April 26,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 37

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

On behalf of hon. members, I welcome to the galleries today

sixty Grade XI students from Ascension Collegiate High School, Bay Roberts,

accompanied by their teachers, Barbara Pynn and Claude Taylor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have six Grade X students from Long

Island Academy, Green Bay, accompanied by their teacher, Joan Brown.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: We have, also, thirty Grade VII students

from Mount Pearl Junior High, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Gordon Hicks and

parent, Mrs. Bannister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I welcome to the gallery, Mr. Tom

Kearsey, Chairman of the Buckmaster Circle Tennis Association, here in St.

John's.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have a copy of this statement. I have already

indicated to Members opposite that I was going to do this even though it is not

a prepared statement. I want to react, Mr. Speaker, to some comments in the

press concerning the publication of the departmental salary details. The stories

are very, very misleading and incorrect that appeared last night and as well

this morning.

First of all, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are the only

Government in Canada that produces these salary details and gives all the

details of what has happened to the employees in the public service in this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, what you see -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, what you see in these salary

details is a reflection of the following realities. First of all, during last

year, during the past twelve months, there have been a number of negotiations

ongoing, and these salary details will reflect by and large throughout the

public service a salary increase of 6 per cent over and above what was included

in last years salary details at a net cost to Government, because of the way it

was staggered, of 4.5 per cent during the year. So the salaries of all employees

are shown in the salary estimates as having gone up at least the 6 per cent.

Also included, of course, would be step progressions for some employees who have

not reached their maximums. So the annualized cost to Government was about 4.5

per cent.

Also, the details will reflect some reclassification. For

instance, during the year the nursing assistants got reclassified, and so the

increase, if you look through the salary estimates for nursing assistants, will

show increases well above the normal 6 per cent because of reclassification.

Also, Mr. Speaker, at the executive level, because these are

picked out individually, I suppose, and they are more easily to see, you also

find some of the increases that during the last year amounted to more than 6 per

cent on the surface. And in every single case there is a logical reason. And as

an example, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Education, two years ago when we

took over there were two departments, we put them together. And it took us about

a year and a half to adjust the salary accordingly. There were two deputy

ministers, now there is only one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: It took us a year and a half to do the

reclassification process, and in these salary details then the Deputy Minister

of Education would show as having a more than 6 per cent increase because of

this reclassification and because of the extra responsibilities. All of the

others who were in the normal process will show increases of about 6 per cent

and the cost to Government during the year was about 4.5 per cent.

I feel I need to do this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: - Mr. Speaker, because between the salary

details in this document compared to the previous one there is no connection in

that comparison and a wage freeze that is now underway in the public service.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, not a bit.

MR. BAKER: There is no connection at all. I know that

hon. Members opposite do not let the truth get in the way of what they say. But

I hope that at least the press of this Province is not of the same attitude and

do deal in the truth unlike Members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that is has

taken forty-five or forty-six days for the Government House Leader and the

President of Treasury Board to finally table the salary details, forty-five or

forty-six days since the Budget was tabled, March 7. And by the way, I want to

make the point he was suggesting that somehow the salary estimate details is

something brand new brought in by this Administration. I mean that has been done

in this Province for years and years and years. And that has absolutely nothing

to do with anything.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what we see here is another example of

incompetence, fiscal incompetence on the part of this Government. It is very

clear. The question has to be asked are these or are these not the salary

estimates details for 1991-92 fiscal year? Are they, or are they not, and what

the President of Treasury Board has just tried to lead us to believe is that

they are not, they are last years. That is what he is trying to say. What utter

nonsense. You talk about confusion, Mr. Speaker. The question is does Edsel

Bonnell now get a salary of $95,000 and is that up $7000 or $8000 from last

year? That is the question. The Premier says, no. Well, read the salary

estimates. It does say it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the whole point. The other

thing he mentioned, and I think his quote was something to the effect of: what

you see, and then he backed off from completing the statement. What he meant to

say, Mr. Speaker, is what you see is not what you get. That is what he meant to

say in this particular statement, and it is pretty clear by what he is saying,

he is adding to the confusion, he is cheek to cheek with the Minister of Finance

who is an expert at confusing the public, and now the President of Treasury

Board is simply joining him. Methinks he doth protest too much.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, as Minister responsible for the

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, I am pleased to announce that

funding in the amount of $590,000 will be provided to revitalize the

Buckmaster's Circle public housing project in St. John's.

Buckmaster's Circle was originally developed by the Federal

housing agency, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but in the mid-sixties

administration was turned over to the Province. The project consists of 210

townhouses fro low-income families. Over the past number of years the project

has been subject to vandalism and other social problems.

The funds will be used to convert three units for a community

centre to address the social and recreational needs of area residents, to

upgrade thirty vacant units in the Kings Court area of the project, and to carry

out a major on-site road realignment which will allow for better traffic flow

within the project.

As well, funding has been allocated for other exterior

repairs as needed.

The Community Centre will provide the Tenant Association with

a place to introduce support programs as well as social and recreational

activities for tenants. The Centre will also serve as a base for the St. John's

Boys and Girls Club to offer its many worthwhile programs and services.

Funding for this major refurbishment of Buckmaster's Circle

will be cost shared on a 75/25 per cent basis by Canada Mortgage and Housing

Corporation and NLHC.

The physical changes combined with the efforts of NLHC's

regional staff, the Tenant Association and the St. John's Boys and Girls Club,

will go a long way toward improving the quality of life for the residents in the

area. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that through these efforts we will be able to

make Buckmaster's Circle a safer and more attractive place to live.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I guess

the fact that it is old news, the fact that it was announced by the media

yesterday, probably gives an explanation as to why the Minister just had the

copy delivered to me before making the announcement.

I want to, on behalf of this side of the House, say how

pleased we are that this work is going to be carried out. I think it is a very

positive announcement and it is one that we would like to hear more of.

I also want to, obviously, pay tribute and commend the people

from the Buckmaster's Circle Tenant Association which has made a significant

contribution no doubt to convincing the powers that be of the necessity of this

work. And they are certainly to be commended for their efforts in having this

work done. But when the Minister gets up, he announces a $590,000 project, and

he would almost make you believe that this Government was paying $590,000. The

fact of the matter is that Mr. Crosbie, the Federal MP for the district, was

able to get $470,000 and this Government is putting in $120,000. So the fact of

the matter is clear. That it is not this Government paying $590,000, it is Mr.

Crosbie's Government which is putting up $470,000 and I think the Minister

should do a better service if he pointed that out from the beginning.

But in any case, it is a very positive announcement. It is

something that I hope the Minister will continue to do for the tenants for

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing throughout this Province, as there are other

areas I am sure that would appreciate this type of support from both NLHC and

CMHC.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the

Minister of Finance on some of the projections that he has in his Budget. If you

look closely at the Budget you will find that 77 per cent of the growth in the

current account revenue will come from provincial revenue sources this year; in

past years, provincial revenue sources have accounted for 50 per cent or less of

the growth in current account revenue. Would the Minister like to explain to us,

how he projected this year that he is going to get such a high percentage of

revenue growth from Provincial sources?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. We are faced with a

number of federal cutbacks and that explains a fair amount of what he is saying.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I will be charitable this

morning; it is early in the morning, maybe the Minister did not understand the

question; I was talking about revenues, not expenditures; what has cutbacks to

do with increased revenues, Mr. Speaker, what a stupid answer. Would the

Minister like to explain how he expects provincial tax and general revenues to

increase by $126 million in 1991, a growth rate of over 8 per cent, when last

year's revenues increased by only $74 million, a growth rate of 5 per cent or

less, in the face of all layoffs and cutbacks in the public service, how can he

be so optimistic for this year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the Member Opposite is wearing

his chicken little hat again, where he is trying to down-grade the economy of

this Province. The economy of this Province this year will be better than any

other province in Canada except the province of Alberta and nothing he can do

will change that fact.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister told us that last

year and he went from a $10 million surplus to a $117 million deficit -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINDSOR: - so he need not think that we are going to

believe him this year. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister not confess, that, in fact

what he is doing is, taking $40 million of this projected increase in provincial

revenues, one third of the total increase in revenues for this year from the

sinking fund, and that he is in fact, borrowing from savings which are set aside

to pay off the debt of the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you. We invest our money

in the sinking fund and it raises interest and that helps us as well. But the

increase in revenues is to a large extent due to increased taxes and also to

increased earnings on the part of the people of Newfoundland and increased

expenditures.

AN HON. MEMBER: Revenues from expenditures.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we saw yesterday where people

have less income and yet they are going to spend more so the Minister is going

to get higher retail sales tax. Would the Minister like to concede that taking

one-third of the revenues from the sinking fund to pay day to day operations,

from savings set aside to pay the debt is hardly evidence of a healthy economy

or for good fiscal measures?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is dragging in

all sorts of strange points here. Yesterday he was referring to a page in our

document which says that real income might be down this year. And he could not

understand how we could get increased revenue from personal income tax when real

income was down. But actually the personal income tax is levied on nominal

income-

AN HON. MEMBER: Inflation.

DR. KITCHEN: - not after inflation, nor after taxes are

taken out. So the type of figures that are thrown across the floor by the hon.

