

way he feels now it is certainly a change in philosophy, if that is the way the

Minister of Finance feels. Because for the last two years, with all the pricing

and gouging he has been doing, it is pretty clear his philosophy has been to rip

off the Newfoundlander and suspecting that the Newfoundlander is stunned.

Because that is what he has been doing to them, or trying to do to them.

Now maybe he can get up and tell us. I am just trying to say

to the Minister that that was the purpose of the amendment put forward by the

Member for Menihek.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Now a (Inaudible) - it was not? How do you

know what the purpose was for him putting forth his amendment? You do not know,

for God's sake. You have no clues at all. You do not know if that is the reason

he put forth the amendment. How do you know the reason? You just said no, that

is not the reason he put forth the amendment. How do you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you. Wonders

never cease. Anyway, maybe the Minister can get up and perhaps tell us what his

response is to the amendment. I do not have to go into detail. He knows what the

Member put forward. All I was saying - and the Member for Eagle River was

nodding with what I was saying. The intent of the amendment was to try to have

the tax rate as close to the Quebec tax rate, right? For Labrador border towns.

That was the purpose of the amendment. Now, it is a bit broader than that, and a

little bit more complicated, but that was the purpose of the amendment. So I

would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would give us - before we

proceed debating the amendment any further - if he could give us his initial

reaction to the amendment. I think we would all appreciate it. Certainly I

would, and I know the Member for Menihek would.

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

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

respond to it?

MR. DECKER: Oh, I am sure the Minister of Finance will

later, but, Mr. Chairman, I just want to address this issue. Because it is an

important matter. And I want to say that this ad valorem tax which the hon.

Member talked about is quite accurate. When we took over government there was an

ad valorem tax on gasoline prices. And as the price of gasoline went up the tax

went up. Now, that has been around for x number of years when the previous

administration had it. And that is when we took over. If the price of gasoline

had gone to $1 million a gallon then the tax would have gone up proportionately

as well.

Now, the hon. Members on the opposite side for weeks and

weeks on end when this House was in session were up attacking the hon. Minister

of Finance and they were saying: do away with this ad valorem tax. Freeze the

tax, stabilize the tax. The hon. Members on the other side were saying:

stabilize this tax, so that the consumers of the Province will know what the tax

is, whether it is 10 cents or 20 cents, so people will know. So the hon. Members

for weeks were lambasting the hon. Minister of Finance, trying to get him to

freeze the tax.

Now, we are a Government which listens. The hon. Minister of

Finance is the most listening Minister of Finance that we have had over the last

seventeen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance listened to

Opposition Members when they wanted the tax frozen. So he came to his colleagues

in cabinet and Government and he got permission to freeze the tax. Now, that was

done right when the war was on the Gulf. We had no way of knowing that that war

was not going to go on for years. The price of gasoline could have gone through

the roof. It could have gone to $25 a gallon. Yet right in the middle of that

Gulf War we listened to hon. Members in the Opposition. We listened to them when

they said to us that the people want the tax rate frozen. And we listened and we

froze the tax. We cancelled the ad valorem tax, we gave the consumers a break,

now the hon. Members on the other side, what are they doing? They are up saying:

you should not freeze it, you should have kept the ad valorem tax.

Now what kind of Opposition is that? I am beginning to think

more and more that the people of my district are right when they are telling me

that all hon. Members want to do over there is be against everything. If we were

to give every person in this Province a million dollars as a free gift, hon.

Members would say: no, do not do it, no matter what we want to do as a

Government, because they are not concerned at all. They are not concerned about

the people of this Province. All they are concerned with is getting over here

where we are. But if they do not change their tactics they have no worry about

getting over where we are. Because they are going to be over there for a good

many years.

You see, the role of the Opposition - and I hate to have to

lecture my friends on the opposite side - the role of the Opposition is to look

at what Government is doing and criticizing, but there is such a thing as

constructive criticism, Mr. Chairman. Criticism is not always negative. You just

have not got to be against something because this Government puts it forward.