Member, and I cannot understand why, being a former Minister, he would be so

foolish as to be throwing these strange figures across the floor when they have

no substance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Slide rule (inaudible).

DR. KITCHEN: When they are delivered in such an

authoritarian manner you would think there was something to it. But the

experience that we have had with the hon. Member's questions is that they are

nonsense and they have to be treated accordingly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: They were nonsense last year too, were they

not?

MR. WINDSOR: We just cannot explain the deceit

(inaudible).

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WINSOR: My question is to the Minister responsible

for Municipal and Provincial Affairs. For the past number of years the

municipalities in this Province have received electrical power subsidies from

the Provincial Government for the operation of major recreational complexes like

stadiums, swimming pools, and so on. Will the Minister confirm that the cutback

program has significantly reduced this program? And the subsidy paid has been

reduced by as much as one-third?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Budget does reflect a

reduction in this subsidy to municipalities for the electrical subsidy program.

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

supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this was not a freeze, this was

a cutback. Will the Minister explain then why he did not inform councils of this

decision prior to April 10, almost four years into this fiscal year for

municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four months.

MR. WINSOR: Four months.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: How does he expect municipalities to find

this $5,000 that many of them have to find in light of the new grant structure

they got? The increased debt charges? How do municipalities find that $5,000?

And why was the Minister so late informing municipalities of it?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not have a

crystal ball. It is very difficult for me to predict what is going to come out

of the Budget process. So I could not inform them in advance.

As far as the grants program is concerned, we have the finest

municipal grants program in Canada, bar none, so I am told. So we are working

with the municipalities constantly monitoring their budgets and those who are

affected, which will be very few, very few will be affected by this particular

subsidy, we will work with them as we do throughout the year and help them and

assist them where possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: The Minister knows that the Budget was

delivered on March 7 and municipalities were not informed until April 10. The

Budget was done sometime in February so the Minister knew. My question again is

to the Minister. How does he expect municipalities to find $5000 now, at this

late stage of the year, having done their budgets three or four months ago? They

were already approved by the Minister based on the fact that the electrical

power subsidy was the same this year as it was last year since there were only

freezes and not cutbacks.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of budgets

have been submitted to me, balanced. There are still a couple outstanding but

the vast majority have been submitted and are balanced. I have heard no

complaints. The hon. Member happens to be the only one complaining and if this

were a real concern you would think I would be hearing from the municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo on a final

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: How could they complain, Mr. Speaker, when

they did not get this letter? It was dated in St. John's on April 10. In

addition to that the Minister has never yet tabled the list of communities, or

recreation commissions, who received funding under the miniscule capital works

programmes he has for recreation. In fact the Minister has not even tabled his

list for 1990-91. Will the Minister see if he can find some time over the next

days to provide the list for both 1991 and 1991-92 of his Capital Works Program?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the list of capital works last

year, both water and sewer, roads, recreation, and so on has been available for

1989-90, 1990-91 for some time. I do not know what the Member is referring to.

There is nothing secretive about it. All the MHAs in the House of Assembly,

including the municipalities, know the capital works that have been put in place

for the past two years.

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

MR. TOBIN: I have a question for the same Minister. I

understand he will be speaking in St. John's this weekend to the seventh annual

meeting of the tenants who are renting from NLHC throughout the Province. When

the Minister is speaking to these people will he be announcing that there will

be a significant increase in the amount of rent to be charged to those tenants

this year?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Is the Minister aware that NLHC had a major

meeting in Gander this past week, as a matter of fact, and will he not confirm

that one of the topics of discussion was indeed a very significant increase in

the amount of rent to be charged various tenants throughout this Province? And,

will he not table the working documents, or the briefing notes that the

officials had at that meeting?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, every year, of course, NLHC

reviews its rents and rent adjustments are made. As to whether or not these

adjustments will become in place is something I will be discussing with the

officials, and I will make a release as soon as I do that.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows, and a lot of

other people know full well, that there will be a significant increase, or that

there has been a proposal for a significant increase.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister, in the

name of fairness and balance, will he assure the people renting from

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that the increase in the amount of rent this

year will not exceed the amount of increase in wages this Government gave the

public servants?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Member is talking, of

course, about units that are in the market sector and not in the social side of

our mandate with the Housing Corporation, and these market units are not meant

to be kept artificially low and unfairly low in competing with the private

sector. We want to make sure that they are charged reasonable rents. The rents

will be kept reasonable, Mr. Speaker, but adjustments have to be made from time

to time to reflect the cost of operating and maintaining these units. You cannot

forever freeze rents in market units because you do have adjustments from time

to time because of the cost of refurbishing, repairing and so on. These

adjustments have to be made, and they will be made, Mr. Speaker, in fairness

when we finalize the details.

MR. SPEAKER: On a final supplementary, the hon. the

Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on a final supplementary then,

based on what the Minister has just said. Will he assure the people who are

renting from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing that any increase will have to be

first approved by the Tenants' Board?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: No, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who is responsible for the

Public Service Commission. I wonder could the Minister give the House an update

on the investigation being conducted by the Public Service Commission into the

allegations of interference with the Public Service competition by officials of

the Minister's office?

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member is

aware the matter is under investigation, and I certainly will not be giving any

information until such time as the information is complete, and the Chairman of

the Commission will then make his report to me.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Social

Services told the House that that report would be made public and tabled in the

House. Can the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation confirm that that

will be the case?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Stand up, stand up!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No answers? We will go to questions.

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

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, when the investigation is

complete the Chairman of the Public Service Commission will be reporting to me

and then I will decide what is going to happen to the report then.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final

supplementary is to the Premier. In view of the fact that the Minister of Social

Services promised the House that it would be received, this full report, and the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation is not willing to confirm that,

can the Premier tell the House that the House will be informed of the results of

this investigation as to whether or not there has been any interference by the

Minister's office in the competition, and that the report will be tabled in this

House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that

full information will be made public. The whole public of this Province will be

able to judge the validity or otherwise of the allegations that have been made.

And if -

AN HON. MEMBER: By the Member.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, the allegations, I believe, made by

the hon. Member so that the public of the Province will be able to judge the

actions.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of

Social Services. Last Wednesday I asked the Minister a question about the

children on the streets of St. John's. And I asked him about the plight of those

young people who are between the ages of sixteen and nineteen who find

themselves, through no fault of their own, that they cannot live at home. The

Minister said that the Department was providing at that time lots of services

for them, and I quote him: in different houses in St. John's.

Now, Mr. Speaker, does he think that boarding homes which are

meant to accommodate adults are appropriate places for these young people?

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

MR. EFFORD: I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker, if I

understand the question. Do I think that boarding homes which are meant to

accommodate adults are good for people between the ages of sixteen and eighteen?

Boarding homes that are meant to accommodate adults, we do not use them for

those children. We provide board and lodging with proper therapeutic foster

homes, foster homes which want to care for these children, if they can be called

children. Between sixteen and eighteen it is a job to determine because there is

nothing in the Child Welfare Act to take care of them. But we do not put them in

boarding homes for senior citizens or adults.

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

MR. HODDER: Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has a number

of homes -the Minister must be aware, so I will ask, is he aware that the

Department has homes which they identify for people when they are needed, such

as these young people. And that in some of those homes there are other people

who at times - who have other boarders, or other people who have been directed

there - who themselves may use alcohol or drugs. And that many of these young

people as a result of this do not feel -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this has been brought out in the

public media. But the young people do not feel at home in some of those

situations in which the Department has placed them and for that reason they do

not go there. And does the Minister think that - and believe, does he really

believe? - that the system that he has for these young people between sixteen

and eighteen are appropriate places? Does he really believe that?

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the hon. Member,

first of all, he does not have a great deal of knowledge on what he is talking

about. Somebody else must have written that question for you.

First of all, the only homes we have in St. John's, if you

call them homes, I would not call them homes, are places like Kirby House and

Patrick House. We do not use personal care homes or senior citizens homes. Those

individuals are between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years of age, and there

is nothing under the Child Welfare Act to cover them, we cannot force them to go

into any situation. The hon. Member knows that we are presently drafting a

complete new Child Welfare Act to deal with that. And the hon. Member, being

from the former administration, knows full well that they did nothing for those

people. There is very little adolescent service for these people in the

Province. There is very little mental health service, but let me assure the hon.

Member and all people that we are very concerned.

We are presently meeting with a group in St. John's, a group

of volunteers, by the way, who are looking at providing the capital funding for

an adolescent centre for troubled teenagers. That is one positive thing that is

happening, and we are talking very positively with that group. We are also

working with young people who find themselves in trouble. We find board and

lodging. We will pay the board and lodging for these individuals. We cannot

force them under the law, the RCMP, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, nobody

can force those individuals. But as far as having people live with other people

who are taking drugs, absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, it is disgusting for the hon.

Member to even suggest that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: The Minister must be aware, Mr. Speaker, that

there are inadequate housing for those people, that there are a lack of social

workers on the street to help those people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member is on a supplementary.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain why his

department will pay for a boarding house or board and lodging for these young

people, but will not pay for accommodations in Patrick House? And will the

Minister reconsider his position and introduce - and we made the offer here last

Wednesday - and introduce amendments to legislation, and we again, as we did

before, will promise to co-operate to bring this through the House as quickly as

possible.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will answer that last part of his question first. No. The

Child Welfare Act is a very, very important piece of legislation that needs to

be up dated and have a complete overhaul. I am not going to rush, on the

Oppositions whim, to bring that into the House.