The hon. Member spent days and weeks and months, Mr. Chairman, lambasting the

hon. Minister of Finance, asking him to stabilize the tax on gasoline. The hon.

the Minister of Finance in his open way listened to the Opposition Members and

stabilized the tax, now they are getting up and telling us we should not have

done that. So, Mr. Chairman, I am getting to the stage where I am soon going to

stop paying any attention at all to the Members opposite. That is what the vast

majority of this Province have done. They have stopped paying attention to them.

I think I am going to join the other people in this Province and stop paying

attention to them too, Mr. Chairman, because they are not coming forward with

one constructive suggestion, to put it in the vernacular, they are agin

everything, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened with

quite a bit of interest to the Minister of Health in his discourse in the debate

on Bill 15. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we were discussing the

amendment. The amendment is a suggestion, if you will, that he just criticized

the official Opposition for not having provided any alternative, we are just

against everything. But, Mr. Chairman, this amendment that we are suppose to be

debating, that he did not even mention is a suggestion, it is an alternative. We

have provided one. But the problem is the hon. Minister of Health reminds me an

awful lot of another Cabinet Minister over there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well here he goes again. He is suggesting

now that if they accept this amendment they are scared that we will have another

good suggestion tomorrow, and lo and behold, you will be using all of our good

ideas. Now would not that be a terrible thing for this Minister or this

Government to be coming up with new and good and innovative ideas. Now would

that not be something. What a tragedy to the people of this Province.

But he reminds me, Mr. Chairman, to get back on track, very

much of another Member of the Cabinet, and they always, always, always never put

forward the idea of how something is good. They have to attack. They cannot

forget that they are now the Government. They cannot remember they are

Government. They cannot forget that they are Opposition. As soon as they get to

their feet they have to say oh, went I was in Opposition. I used to do this.

They remind me again, Mr. Chairman, of a Federal Member who many people, many

politicians, many columnists, many journalists in Ottawa suggested that this

gentleman was probably the best Member of Opposition that ever sat in a seat in

Ottawa. And when he got to be in Government in 1984 a lot of people have

suggested since then that he was a dismal failure as a Member of Government. And

I am speaking about a Member from Northern Canada, the hon. Eric Nielsen. That

man, he said, could not adjust to being in Government. Two Members on this side

have not yet adjusted or on that side, excuse me, in this level of Government,

the Provincial Government have not adjusted to being in Government. They cannot

get to their feet and argue the merit of what they are doing, of what they ought

to do when they stand up in this House is to say it is somebody else's fault. It

is always their fault. Not once did that hon. Minister get to his feet to

discuss the amendment which I have proposed, which is to make a level playing

field with gasoline operators or gasoline service stations on border areas of

this Province. Would make a level playing field between people selling gasoline

in southern Labrador, would make a level playing field or give the opportunity

to the Minister of Finance to make a level playing field for the people selling

gasoline in Western Labrador or the towns of Labrador City and Wabush and the

Town of Fermont. That is what the amendment would do. Now that is a constructive

piece of legislation. This is to promote Newfoundland and Labrador business. It

is not to detract. I am not out saying I am going to lay off, shut down, blame

it on other people. I am suggesting a constructive amendment to a piece of

legislation that this Government is bringing in that is going to be a benefit to

this Province. Because I firmly believe that we can, by lowering the taxes in

this Province on a liter of gasoline, in the border communities we will collect

more from those border communities.

Because what is happening in western Labrador is that the

people are leaving Labrador City and Wabush and driving to the Province of

Quebec and buying their gasoline because it is 7.5 cents cheaper per liter. That

is the difference in price. Now if we can bring that down through our tax system

to a little more even. Maybe we will not be able to bring it right down to

equal, but a little more even. That is what we should do.

Now we recognize the principle, this administration

recognizes the principle, of doing that. But what do they do? They left out

western Labrador, they included southern Labrador. This administration that

talks about being innovative, imaginative and creative, they forgot all about

western Labrador, the area that produces the most wealth of any electoral

district in this Province. The district of Menihek provides more wealth to this

Province than any other electoral district in this Province. And they forgot

about it. They included it in this bill, in Bill 15, they recognize that they

should level up the playing field, they did recognize it. The hon. Minister of

Finance suggested it, that they did recognize it. In

Section 3. But they forgot

western Labrador.