Again, since the hon. Member asked the question the other

day, I went back, because I have a great deal of concern about the Child Welfare

Act, I went back and I spoke to the Director of Child Welfare and I asked would

it be possible to bring in an amendment to deal with this vacuum age of these

individuals, and he said the same thing that I said in the House of Assembly

last week, that we are waiting for input from all of the concerned groups around

the Province, that proper legislation will be done and that we cannot rush an

important piece of legislation such as this.

To the next part of the question, will we provide funding for

young people to stay in places such as the Kirby House and Patrick House? Yes,

when it is necessary. We do not refuse anybody. If there are no family Members

or no private board and lodging with a proper foster home, we will provide that.

Only in the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We have so done it.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, the young people of this Province are a

great concern to this department, the Department of Social Services, and to this

Government. Unlike the former administration, we are looking at a number of ways

to provide adequate services, but we have to deal with the legislation first. We

cannot force those individuals into any situation that they do not choose to go

into. We have no authority, and we cannot take the law on our backs and do

whatever we wish to do with it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. During the past

couple of years, the federal and provincial government constructed two large,

modern fish plants in Nain and in Makkovik. I understand there is a five year

lease with the Department of Fisheries and Torngat Fisheries with the Makkovik

fish plant -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is some other questions or conversation going on making

it difficult for the Chair to follow the question.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would

like to ask the Minister of Fisheries if he has finalized any plans with the

operation of the new fish plant in Nain with any particular operators for this

coming summer?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the operation of the Nain fish

plant is still a matter of negotiations with the LIDC and the last briefing I

received on that issue indicates that they were still looking at it; they have

some reluctance to operate it this year but, they were going to get back to our

officials within a couple of weeks and let us know.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains,

on a supplementary.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final

supplementary - I understand that last year's operation at the Nain fish plant,

roughly cost the Provincial Government between $300,000 and $400,000. If the

Provincial Government will be leasing this to the LIDC, would they be expecting

or would the Government be considering subsidizing the operation of this

particular fish plant?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that is something I am not

prepared to say now, but certainly I suppose, it is a matter that will be part

of the ongoing negotiations with the LIDC.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question

for the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. We are all aware of the plight of the

St. Lawrence fluorspar mine, a couple of deadlines have come and gone without

any significant proposal being received for the operation of the fluorspar mine,

and I am wondering if the Minister of Mines and Energy could advise the House

and consequently the people of St. Lawrence, what the status of the St. Lawrence

fluorspar mine would be right now, and if there is any possibility of a new

operator for that mine?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time there

is no progress to report on finding a new operator. We are still looking, the

receiver I guess, is still looking, but we have no progress to report at this

time.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am having

numerous enquiries from workers, laid-off workers of St. Lawrence Fluorspar, in

a few short weeks their UI benefits will be expiring and so on, and some of them

are seriously considering looking for work in mining operations in other parts

of Canada, and I am wondering if the Minister - they need a signal from the

Minister and from the Government because up to now, they have been led to

believe that there was some possibilities of one or two interested parties who

may be going to put forward a proposal to operate St. Lawrence Fluorspar. What

message can the Minister give those people today, I mean, is St. Lawrence

Fluorspar finished, is that what the Minister is telling the people?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, no. I am not saying that St.

Lawrence Fluorspar is finished, but there certainly does not seem to be much

interest in the mining community to come in there right now and take it over and

start operating it again very quickly, so in the short term, this year, I do not

see any possibility at all that there would be a re-opening at this time.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. My question would go

to the Minister of Environment and Lands, but seeing that he is absent, I would

like to ask the acting Minister of Environment and Lands.

Is the Minister aware that last fall, St. John's City Council

advised other towns on the Avalon Peninsula that it would not allow them to

continue to dispose septic waste at Robin Hood Bay after the end of June; the

city clearly has legitimate concerns about the future operations of Robin Hood

Bay, equally, the many residents of the Avalon, who use septic tanks are

concerned about the disposal of the waste from septic tanks.

I was made aware yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that twenty-two of

those towns have already been contacted; it is a serious problem out there and I

wonder what decision has the Department made or, what is the position of the

Department?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the matter is

under active consideration between the Department, The City Council and I know

the other communities that are concerned. I cannot tell the House at this moment

what will be the end result of it and I do not even know that the Minister, if

he were here, could give the House, what will be the final result at this stage,

but I can say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister, I have no doubt will

be back on Monday and we will take this as notice and the Minister will give the

House an updating at that time.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, then, I would like to ask the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, has the Minister identified an

alternate site and a plan for the disposal of the septic waste?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment

and Lands and myself met with the mayors of the councils in this region last

week, with our officials. We had a good meeting. We discussed several

environment issues, as well as the problem with Robin Hood Bay in particular. As

the Premier has said, the Minister is currently studying the problem. We have

identified there are several sites on the Avalon used now by the municipalities.

Unfortunately those sites have been deemed unusable and consequently Robin Hood

Bay has been overused and it has created the problem.

So we are looking at it. The Minister of Environment I am

sure shortly will be reporting to the House. I think in the meantime the

deadline that the City Council has imposed upon us will be reconsidered by the

St. John's Municipal Council, if we cannot come up with a solution in the short

term. But I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that within the next week or so the

Minister of the Environment will be reporting on the matter to the House.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, from what we can read in the

media the St. John's City Council is not going to renege on that deadline. And,

Mr. Speaker, because the deadline is the last of June, and because of the

seriousness of the situation, when does the Minister expect to have a new site?

Or will he force the City Council to continue to allow the use of Robin Hood Bay

until that site is rendered unusable for landfill generally creating yet another

problem for the citizens of the Northeast Avalon?

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

Provincial

Affairs.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, it is premature to be talking

about forcing councils at this stage to do anything. I mean St. John's City

Council is very concerned about Robin Hood Bay, not just with the matter of

septic waste disposal, but also with the fact that dump has a very short life. I

understand it is about five to ten years maximum, ten would be stretching it.

And we do have the problem of identifying another dump site in the Northeast

Avalon. That problem has been with us for some time. I know the Minister is

looking at it. We are consulting with the municipalities in trying to solve the

problem. It is premature to say whether or not we will be seeking an extension

to the deadline for Robin Hood Bay for septic waste or not at this point. I can

only say and repeat what I said, the Minister is examining the problem and I am

sure that within the next few weeks we will arrive at a solution.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an answer to

a question that appeared on the Order Paper of April 4 concerning my travel for

the previous year.

Petitions

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 279

citizens of this Province which petitioners say as follows: as a voter, taxpayer

and supporter of a right to a quality health care system I strongly oppose the

suggested cutbacks to the health care budget which will force health care

facilities to reduce services to the citizens of the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. I join with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour in

calling on the Provincial Government to consider quality health care as a right

of all citizens, and as such to be exempt from fiscal restraints that will see a

reduction in services.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by these residents, many

from Gander, Glovertown, Appleton, Mount Pearl, Catalina, Harbour Grace, various

places in the province, including Upper Island Cove, Southern Shore, Bell Island

and Colliers.

Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Placentia? Any names from Placentia?

MR. HARRIS: I think there may well be some names from

Placentia. I think there are some names from Placentia. We have heard a lot of

complaints from Placentia. There is a number of signatures here from Colinet and

Salmonier area which is served by the Placentia Hospital.

Mr. Speaker, many Newfoundlanders, and indeed in fact other

Canadians, are concerned about what is happening to health care in this country

and in this Province in particular. And they are concerned that this Government

does not have the care that it ought to have about health care in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if - I can not hear

myself, I do not know if the hon. Members want to listen, but the Member for

Placentia is making so much noise that I cannot hear myself.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is rather concerned about the

noise level that has been here since Question Period, actually. And the Chair

has not been probably getting up as much as I should, because I want to leave it

to hon. Members to establish the kind of noise level that they want in the

House. And I do not know if they find it as difficult to speak as I do to hear.

And I am saying that in all sincerity because I do not know with the new House

whether hon. Members do find it difficult to speak, but I know that I

increasingly find it difficult to hear as hon. Members get talking. I shall ask

hon. Members to take that into consideration. And the onus is on an hon. Member

when he is speaking, if he finds it difficult to speak, to certainly ask the

Chair to intercede.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling.

I know that some of the Members opposite may not want to

listen but I would like for at least the people in the gallery to be able to

hear statements that are being made in this House. When petitioners are

petitioning the Government and showing their concern for health care in this

Province at least people sitting in the House watching the process of the House

ought to be able to hear what is going on. Now, Mr. Speaker, I raise this

petition because the petitioners are very concerned about this Government's

attitude towards health care. I know the Premier is listening now and he has

expressed some concern about what is happening with the federal support of

health care, but in his response to the Evening Telegram on March 5, 1991 in

talking about the health care system it seems like he might have given up on it.

He says in commenting on the health care system, the federal approach may well

spell the end of Medicare in its present form. I have no doubt that some kind of

programme will be continued but doubt very much if it will be exactly as we have

it today because it simply cannot be paid for. Here is a direct quote from Mr.

Wells. 'It may well be that we will have to abandon the program altogether.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is what the Premier has said about the Medicare system,

and the health care system of this Province, and I do not know if there can be a

more depressing statement coming from a Premier of this Province who has the

responsibility to show leadership in this issue, and ought to be at the

forefront of a challenge to the federal approach to health care generally, and

who ought to be looking to other provinces, looking to other leaders across this

country to bring about some renewed fight for the Medicare and health care

system, and not, Mr. Speaker, say as the Premier of this Province that we have

to throw up our hands and perhaps even abandon the whole program. It is not a

response that Newfoundlanders expect from their Government when we have had in

place in this country a health care system that has been well respected around

the world. The Federal Government in Ottawa, through Mr. Mulroney and his

policies, with the consent of many provinces have started to deteriorate this

health care system and are forcing provinces like Newfoundland to try and find

the money to support it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I had another petition but I

think the hon. Member was going to speak in support of the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has no idea.

MR. HODDER: I will yield to the hon. Member.

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

West, standing to support the petition.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the

petition presented by my colleague, which, as he stated, was circulated and

supported by people throughout the Province of Newfoundland. It states, and I

repeat, `As a voter, taxpayer, and supporter of the right to a quality health

care system I strongly oppose the suggested cutbacks to the health care budget

which forces health care facilities to reduce services to the citizens of the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are calling on the Provincial

Government to consider quality health care.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about quality health

care in this Province for some time and I think there is even more evidence of

the total disregard that this Government has displayed for the sick, suffering,

and the poor of this Province. When one looks at the departmental detailed

salaries and the increases that have been granted to the senior management

people, and indeed the political staff of the Premier's office, it makes one

wonder how serious this Government is about fiscal responsibility. Are they

really serious, Mr. Speaker, or are they just sort of attempting to gang up on

the sick and the suffering of this Province? Because, one look at the salary

details in this department, Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder why the people from

Placentia, for example, have been forced to take days off work to come in here

and demonstrate to this Government the need to have an improved health care

system in this Province. Why the Member for Placentia, Mr. Speaker, was forced

to stand, as was the Member for LaPoile and other places and basically condemn

the Government for the action that they have taken towards really paying no

attention, indeed destroying the health care facilities that we had in Placentia

and in Port aux Basques, and my colleague, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker had

to stand in this House and present petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it took

forty-five days for this Government to table the report and it would never have

been tabled had it not been for the Opposition House Leader who suggested that

the Committees would never be struck. It would still be covered up, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: - except that the Government House Leader knew

that the Committees would not get off the ground because it was a debatable

motion, unless they provided us with this information.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right.

MR. BAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. Government House

Leader.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the petition presented by the

Member for St. John's East is a very important petition, and deserves to be

dealt with in a proper manner. Mr. Speaker, the proper manner is that the

speakers confine themselves to the signatories and to the statement and the

prayer of the petition, and it is a very important statement I would suggest.

And if the Member for Burin -Placentia West cannot find enough important to say

about the health care system that he has got to go off into tangents, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that he sit down and let somebody else respond.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all there

is no point of order, and I am sure Your Honour knows it, as does the Government

House Leader. Secondly, my colleague is saying that if the Government had done

this, then they would have been able to carry on with improving the health care

system of this Province. So the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, should

take a second Nicroette and stop interrupting the speakers on this side of the

House.

MR. SIMMS: A double dosage.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. Members by

now ought to know the rules for presenting petitions, and I ask hon. Members to

abide by these rules.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Now we talk

example, almost the same as the salary for Edsel Bonnell to provide, Mr.

Speaker, emergency care for Placentia for a certain period at this time.

$100,000 that they did not have in the Budget, but when people came in and

forced this Government they came up with $100,000 for emergency care, not for

twenty-four hours, Mr. Speaker, so what is going to happen if an emergency

occurs outside of that? They will have to scrape, Mr. Speaker. People will have

to come in here to get the same amount of money for emergency care as the

Premier had for his Chief of Staff.

MR. SIMMS: The crowd from Grand Bank came in, in

twenty-four hours they had (inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, the crowd from Grand Bank came in and the

Premier said I would if I could, but I cannot. When they asked him for money.

Within twenty-four hours they had money. So what kind of a message is being sent

to the people of this Province. Is the Government really being fiscally

responsible in their cutting of health care beds, of their laying off of nurses,

and nursing assistants and other support staff in this Province? Are they really

being serious, Mr. Speaker. I do not think they are because a hospital bed in

Placentia or in Port aux Basques or anywhere else is just as important as a

hospital bed in any other part of his Province.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the sincere

concerns raised by the Member for St. John's East. The political blatherings of

the Member for Burin - Placentia West I will deal with another time, when I

demonstrate that the actual cost of running the Premier's Office has decreased

year after year, after year for the last three years in a row.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Indeed you will. So I will deal with those

political blatherings later, Mr. Speaker. Let me deal with the question raised

by the Member for St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: Now, Mr. Speaker, the health care system

that I was speaking about to The Evening Telegram, as the hon. Member quite

correctly quoted was the health care system in its present form. That is what I

said I would expect will not survive if the Federal Government maintains its

position. The health care system in its present form. I repeat my opinion, that

the health care system in its present form will not survive if the Federal

Government continues its progress towards elimination of their contribution of

their share which will occur about 2003 as far as Newfoundland is concerned. If

that happens I express my opinion again that the health care system in its

present form will not survive. Now all I am saying to the people of this

Province is I am being honest with the people. I am not prepared to stand in

this House for the sake of trying to court political favour with the voters and

say I promise you that I will fight Ottawa and I will rant and rave as the

former Government did and say that you cannot do this and I will go up to Ottawa

with a sword and a white charger and put on all kinds of political shows. I am

just being honest with people. And let me remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that

while I have no particular support for the present Government in Ottawa I have

an understanding for the financial position that they find themselves in and

this House not overlook the fact that a major portion of our Budget is

contributed by way of transfers directly from the Federal Government. They are

now in a position where they have a persistent deficit of about $30 billion plus

a year and they are piling up uncontrollable debt. The debt has doubled since

1984 when the present Government in Ottawa took over, and we now have to spend

35 per cent of the total federal revenue simply to pay the interest on the debt.

Now, Mr. Speaker, quite apart from our concern as individual

Canadian citizens about that terrible state of national finances, if the Member

for St. John's East wants the answer and has asked for an answer, he should, at

least, give me the courtesy of listening. If the Government is to deal with this

terrible financial state, Mr. Speaker, and we are concerned as Canadians, they

have to come to grips with this problem. But let's just look at it from a purely

selfish Newfoundland interest point of view. Just think of it from only our

selfish point of view if the Federal Government gets into financial trouble and

cannot make transfers to this Province, where are we going to be then. If you

want to see cuts in health care and education, just look at what will happen if

that occurs. So from a purely selfish point of view, Mr. Speaker, the Members of

this House should recognize the national financial situation and bear in mind

that steps have to be taken to deal with it in a responsible way. Mr. Speaker,

that means that we have to take a look at our services that we provide the

public and ensure that we provide good quality health care and education care,

and we ensure that we provide it to the people who genuinely need it, and

provide it in the most efficient and effective way possible, and try to put in

as many improvements or increase the efficiency as much as we can and deal with

it within our financial ability to do so.

Mr. Speaker, when I made those statements, and I repeat and

re-affirm them now, I made them being honest to the people of this Province in

saying this is the financial problem that the nation is in. They are cutting

back on these payments, and I say to you honestly voters of this Province, if

that continues we will not be able to maintain the health care system in its

present state. We want to maintain a first quality health care system for this

Province, but we will not lie to and deceive the people of this Province with

political platitudes to try and attract their votes without honestly facing up

to the realities of the whole nation as well as the Province. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we just heard a speech from Michael

Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is on behalf of eighteen residents

of the community of Piccadilly.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia on a point

of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I have recognized the hon. Member on a

point of order.

MR. HOGAN: I just wanted to rise on the last petition

that was presented in the House. I got up at the same time the hon. Member did,

Mr. Speaker, and Your Honour chose to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HOGAN: A point of order on the petition, Mr. Speaker.

The last petition that was presented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The reason why I did not recognize the hon. Member was number

one, the hon. Member said nothing to indicate whether he was getting up to speak

on a point of order. I knew he could not speak to the petition because the

petition was spoken to by two Members on this side, and the Premier was

responding, so that is why I did not recognize the hon. Member.

Now I am not certain whether it is appropriate for the hon.

Member to stand up once a petition has started and to speak to another petition.

If the hon. Member could agree that he would not take the time from the Member

for Port au Port, then I am prepared to take the point of order. It would be

entirely up to the Member for Port au Port to allow that to happen.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member wishes to

make a point of order and it does not take away from my time, he can go ahead.

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

MR. HOGAN: I apologise to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but I

did say 'point of order' and probably could not be heard over the din. The

petition that was raised by the hon. Member for St. John's East: in his address

and

preamble he referred to the Placentia district and that indeed the petition

bore signatures from Colinet and Salmonier. Having examined the petition, there

are no signatures from Colinet or Salmonier that I can find, and in fact, I

believe the hon. Member misled the House and the people who are listening to

him.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there is obviously no point of

order here. The Member is trying to take the House on his back. The fact of the

matter is that as Your Honour told the hon. Gentleman, a person in this House

presents a petition and the rules allow one other speaker from either side; now

the hon. Gentleman could have gotten up, or told his leader to sit down and he

could have gotten up and spoken on the petition if he wanted.