And that is what I am saying. I am offering an amendment to

suggest that you can include western Labrador and not only that, you do not fix

it, you give the opportunity to the Minister to correct it. That is what this

amendment would do. And that can help businesses in western Labrador and

southern Labrador to compete more closely to or with their competitors in the

border communities.

I am pleased to see that the Government recognized and agreed

with the principle. Now we just have to ensure that they have done their

research and I hope that they have. I mean, they would not suggest that they

would pass a piece of legislation without researching the effects of it. So I am

sure that when they consider it, now that I have proposed the amendment - and I

am hoping that they have had the opportunity of looking at it, and I see the

Minister of Finance nodding in an affirmative manner - so I am hoping that he is

going to stand and explain how he can live with this amendment. And that

hopefully he can convince his colleagues to support the amendment. Because it

can be a benefit. Not only to the residents of Labrador. I am not just thinking

of the people who are going to have the opportunity of paying fewer cents for a

liter of gasoline in western Labrador. I am thinking of the opportunity that is

going to be there to promote more business. Generate more commerce in western

Labrador and southern Labrador.

I am hoping that the Minister of Finance - he is nodding in

an affirmative manner - that he is going to stand and convince his colleagues to

support my amendment, and I know that the people of western Labrador will think

favourably of him of course if he does do this, and, well, think that it is a

good amendment and recognize that this Government does do some good things. You

are not always wrong. Some of the things that you have done I agree with. A lot

of the things you are doing I do not agree with.

But one of the things a lot of the people are suggesting to

me is that you have to have a plan. And the simplistic economics that is being

applied is not a plan. The fact that you are shutting down hospitals is just a

knee-jerk reaction to a lack of revenue on the other side, and it is dangerous.

Because I think that some of the things that you have done, such as massive

layoffs in the public sector, are going to have a more devastating effect on the

other side of knocking your revenues down again. And then what are you going to

be stuck with on the other side next year? Again your knee-jerk reaction will

possibly be more layoffs in the public sector, and that is not going to work.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that this amendment will go

through. I hope that the people on the other side of the House will support it.

Because it can benefit businesses and individuals working in businesses, and

individuals purchasing gasoline and other products in western Labrador. Now, the

principle as I suggested you adhere to, you believe in, because you proposed it

in the bill. You also believe in it in other sectors.

In the sales tax. In western Labrador there is no sales tax

on clothing. Because of the border community again. And that is something I am

pleased to suggest, and I played an important role in having the previous

administration, I think, removing the sales tax on clothing in western Labrador.

Because of the border community. And it was while I was the mayor of Labrador

City that I lobbied the previous administration. Other people in southern

Labrador, as an example -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: It may have been. Yes, I was also a member

of the economic council that was -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Where I used to get paid $300. That

patronage appointment? Three hundred bucks.

AN HON. MEMBER: A day!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

Transportation suggested -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

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

MR. A. SNOW: For my appointment. That patronage

appointment that I received -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

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

MR. A. SNOW: May I have leave?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. A. SNOW: Let me finish.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. CHAIRMAN: No leave.

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

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have a

few words based on this resolution -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: - this piece of legislation that is before the

House dealing with the gasoline tax. And there are a few comments that I would

like to make, Mr. Chairman, if you can keep the Member for Eagle River quiet

while I try to speak.

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

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

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I rose to enter into

the debate after the Member for Menihek sat down, and then he asked for leave

and I assumed that the leave was given to the Member for Menihek, so I sat down.