That has all to do with the point of order, all to do with

the point of order, because the hon. Gentleman does not like something that

another Member said in this House, does not make a point of order; it might be a

point of disagreement, it might be a difference of opinion between Members, but

it is not a point of order, so, sit down and stop wasting the time of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not

know whether the Opposition Leader is having a fit of apoplexy or something,

there is something wrong with him this morning. The Member simply pointed out,

Mr. Speaker, that there are two things you speak to when you respond to a

petition.

You speak to the number of names and so on -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) petition on a public order?

MR. BAKER: - are you going to listen or are you not?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: There are two things you can respond to in a

petition or you can talk about in a petition. One is -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

I ask hon. Members, please to refrain from the kinds of

activities that they are into now, it is only lowering the decorum of the House

and this House has to be a place of dignity, a place of respect for each other.

The kinds of things that have been going on the last couple of days are not

enhancing the dignity of this House. If hon. Members want that to happen, of

course they will let it happen, the Chair can only ask that hon. Members

co-operate.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you. The

Opposition Leader, just made a vicious personal attack on a Member of the House

and it was not proper.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things in speaking to a petition

that you can do; you can talk about the names and number of names on the

petition and so on, that is one and the other is the prayer of the petition.

Now, I am absolutely certain that if the Member for St.

John's East mentioned that there were names from a community and in fact there

are no names from the community, he would have a look and see and simply say,

well, I am sorry, I made a mistake and I said the wrong community.

If, in fact there are names from that community, then I am

sure he was perfectly within his rights, but, the Member is perfectly within his

rights, Mr. Speaker, to get up, on a point of order and point out to Your

Honour, that he believes that some of the individuals or the names the Member

claims to be on the petition, were in fact not there, and this is a sensible

point of order and I do not understand the ranting and raving from Members of

the official Opposition about this. I think it is a very simple thing to be

straightened out.

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

final submission.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To that point of order, it is quite amazing that the Member

for Placentia, who did not seem to be interested in listening to the speech that

I made in the House, and did not want to listen to the petition, who wanted to

yell and bawl across the House at another Member, now reads the petition and

cannot find someone from Salmonier. I do not believe, but I will have to check

Hansard to see if I said there was a signature from Salmonier. I believe I said

there was a signature -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: When he stands on his feet he says nothing

but when he sits down he bawls away.

I believe I said, in response to a question from one of the

Members on this side of the House, was there anyone from the Placentia area? I

looked at the petition and I said, I see a name from Colinet in the area of

Salmonier. I believe I said the area of Salmonier which uses the hospital. Now,

if I did say that there was someone from the community of Salmonier, if I did

say that, then it was not because I saw Salmonier written on the petition, but

there may well be because I have not read all the signatures. The hon. Member

seems to have. He did not listen to what I was saying but he may have read all

the signatures, and if he is correct, and if there is no name from Salmonier,

and if I said that, well, I take it back but I do not think I said that. Mr.

Speaker, I think I said in the area of Salmonier which is served by the

Placentia hospital which this Government has taken the guts out of.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member has satisfied the Chair.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg leave to present this petition from a portion of the

community of Piccadilly, signed by eighteen residents of the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I will not take this time from the Member. There is some

indication that maybe I did rule on the point of order. I said I think that the

Member for St. John's East in speaking to it cleared it up, if indeed there was

a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am having a little trouble

trying to get this petition presented.

The eighteen residents of the town of Piccadilly have

petitioned, I guess, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, and the

prayer of the petition is: we the people of Piccadilly whose names appear on

this petition are very concerned about the Department of Highways and what they

can do for us in dealing with a problem that has been with us for some time.

This is a flooding problem which has been causing havoc with our lives.

Basements are flooding so bad that we cannot use our furnaces because they fill

up with water, bathrooms cannot be used until the water goes down because it is

backing up into the sewerage system, and high rubber boots have to be used to

get to the main highway. Three years ago the Department of Highways were

approached to assist in this matter but nothing has been done to date. We are

fed up with the situation because homes cannot be completed until the problem is

solved. The Department of Highways can help by ditching the drain that runs

parallel to houses deeper and putting a culvert across the main highway to allow

excess water to run off from the mountain on the back of our homes. We would

appreciate it if you would give this matter your immediate attention and honour

us with a reply.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a

section of the community of

Piccadilly. The community of Piccadilly runs some two and a half miles but this

is a

section of houses with which the Minister's Department is -

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

Transportation on a point of order.

MR. GILBERT: May I see a copy of the petition? I did not

hear the prayer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member is inquiring as to whether or not it meets the

requirement of a petition. As I said in the past hon. Members have to take that

responsibility. They know the requirements for a petition and when the hon.

Member is standing in the House, if it does not meet the requirement, should

point that out from the beginning and ask leave of the House to present it.

The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the petition came to me, and the

Minister will see. It says, we the people of Piccadilly whose names appear on

this petition, etc., etc., etc., so, Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is in

order or not. All I know is what I read and therefore all Members will see the

eighteen signatures and the nineteenth is my own, the Minister wants to pick

holes in a petition from people who honestly have problems and are using this

route to make their wants known. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying this is a

section of Piccadilly which is well known to the local Members of the Minister's

Department, the local office. These people have sent a similar petition to the

Minister's office, the local office which is headquartered in Stephenville, and

it is a problem which has been plaguing them for some time. Now, Mr. Speaker, if

a group of people wish to petition me or petition this House of Assembly, I

think that they have a right to do so. These are eighteen people who have been

troubled for some time because I think, very succinctly, their problem has been

outlined in the petition. And I would ask the Minister to merely inquire into

this matter and to use his influence if he can, if he wishes - I hope he does -

to ensure that the problem which seems to be caused as the residents have

alleged by the lack of a culvert and the lack of a ditch.

Now it is not a big thing but it is a big thing in the lives

of these eighteen people. I am surprised that the Minister would even be worried

about the form of the petition. Because as far as I know this petition seems to

be pretty straightforward to me. It does not have a heading or anything, it just

has the petition and the names.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HODDER: It was sent to me. But that is not the point.

The point is, what I would ask the Minister to do is to see that officials of

his Department check into this, have his engineers look into it. He can have the

petition as soon as I table it. And hopefully, Mr. Speaker, with the Minister's

good will towards these people, good offices, that these people will get the

type of service that they are asking for.

So merely I say again, have your engineers look at it. See if

there is anything that you can do to make sure that the ditching is proper there

and the culvert is placed in the place where it should be.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the petition

presented by my colleague for Port au Port. And what (Inaudible) said, the

prayer of that petition... I can understand why the Minister of Transportation

wanted the prayer of that petition read in this - or wanted to see it. Because

what is says is that he has forced the people in that area into the long rubber

boots. That is what is happening. In order to get to their car now they have to

put on a pair of long rubbers. That is what is going on in this Province today.

That is what this Government is doing.

But Edsel Bonnell with his $95,000 does not have to get in to

long rubber boots to get in to his car, nor does Judie Foote with her $77,000

need long rubbers to get into her car. But why are they forcing the people in

the Port au Port district to have to put on long rubber boots to get in to their

cars? That is the question that has to be asked and that is the question that

has to be answered. How can this Government justify paying a political hack in

the Premier's office $95,000 plus a year, and at the same time deny the people

the right to a culvert? It would turn your stomach what is going on in this

Province today.

Men and women up in Port au Port having to put on long

rubbers to get out of their house. Their furnaces were flooded, their sewer was

backing up. For the sake of a culvert. Send Edsel Bonnell with his $95,000 and

let him buy one. We will get Judy Foote with her $77,000 plus to write up a

press release that you are going over to do it. And then we may see some results

in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I tell you, I am finding out what

the cover-up that the President of the Treasury Board held, the cover-up of the

President of Treasury Board, for forty-five days would not release this

document. There is a half a million dollars worth of assistants who sit in this

gallery every day. And the poor old Minister of Health cannot get to keep the

beds open. There is a half a million dollars worth of executive assistants every

day sitting in the galleries, gawking down upon the House, looking at their

Ministers. And the Minister of Health cannot keep beds open in Old Perlican or

Port aux Basques, and other places in this Province.

And the chief of staff in the Premier's office, in the time

of restraint, getting boosted up to $95,226, Mr. Speaker, and then that

Government says fairness and balance. Indeed it is fairness and balance, Mr.

Speaker, you roll with the richest and you roll with the poor, but there is no

in between, when they would deny a culvert to a person and increase the salary

of political staff by that much money. Now it is all becoming clear, Mr.

Speaker, I am surprised the House is not closed before that was brought in, and

it would have been except for the Opposition House Leader who told your Minister

and you do not understand that there is no way the Committees would be struck

until he brought this in. Every other Budget in this province, this was tabled

the day that the Budget was tabled. And today, Mr. Speaker, we are seeing

forty-five days after the Budget why, because you did not want to have Edsel

Bonnell's salary made public. No, Mr. Speaker, everyone in this Province will

hear the salary of the political staff in the Premier's Office. They are

freezing the wages of people making $15,000, they are increasing the rent, but

you did not mind increasing the wages of the rich and the political staff. How

much money are the press secretaries receiving? How much money are the PR people

receiving? And how many culverts can be bought, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: And how many PR people are there?

MR. TOBIN: And how many PR people? That is the question.

The Premier was going to abolish the PR people. Yes, Mr. Speaker, he was going

to abolish the PR people like he was going to give us a vote on Meech Lake. That

is what he was going to do. And they are going around this Province, Mr.

Speaker, with posters saying 'Clyde lied'. No wonder, Mr. Speaker. He never told

the people of the Province that his Chief of Staff would be making almost

$100,000 and hospital beds would be closed.

MR. SIMMS: And Winse hides.

MR. TOBIN: He never told them that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: And Winse hides. And the Government House

Leader hides.

MR. TOBIN: Well I do not know anything about the

Government House Leader hiding, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. TOBIN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GILBERT: There is no leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rose on a point of

order, because when I heard the gentleman read the petition it sounded like a

letter he was reading. It would seem to me a point that could very easily have

been handled by a call to my office. He admitted himself that it was a rather

minor matter. And it was one that could have been handled that way. So I just

raised on that point of order. I can assure him that the people of his District

are entitled to raise their concerns if they have a flooding problem. But the

thing that surprised me now, I know they mentioned in there that they have had

it for three years, so they must of had it one year while the previous

Government were in power. So I wonder why they did not fix it? You know, maybe

it was seventeen years, but I mean it is one of the things that was outside of

the sphere this time. So I have never heard of it. It has not been a burning or

a salient issue in the Department of Works, Services, and Transportation. But I

am sure to the people who have the flooding problem, it is a concern, and I

assure those good people that I will ask my officials to have a look at it, and

if there is a problem we will certainly be sure to fix it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 4, it is moved and seconded that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain

resolutions relating to the imposition of a tax on gasoline, and that I do not

leave the Chair. All those in favour of the motion please say 'Aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, 'Nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I had the opportunity to speak on

Bill 15 and it was in response to a speech given by the Minister of Finance in

debate on Bill 15. People in the House are well aware of what Bill 15 is all

about, Bill 15 is

an Act To Amend The Gasoline Tax Act. This is a Bill proposed

by the Minister of Finance who has all the resources in the world at his

fingertips, yet continues to put forward bills, notions, or ideas, for Budgets

that are completely out to lunch. They are way off base, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday

I was a little irate when I spoke because of the things that have occurred, not

just yesterday, but that probably just came to a head yesterday. We hear

discussion occurring quite often in the House and we hear the acrimonious

remarks back and forth from one side to the other. I have heard the Premier

speak several times about the lack of decorum in the House. I have heard other

speakers speaking in the House, people who have run in several elections and

have been seated in this House for ten to fifteen years, and they talk about how

the decorum has deteriorated to a large degree. Mr. Chairman, my involvement in

Government, if you will, prior to the election in 1989 when I got elected was in

the level of municipal government. There, when a person has a problem, or a

community has a problem, it is presented to the council and the council in

itself attempts to solve the problem. One of the things I have often heard said

about what occurs at this level of Government is that there is very little

discussion that really occurs with regard to solving the problem. The discussion

becomes confrontationist, it becomes adversarial, and it becomes political. Now,

we are politicians but I think there are times when we have to forget being

politicians and look at doing things because it is the right thing to do. I know

that may amaze some people but I think the time has come when we should be doing

things like that, because if we continue behaving the way we have, and we have

seen some of it here this morning, and the way it occurred here yesterday, this

hypocrisy that continues to come up in the House, when somebody can propose this

Bill and in the Bill what it does is suggest that they are going to fix a tax

rate on gasoline, they are going to move from an ad valorem tax to a fixed rate

of tax on a litre of gasoline. That is one part of the Bill. Now, several of my

colleagues have spoken on that part of the Bill, but the other part of the Bill

that I have spoken about most frequently, and I have spoken several times on

this but I still cannot seem to sink into the people on the other side, and that

is the part where this Government recognizes, they do recognize that there is a

problem with the difference in provincial gas tax rates in border communities.

It was recognized by previous administrations and it is recognized by this

administration. Now, Mr. Chairman, what it does recognize is one border

situation, and that is in southern Labrador. They say that the problem is

partially solved down there so in this Bill,

Part 3, I believe it is, amends the

Act to change the rate of taxation in that border area but it does not, Mr.

Speaker, the folly of it all, this Bill being presented by the Minister of

Finance does not recognize another border area of the Province. It merely

recognized one area, the southern Labrador border area of the Province. It does

not recognize western Labrador. Some people have said: why did the previous

administration not do it? Well, it was done in 1978, the original bill. In 1978

of course, while we were still on the border of the Province of Quebec, the

people in Labrador City and Wabush could not drive to the Province of Quebec. So

that was not there then. But now it is occurring and we are seeing in the

Province between -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Oh no, that was while the Province of Quebec

was in the process of building Mount Right and during construction stages of

Fermont. But now -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: To Fermont? In that period of time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: There is no need to change anything

(Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, it could have been changed then too. I

am not saying that everything that this group over here did was absolutely

perfect.

AN HON. MEMBER: Totally perfect.

MR. A. SNOW: No it was not. They also made mistakes. But

the hypocrisy that I am talking about is that they can stand up and say: we

recognize that border in southern Labrador but we do not recognize the one in

western Labrador. We do not recognize that there is 7.5 cents difference in a

liter of gasoline in Fermont, and Labrador City and Wabush. Now the hon. Member

representing Eagle River suggested that down in Eagle River the problem has been

solved in the sense that the private sector has solved it. In other words, the

suppliers of the gasoline - there is only one supplier down in that district -

and they have suggested that the supplier - I guess he does not want to see two

consumers of his gasoline - so what he has done is said that look, he has

somehow made the rates different in the sale of gasoline so that they can

compensate for the taxes. The supplier has solved the problem. But in western

Labrador we have several suppliers of gasoline. And of course they do not have a

monopoly.

And I think it is only fair that the Government should

recognize that my amendment to this bill would allow this imperfection, this

taxation that is unfair, this would level the playing field between the sellers

of gasoline in Wabush and Labrador City with the people in Fermont. Now, I think

that they can live with it. It is not a big thing in the sense of it is going to

change the complete mode of the - or going to remove millions of dollars from

the coffers of this Province. But what it is going to do is make the economy in

western Labrador a little better. And it will probably even provide more revenue

to the Province in the long run.

Because of what it will do, it will convince Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians who live in Labrador City and Wabush to stay home, buy their

gasoline from the businesses there in that community, and of course rather than

going to Fermont. Because when they go to Fermont they can be also purchasing

other goods.

And I know the hon. Member for Eagle River attempts to make

light of this. And he thinks it is a big joke that the people in western

Labrador have to pay 7.5 cents more for a liter of gasoline in the Newfoundland

portion than they do in Quebec. He thinks that is funny. He thinks he can just

laugh it off. Well, the residents of western Labrador do not think it is funny.

The operators of these gasoline service stations, they do not think it is funny,

because they are losing revenue, and now the hon. Member for Eagle River is

suggesting that the operators of the businesses in western Labrador are ripping

off the people of western Labrador. That is not true. It is the Provincial

Government that is ripping them off.

Mr. Chairman, all I am asking is that this Government

recognize that there are two border situations in the Province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Okay, Mr. Chairman, a very few brief comments

to make on this if I may. That is, that listening to my colleague for Menihek

one can only sense the sincerity and commitment that he has to the people of

Labrador. And if there is a difference about being sincere and committed to the

people of Labrador and their issues, if there is ever a partisan -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: No, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about my

colleague for Menihek. I think he stood up and demonstrated a very sincere and

genuine concern for the people of Labrador. And I think that every Member on

both sides of this House should listen to what he has been saying. Because there

is only one Labrador. There are not different parts of Labrador per se, where

Government can do one thing and not do another thing. I have heard the Member

for Eagle River for example speak in this debate and speak in this House about

Labrador. But the only difference between the Member for Eagle River and the

Member for Menihek: the Member for Menihek is speaking because he is genuinely

concerned about the problems of the people, and the Member for Eagle River shows

nothing but some sort of a callous attitude towards the people of Labrador.

He has not the sincerity that has been demonstrated - and I

have never - I have been in this House now for ten years. And I have seen this

Member today, and over the past few days, demonstrate sincerity for the cause of

Labrador that the Member for Eagle River should be proud of and should stand and

support. He speaks up for Labrador. He does not betray the people of Labrador.

And I hope that when we vote on this later today, in a few minutes, or Monday or

Tuesday, that the Members opposite - particularly the Member for Eagle River -

will stand in his place and let the people of Labrador know that he is a true

Labradorian. That he is prepared to support resolutions and amendments to

resolutions that are in the best interest of Labrador. And not become a partisan

gofer for the Premier and the Cabinet Ministers.

Now that is what he has to demonstrate. And I am saying that

I hope that you will show the people of Labrador - and I think you will - that

you are as sincere about the concerns of Labradorians as the Member for Menihek.