But I think you probably were distracted. So I would like to have an

opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are just a

couple of very brief remarks I would like to make to the point of order brought

up by the Member for Eagle River. First of all, obviously it is not a point of

order. While it is traditional that the Chair will recognize a speaker back and

forth across the House, the Chair I guess only observed one person standing and

recognized that person. And so therefore the Member for Burin - Placentia West

is recognized and has ten minutes to speak. Secondly, there is no rule saying

that that must be done, that is just a tradition. And thirdly, the hon. Member

did not take his seat, he continued to stand and continued to stand long after

the Member for Burin - Placentia West was recognized.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

To that point of order. Yes, I guess it is a tradition of the

House to alternate back and forth. However, when the hon. Member for Menihek

asked for leave and leave was not granted the only Member I saw standing was the

hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West. However, if he wishes to yield to the

hon. Member for Eagle River than the Chair has no objections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty in yielding

to the Member for Eagle River if he so wants to speak. Because I am sure that he

wants to speak on the fact that he refused to present a petition on behalf of

his constituents.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: I am glad, Mr. Chairman, I am able to

stand here and not be knocked by such a vicious attack by the Member for Burin -

Placentia West. And I thank him for -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr.

Chairman, on this amendment. And as I indicated on Tuesday I cannot help but

support the principle involved in the amendment that the hon. the Member for

Menihek puts forward. I know after living in a coastal Labrador community, on

the Border, that the difference in taxation can have an impact upon the local

economy and indeed his Government has recognized that.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out that

while the principle is great and while we will seek to do what we can to

harmonize things, we just cannot be throwing figures open flagrantly about and

have people expect that they are going to be automatically accepted and

confirmed and then implanted in a piece of legislation forever. That is not the

way, Mr. Chairman, to do things. And since I am familiar and have dealt with

this issue at some length, I would just like to inform hon. Members I think it

was about ten days ago that the Minister of Finance accompanied me to my riding

in L'Anse-au-Clair and met with the business community there, and this is one of

the issues that we talked about. And as I pointed out and as we readily can

appreciate that sometimes there is a difference between the tax rates, and in

this particular case gasoline. There does not always have to be a difference in

price at the pump. There is a difference between what you charge at the pump and

what the taxes are for the respective provinces. And in our case in the Labrador

Straits, Mr. Chairman, while there is a difference of 2.02 cents per liter on

the respective Government's taxes. We at the present time have the same price

within half a cent or so of the gas price from Blanc Salbon to L'Anse-au-Clair

because it just happens to be that the supplier is acknowledging the fact that

they have to be competitive, and they are providing a differential to the

retailer and, therefore, they are able to give the people of southern Labrador

and the people on the Quebec North Shore the same price for gasoline. And in the

instance of the hon. Member for Menihek in Labrador West, the price difference

again is 10.8 cents Quebec rate and the Newfoundland rate is 13.7 for a

difference of 3.5 cents per liter.

Mr. Chairman, also being very familiar with the Labrador West

area I know that Fermont is some twenty-seven kilometers away from Labrador

City. So you know, Mr. Chairman, if you looked at getting a forty liter of gas

up at Fermont you would be talking about $1.20, Mr. Chairman, for travelling

over that twenty-seven or so kilometers and back. So, Mr. Chairman, there is

really no big differential.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Now while the hon. Member might say it is

seven and a half cents, that seven and a half cents is not due to the taxation

policies of the respective Government. That may be due to what the retailer is

prepared to accept as a profit margin or what the supplier is prepared to give

to the retailer.

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

(inaudible)?

MR. DUMARESQUE: Ten point eight. And the Newfoundland

rate is 13.7. I have had these figures confirmed by the Department of Finance,

the hon. Minister provided that to us in our discussions.

MR. A. SNOW: It is not true.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman. So while the hon. Member

has the right to debate and the right to differ I think what is mature and

responsible at this stage, Mr. Chairman, and the other reason why I wanted to

rise here today was to extend congratulations to the Minister of Finance for

initiating a comprehensive review of the tax structure on the border communities

between Quebec and Newfoundland. I think that is a very, very important

initiative and one that is long overdue and I am sure will result in a changed

tax structure between the two provinces and the communities concerned, and I am

sure, Mr. Chairman, we will have a very much streamlined tax structure in the

future. But obviously the way to do it is to look at the overall package and be

able to see that the full benefits not be parochial and just pick one thing out

over the other because there has to be a comprehensive package put together and

I am very pleased to see this Government has initiated that and I look forward

to seeing the results of that, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

West.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I ask the hon. the Member

for Menihek to withdraw that remark.