That you will support the amendment. Because it is all Labrador the Member for

Menihek is concerned about. He is concerned about your district and other

districts in Labrador. So he should not expect anything less from you as a

Labradorian Member, to show the people of Labrador how important this amendment

actually is.

If they take courage - if his leader and those people are not

prepared to do it - but nobody in this Legislature should ever betray the people

who sent them here. Whether it is me in Burin - Placentia West. And I can tell

you that it is difficult, and I experienced it back in 1982 or 1983, whenever it

was, when the Government was going to close the Burin plant. I made my decision,

I stood in my place, and supported the people who sent me in the House. And I

would ask the Member for Eagle River to do no less on behalf of the people of

Labrador. And I ask all Members to do the same.

Because there is no one who can justify a tax increase, can

burden the people of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with tax

increases, when at the same time they take almost $100,000 for the chief of

staff in the Premier's office. Now how can the Member for Labrador not support

the amendment? When he knows there is $100,000 of hard working money, paid by

taxes of the people of his district, going to pay $100,000 for the chief of

staff in the Premier's office?

MR. DOYLE: That is shocking.

MR. TOBIN: I think that that is the worst case that I

have ever seen.

MR. DOYLE: Worst case of wastage. Because he is not worth

$40,000.

MR. TOBIN: Well, Mr. Bonnell, I do not know the man

personally, he may be worth a lot more. He may be worth a lot more, he could be

worth $900,000 from what I know, I do not know. But I do know one thing that

there is no chief of staff in Premier Wells' office, or anybody in the other

premiers' offices, who is worth $100,000 a year in this Province. This Province

cannot afford it. And whether it be a Liberal government or a Tory government or

an NDP government this Province cannot afford to pay $100,000 a year plus

expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, if the Member for LaPoile would

take down his hand instead of mumbling under his breath, and tell us how he can

justify hospital beds closing in Port aux Basques, and at the same time pay

$100,000 to the chief of staff in the Premier's office.

And I want to make it clear that I know nothing about Mr.

Bonnell. He could be the most competent person in this Province. He could

certainly be, I do not know. But this Province cannot afford - that is my

argument - at this time cannot afford a chief of staff at $100,000. That is a

lot of money.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, well, $95,226. Now I am being modest when

I say $100,000, and the Minister of Finance knows what I am saying.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Plus expenses.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, a lot of that too.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Does he get a car allowance?

MR. TOBIN: I do not know if he gets a car allowance or

not, Mr. Chairman, I do not know.. All I am saying is that there is no position,

no political appointment in this Province, worth $100,000 a year. There is

neither one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) four staff (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Not true, not so.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, that is not the truth. All I am

saying is - and I want the Member - because the Member is so used to being down

in the dirt he does not know the difference. I am not talking about

personalities in this thing. As I said before - he was not here - Mr. Bonnell

may be the most capable and competent person in this Province. He may be. And

probably he is worth a lot more money, probably he is worth $250,000.

But what I am saying is that in this time of economic

restraint, when hospital beds are closing, when nurses are being laid off, when

school teachers are not getting the salary increases, when civil servants are

not getting a salary increase, is that no position regardless of the political

stripe of the government that the Province can afford to pay $100,000. That is

what I am saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Can you imagine when the people of the

Province find out when they go to a hospital that they cannot get a hospital

bed, but are put in a bed in a corridor to wait for two or three days? Or they

go the washroom, and when they come back from the washroom, there is somebody

else in their bed? That has happened and it has happened in my district. But how

are they going to feel when they know the chief of staff in the Premier's office

got an $8,000 increase? That is what the chief of staff got over last year!

How is somebody in this Province today making $15,000 and

$16,000 who had their salaries frozen -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, it must be when they took the Chevy

Blazer on you then. Who has the salary frozen. How are they going to justify

this? There is a lot of things (Inaudible) save money. And we save money by

forcing the issue in the House. My colleague for Grand Bank, I believe it was,

asked about the Blazer that the Premier did not know anything about. But all I

am saying is that Premier Wells could have the most competent people around him

but I do not think that the chief - if we were in a good situation financially,

I have no argument. If the Province could afford it. If the sick and the

suffering and the poor were being looked after, I have no argument.

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: My time is up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Sounds more like an hour to me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, again I want to speak on Bill

15, a Bill that is not just terribly unfair to the residents of western

Labrador, some people who I have discussed this Bill with on the other side of

the House have said the people in western Labrador can afford to pay more money

because they are making lots of money. They are making big money in western

Labrador. They can afford to pay more money. They do not need a break. That is

what really bothers me, Mr. Chairman, because what that means is that they are

not really understanding what my amendment is proposing. What my amendment

proposes in this Bill, Mr. Chairman, is to allow the Minister to adjust the tax

in western Labrador the same as he adjusted the tax in southern Labrador. That

is all it does, to make it more equitable for the businesses to compete with

each other, to give them a level playing field. That is all I am saying. I am

saying merely follow the neighbouring community, be it provincial Quebec. That

is what they have done. They have in Quebec three rates.

Now the Minister of Finance attempted to suggest that there

was one tax, 10 cents he was talking about plus the rolled in GST because they

have a harmonized tax in the Province of Quebec. Now he attempted to suggest

that in some papers. I talked to him and he showed me some documents that were

done up by his department, and it was 10 cents plus the 8 per cent GST

provincial in the Province of Quebec would make this - there is no way it is

fair in the border situations. I suggested to him that it was not correct and to

check these figures again. He said, well go back and check yours, and I did.

Mine were correct.

Now I suppose I had an advantage in one sense because I live

next to the border so I have an understanding of them. I can understand what is

occurring because I live in it. But what really bothers me is that even the

following day after I told him to check he comes back with the same

misinformation. There is no thought given to this, Mr. Chairman, and it is like

a lot of the things that is occurring on that side of the House. While they are

saying that we have a plan for health care or a plan for education, we have a

plan for economic development, all we are seeing is reactionary moves. That is

all we are seeing. You do not have enough money for the education system, so we

will have to lay off some teachers. We do not have enough money to give an

adequate or a good quality health care system, what do we do? We shut down a

hospital. You do not have a plan. They are all just knee jerk reactionary moves.

That is all they are, and that really, really bothers me, and this is more

evidence to that point of fact because you recognized that there was going to be

a difference in one border community, but you would not recognized it in

another, and he did not even know about it until I brought it up to him. With

all the resources that he has at his finger tips, and he did not know that.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the other side of the House to

support this amendment because it is fair, because it recognizes what the

Province of Quebec is doing in attempting to get business from this Province and

from the Province of Ontario because they have, as I suggested, three tax rates

in the Province of Quebec because they recognize the extreme climatic conditions

in the north remote areas, they have one there because they had a consideration

for people - people, Mr. Chairman. They also had a consideration for the

business community competing against business communities in the Province of

Ontario and Newfoundland, and they fluctuated the tax in those areas,

whereas

the central Quebec has the prime rate of ten. The other two rates, Mr. Chairman,

are 5.5 cents, and 7.7 cents. The 5.5 is northern Quebec and the Gasp, and

Abitibi, and Rouyn-Noranda.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I suggested, it bothers me that some

people are missing the point that all I am attempting to do - Yes, one of the

people of western Labrador may be perceived as getting a benefit in the sense

that it is going to be a lower tax rate of 4 cents. I would suggest 4 to 5 cents

lower in the purchase of gasoline per litre. But, Mr. Speaker, the real thing

that bothers me is the lack of recognition of the larger problem. Now the

Minister of Finance suggested that this is all going to be fixed when he comes

in with his tax reform bill within six or eight months, I think he suggested, or

next year. If I read it correctly, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen is he is

talking about harmonizing the taxes. I would think that he maybe even suggested,

and I hope it is not true, that we could have a provincial sales tax going on

gasoline. We could be seeing another 10 to 12 per cent increase, not just in my

area, of course, but throughout the Province. That would make it even more

unfair.

But, Mr. Chairman, when I hear people on the other side of

the House suggesting to me that they did not realize that this was happening,

that it was a different rate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I do not know what we can do about it

now, and I do not know if we can support your amendment because if I support

your amendment it is a money bill, it is embarrassing to the Government, and all

that type of thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, it is cheap.

They are suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that it could be

embarrassing to them to support an amendment from this side of the House, not

that it is wrong, just that it is embarrassing. Now to me that is another thing

that bothers me about what happens in this House, Mr. Chairman, we do not

attempt to solve the problem, we just have to be political.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for

Exploits suggested that I kowtowed to Meech Lake. I did not kowtow to Meech Lake

or anything else.

MR. GRIMES: What did you do?

MR. A. SNOW: I had an understanding, Mr. Chairman, of

Meech Lake. Albeit I am not a constitutional lawyer. I had an appreciation

probably for the benefits that accrued in this great country, and albeit I lived

next to the border community, I have realized the benefits of having lived close

with the Franco community, closer to them, competed with them, and socialized

with them over the number of years, the twenty-six or twenty-seven years in

Labrador. And I recognize to the bitter alienated feelings of the separatists

that I spoke with in Quebec, and the bitterness that they had shown me over the

last five or six years of being part of this country and how they felt they are

being discriminated against. Now that is why I voted for Meech Lake. I felt it

was unfair that they should not be permitted to be part of this Canadian family,

constitutionally. That is the only reason why I supported it. I did not support

it because somebody told me I had to like the hon. Member for Exploits that was

his reasoning.