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

withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman.

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

West.

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

I would like to say to the Member for Eagle River who I gave

leave to speak in the Assembly, I let him go ahead and speak for his ten

minutes, but when he stands in this House, what he says should be factual. It is

important that the truth be told to the Members of this legislature, and what

the Member for Eagle River said today was not so, Mr. Chairman. It was not so.

What the Member for Menihek said in this legislature was the truth.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

MR. TOBIN: The Member got up and he was going to support

the amendment. By the time he got down he was not going to support the

amendment. The Member is either from Labrador or he is not from Labrador. He

cannot have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. He either supports the people of

Labrador or he does not support the people of Labrador. The test will come

whenever we take the vote on this piece of legislation. That is when the test

will come, whether or not the Member supports the people of his riding, the

people of Labrador, or whether he does not.

A few years ago he was down there trying to be the Member for

Labrador West, and now all of a sudden does he support the people for Labrador

West or doesn't he. The test will come. When we see you standing in voting on

this we will see how you vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: His own district too.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, his own district. I would suspect, Mr.

Chairman, that he probably will not even show for the vote. Do not be surprised

if the Member for Eagle River has not got the courage to be in the House for the

vote. Do not be surprised, Mr. Chairman, like he was not allowed to speak

yesterday on the resolution for the fisheries.

Now I can say one thing, that after the Premier's statement

today when I presented my petition on the roads to South East Bight, it was

going to be a long time before the people of South East Bight are going to be

effected by gasoline taxes as it relates to driving to their community. I found

it insulting today for the people of Placentia Bay that the Premier of this

Province would stand and talk about the responsibility of the Canadian

Government and the constitutional right to provide transportation. Mr. Chairman,

where have you been for the past forty years.

When this country became a province of Canada, there were

coastal boat services going from one end of the Province to the other end. The

people of the northern peninsula and the northeast coast, the people of Ming's

Bight, do they have a road today?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right, they have a road today. Before

they had a road, what did they have?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, but before they had a road, what did they

have? They had a coastal boat service. Did the feds pay, Mr. Chairman, did the

feds pay for the coastal boat service? They did. And who paid for the road?

AN HON. MEMBER: We did.

MR. TOBIN: It is insulting. It is insulting to the people

of Placentia Bay and every man, woman and child who lived or have relatives

living in Placentia Bay should take exception to what the Premier said today.

The people of Fortune Bay, Placentia Bay and the northeast coast and the south

coast, and all over this Province for years operated on coastal boat services,

but with progression, Mr. Chairman, with time the Liberal Government of Mr.

Smallwood, roads were built. Roads were constructed without federal money. I can

say to the parliamentary system from the Premier I will not sit down, and I find

it insulting what the Premier said today. There are roads in his district that

were serviced by coastal boats for years and the federal Government did not pay

for the roads that were there, it was done by the Province. Why is the Premier

attacking the people of Placentia Bay? Why, Mr. Chairman? There is a coastal

boat service that went to Monkstown paid by the Federal Government, but it was

the Province that put the road to Monkstown. The Provincial Government of the

day did not complain. And I can tell the Member opposite that at the time it

went there, there was a Liberal Government in Ottawa, and a Conservative

Government in Newfoundland.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

I wonder if the hon. Member would permit me to read the

questions for the Late Show.

MR. TOBIN: Sure, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Question number one: I wish to advise that

I am not satisfied with the answer to my question re: school bus contracts by

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

Question number two: I would like to give notice that I am

not satisfied with the answer to my question by the Minister of Education re:

the layoffs at school board level - the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

Question number three: I am dissatisfied with the answer

given by the Minister of Finance to my question relating to the Budget - the

hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman. And as I was saying, I find it

insulting today that the Premier of this Province would make such a statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the President of Treasury

Board, I am delighted, is listening. Because there was coastal boat service

throughout this Province for years before there were roads. But successive

governments - the Smallwood Government, the Moores Government and the Peckford

Government - removed the coastal boat services and used Provincial money to

build roads. And the Premier stood up today and said it cannot be done any more.

Why? Why is he attacking the people of South East Bight? What does he have

against the people of Petit Forte?

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with the price

of gas in Labrador?

MR. TOBIN: It has a lot to do with the price of gas.

Because the people of South East Bight will not have cars to put gas in because

of this Minister of Finance. It has a lot to do with it. Why do you not stand up

and tell us where your position is as it relates to the people of South East

Bight and Petit Forte? No, Mr. Chairman, the people of his district, the people

of St. John's Centre, can get in their car and drive to their homes. But why is

he denying it to the people of South East Bight? That is the question that has

to be answered. What has he got against rural Newfoundland? Why are they

attacking rural Newfoundland at every corner? Why? Why?

The people of South East Bight are taxpayers in this

Province, as are the people of Petit Forte, as well as your constituents in St.

John's Centre. And they deserve to be treated as people. And I find it

distasteful that the Minister of Finance would make such a joke out of the fact

that the people of South East Bight cannot buy gas for their cars. I will defend

them as long as I am in this Legislature. And long after if I can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: The Government - yes, Mr. Chairman, the Member

for Bell Island should hang his head in shame. Mr. Chairman, they cut a ferry

service from the people of Bell Island and you have not got the courage to stand

in this Legislature and support your constituents. You lack whatever it takes to

be a good Member, that is what your problem is.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the people from Monkstown, as I was saying

before I was interrupted, received the road while there was a Conservative

government in this Province and a Liberal government in Ottawa. With Provincial

money. And you did not hear the premiers of the day - it started under Moores

and finished under Peckford - say the people of Monkstown cannot have a road

because of the Federal responsibility. No, they cared about rural Newfoundland,

they cared about the people of Monkstown. And this Government cares about nobody

in rural Newfoundland in particular, and in the Province in general. That is the

problem we have.

Why? Why the Premier had to take that attitude today in

addressing the needs in the petition of the people of rural Newfoundland. The

Government has a responsibility for transportation in this Province. Not the

Federal Government. The Provincial Government has the responsibility for

transportation. And it is incumbent upon them to provide transportation

services. They are not looking for a road paved in gold. They are looking for a

dirt road, a gravel road, so that at least they can drive from their homes to

another community. Do you know how far you are talking about? I do not know,

probably eight, nine miles, something like that. Probably not even that far.

Something in that area.

And I can tell the Premier of this Province one thing. That

after the next elections when we form the Government, which we will, that people

of South East Bight will get a road. I can assure you that. The same as the

people of Monkstown got a road under the Conservative government, the same as

the people of Petit Forte got a road under Conservative government, the people

of South East Bight will have a road after the next elections. Because this

crowd of uncaring people who have betrayed rural Newfoundland from the day of

the elections, who elected people like the Member for Bell Island who lacks the

courage to stand and support his constituents, who have seen them betrayed day

after day, who have seen the people of Bell Island betrayed day after day, and

does not have the courage to stand and support them, that is what is going to

cause this crowd to get the boot when the Premier has the courage to go to the

Lieutenant-Governor and issue the writ. And the sooner the better.

Because that Premier was part of the Smallwood regime that

tried to resettle rural Newfoundland. He was a member of the Cabinet, Mr.

Speaker, that put the boot to rural Newfoundland and he is trying to continue it

again today. That is what is taking place in this Province, but when the Premier

issues the writ, Mr. Speaker, the people of Southeast Bight will no longer have

to have petitions presented in the House for a road because I can make the

commitment today that we will pave the road. We will build the road, Mr.

Speaker, and we will pave the roads if we have to. I can tell you we will be

able to drive to Southeast Bight and it will not be long, only two years. We

will say what Frank Moores said, and we will say what Brian Peckford said to the

people of Monkstown, we will say the same thing to the people of South East

Bight, we have the responsibility for roads and we will build the roads. I can

say on behalf of the people of South East Bight that we were insulted today. The

Premier had no difficulty when he went to South East Bight and Petit Forte

talking about the need for a road when he was Leader of the Opposition. He was

going to build everything then. There were going to be roads everywhere when he

went down there, but what has happened? When you see people on the picket lines

those days what do their posters say? Clyde lied. How true, Mr. Speaker. Every

time you turn around there are posters stuck up everywhere, Clyde lied, and he

lied to the people of South East Bight and Petit Forte as well. Why are we going

to be increasing gasoline taxes? Why are we going to be increasing taxes on

gasoline when they are not prepared to give certain people in this Province,

because of where they live, the right to drive a car? Why did he want to have

them placed in boats for the rest of their lives, to be ferried back and forth

in open boats in the middle of the Winter? As a matter of fact the boat that is

now on coming from Argentia to South East Bight could not get in there the

Winter because of ice conditions, yet this Government wants to give them an old

wooden liner for a ferry service on a temporary basis. What a disgrace. It is

utterly ridiculous that they would show such contempt for the people of South

East Bight, and indeed the people of rural Newfoundland. There are no harder

workers than the people of South East Bight anywhere in this Province, nor any

finer people anywhere in this Province who have worked for their living as hard

working dedicated fishermen and fisherwomen, paying taxes. They may not pay gas

taxes, Mr. Speaker, but it is because of this Government that they will not pay

gas taxes, because of this Minister of Finance. He continues to deny them the

right to, not a paved road, Mr. Speaker, but the right to an access. The Premier

gets up and says that is the Federal Government's responsibility, the

constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, what

a sham. And the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations should laugh. She

should go to South East Bight and then she would know why I am standing in this

House. She should go to South East Bight and find out why I am so upset today.

The Premier showed contempt for the people of South East Bight, decent people.

If this Government showed any care and concern for the people of South East

Bight they would not - the Member for Bell Island is over there yapping

constantly. He lacks the courage to stand. I challenge the Member for Bell

Island to put his money where his mouth is, to stand when I sit down and tell us

about the people of Bell Island. If he wants to yap, Mr. Speaker, when someone

else is speaking take the floor and tell us why he supports the cutting of the

ferry service to the people of Bell Island. And tell us what you have done. You

have hid from the people of Bell Island, that is what you have done.

(Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

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

is what you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, my colleagues. The Member for

Placentia, Mr. Chairman, understands Bell Island.

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

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

The Member for Placentia understands South East Bight, Petite

Forte and Monkstown. He understands it, and I believe he supports the petition

today and if he had the opportunity he would probably be up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I only wish that the visitor in

the gallery was the Minister of Development today in this Province or the

Minister of Finance. I can say that if the Member for Mount Pearl today was the

Minister of Finance, I would not be here today arguing for a road. I would not

be here arguing for a road because the Minister of Finance would have given us

the money to build it, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SIMMS: Remind him he is on the Late Show just in case

he did not hear it.

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

Show, Mr. Chairman.

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

colleagues for -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, if he wants me to keep

going, I will keep going. The Minister of Finance brings in this piece of

legislation and expects it to be approved. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I shall - Jack

Harris wants to get up. The Minister of Finance wants to get up. They all want

to get up, Mr. Chairman. Well I hope that when he takes his place and addresses

the needs of South East Bight and not insult them like the Premier did today,

but assure them that they will get a road, and tear up this piece of

legislation, never increase taxation on gasoline again until all the people in

Newfoundland have the right to have a car and drive to their own home to their

own community.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been trying

to get to my feet, but there has been so much enthusiasm about the particular

topic that I though I would wait until pretty well everybody had an opportunity

to speak. I want to say that I have listened and read the amendment quite

carefully and find that I do not think we should vote in favour of this

amendment for the reasons that the Member for Eagle River set forth. But

basically, we are conducting a review of taxation in the Province, a thorough

review of taxation in the Province as announced in the Budget Speech, and

particularly as it applies to the Goods and Services Tax and oth