But, Mr. Chairman, to get back to this bill. Now when I

talked earlier about - I am disappointed in what occurs here quite often. Mr.

Chairman, I talked to a gentleman who had sat in the gallery, and he was an

older man, and he had witnessed one of the night sittings of the House, and it

was one of the evenings I suppose when some people probably on both sides of the

House had an extended lunch or dinner or whatever you want to call it, supper I

suppose in Newfoundland terms, and we came back and some of the people were a

little more excitable,-

AN HON. MEMBER: For no reason whatsoever.

MR. A. SNOW: - and the debate got rather hot and heavy.

And, of course, some things were said that probably should not have been said in

this forum, it probably does not sound too bad in a tavern or at 4:00 o'clock in

the morning -

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

up.

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

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

The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I have to

rise in this House to correct some of the misstatements that the hon. Member for

Menihek is making and to assure the people of Labrador West that this Government

by no means discriminates against the people of Labrador West or anybody on this

side feels that just because they happen to have a higher per capita income that

they should be paying more for everything. That is not the feeling on this side

of the House, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that the Member would go to such

lengths to try to make a point.

And I just want to relate to the House record again, Mr.

Chairman, as of April 18, the price of gas in Labrador City - Wabush, the price

of gas in Forteau, the price of gas on the Island of Newfoundland, and this is

what the people of Labrador City - Wabush can get their regular unleaded

gasoline for, 65.0 cents a litre. That is what they get their gas for in

Labrador City, Wabush. In Forteau the best we can get is 68.5 cents a litre, and

the best we can get in some places on the Island is 68.5 cents a litre. Mr.

Speaker, exactly what is the Member trying to say and where exactly is the

Member coming from? What he is saying is that the prices that are being charged

in Labrador West are completely unreasonable. That is the impression he is

trying to give everybody, that they are completely unreasonable. That they are

up there paying premium prices, more than anybody else in this Province for

gasoline, and it is because they make more money. He is saying that is the way

it should be. He is trying to show this Government the feeling they have towards

the people of Labrador West. It is just totally false and it must be corrected.

Mr. Chairman, the notice that I would like to give the Member is that in the

revelations he is trying to make to this House there is something like a six or

seven cent difference in the price of gasoline in Fermont and the price of

gasoline in Lab City - Wabush. That is what he is saying. That may very well be

true, Mr. Chairman, but it is not due to the tax system that is being imposed

upon the people by the Government of Newfoundland as opposed to the Government

of Quebec. Let us be honest and let us be fair. What is being charged is a

differential of 3.52 cents in taxation higher in Newfoundland than it is in

Quebec. We accept that is the fact, 3.52 cents a litre is what the Government of

Newfoundland is getting extra than the province of Quebec, and if you take a

fifty kilometre round trip to Fermont on fifty litres of gas I guess you would

be saving $1.50 by going up there and back. Mr. Chairman, you would be spending

more on the gas to go up and back than you would be actually saving. That is

entirely correct, that is factual, that is the record. If somebody in Quebec

wants to reduce their profit margin and say we are going to give it to you for

much less well that is an option they have when they adjust their profit

margins. But let us not be misleading, the difference between the taxation is

3.52 cents per litre, Mr. Chairman. That is the accurate figure and they should

not be allowed to be misrepresented in this House, and therefore the people of

Lab City get the feeling they are being unjustifiably treated. They are not, Mr.

Chairman. The prices they can get for the regular unleaded gasoline which we get

down on the Labrador Straits they are getting three and a half cents cheaper so

it is not a bad deal, it is not a cruel and unusual punishment, and it is

certainly not a prevailing philosophy over here, Mr. Chairman, that those who

make a bit more should pay all the higher charges. That is entirely incorrect,

Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to rise and state for the record the facts as they

are and to dispel any of the kind of innuendo he is casting on this side of the

House. They are obviously his own feelings and his own agenda. Let us not be so

sanctimonious, what he says about he cannot stand seeing politics played in this

House. The only politics that are being played on this particular issue is by

the Member for Menihek, and it is time that he squared up to that fact. It is

time you were honest with the people of Labrador West and the people of

Labrador, and not come in with a different agenda, and not come in here to try

again to drag a red herring through this political system, and try to resurrect

some kind of a straw man for the sake of your own political agenda. Let us be

square with the people and be honest with the people, Mr. Chairman.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I am being fair and honest

with the people of Menihek and the people in this House. The difference between

the price of gasoline in Labrador City - Wabush and Fermont is seven and a half

cents. Now the hon. Minister of Finance, the same fellow who is over there

shaking his head today, the same fellow who, when he brought down his Budget, I

believe it was last year or the year before suggested that loss of revenues - he

opposed the northern tax benefits in Labrador, last year, now is shaking his

head, today, about that is not true, who, yesterday uttered: why should the

people of western Labrador, not pay the same rate as his people in St. John's

Centre, I think.

Now, he said that yesterday, now he is shaking his head. Are

you saying that they should? Now, Mr. Chairman, what I am saying, again the hon.

Member for Eagle River cannot completely fathom what my amendment is suggesting.

I am suggesting that the Minister of Finance, be given the

authorization to amend the taxpayers in western Labrador and southern Labrador,

so that they could make a level playing field between both. That is all I am

saying, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. Member for Eagle River suggests that the differences

are not as great, but, Mr. Chairman, the facts are, that the seven and a half

cents in Labrador City for unleaded, is 66.5 cents per litre and in Fermont it

is 61.8 per litre; Superin Quebec is 65.2 and in Labrador City, 72.5. Those are

the figures, Mr. Chairman.

Now, I am not suggesting that it is totally because of the

taxes; I have never suggested it is totally because of the taxes, but what I am

saying is that we can influence, make that playing field more level by lowering

our taxes, that is what I am suggesting; I am suggesting, I am not bringing in

the arguments about provincial prices as the Minister of Finance suggested. He

is suggesting that the people in western Labrador has to pay the same for a

litre of gasoline as the person in St. John's Centre; I do not even want to talk

about St. John's Centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now the truth is coming; you want a

uniformed price for everything -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: You see, he says that, now, why should they

not, well why should they not in Red Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: Because they have a competition problem

and you have not.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I do not know where the

Minister learns his Geography, he does not understand the geography of western

Labrador. Do you know how far it is from - Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Chairman, I usually buy mine in - In

the last couple of months, I buy most of my gas -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, does

article 3, clause 3, I

would like to ask the Minister of Finance, does he realize what Clause 3 does?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance does not even know what

is in his bill. He suggests that a person in western Labrador is not going to

drive 40 kilometres, I believe he mentioned, but yet, the Clause where he

exempted southern Labrador, excludes an area that is 100 kilometres away; now,

how do you justify that? The only difference is that one is Liberal and the

other is Tory, that is the only difference -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is your mentality.

MR. A. SNOW: That is fact, Mr. Chairman, that is a fact.

Why is it then, you will exempt southern Labrador and not western Labrador, can

the Minister tell me that? He suggests that western Labrador should pay the same

as St. John's Centre, yet southern Labrador is exempt, and because he says they

are going to settle it by one and a half cents and that is the difference down

there.

Well it is seven and a half cents in western Labrador and a

shorter distance, it is seven and a half cents. Mr. Chairman, I do not know

where the Minster is getting his information -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you live in Labrador

(inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: - and Super gasoline at seven and a half

cents difference. Now, Mr. Chairman, he suggests that it is okay to level it

down in southern Labrador but in western Labrador we have to pay the same as St.

John's Centre, now, can you imagine, that is fairness and balance. Why is it

fairness and balance, how far is Red Bay from L'Anse-au-Clair, do you know?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: No. My amendment puts Red Bay in and my

amendment also puts Wabush in and Labrador City in, but you want to leave

Labrador City out and Wabush out and that is unfair.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is fair.

MR. A. SNOW: It is not fair.

AN HON. MEMBER: The same as everybody else in the

Province.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, why is Red Bay different? Why is Red

Bay different?

DR. KITCHEN: Propose we cut it out.

MR. A. SNOW: No, I propose something different. I said

the reason why it is in there is right, and it is fair, and the reason should be

now you should treat Labrador City and Wabush the same as you would treat them,

treat them equal because they are equal in geography. And that is what you are

trying to do. You are trying to make that level playing field, and that is all I

want to see done here, Mr. Chairman. But no the arrogant bungling Minister of

Finance -

MR. EFFORD: Ah, boy that is awful language.

MR. A. SNOW: - says no, we have to be treated like St.

John's Centre. I do not know why we have to be treated like St. John's Centre

when it comes to the collecting of revenues, but in the delivery of services we

do not get treated like St. John's Centre, I can guarantee you that. St. John's

Centre did not get their hospital slashed the way we did. St. John's Centre did

not lose the right to a Motor Vehicle Registration Office like we did. St.

John's Centre did not lose a Labrador Air Passenger Subsidy Program like we did.

DR. KITCHEN: What is the difference in the unemployment

rate?

MR. A. SNOW: The difference in the unemployment rate

between where?

DR. KITCHEN: St. John's Centre and Labrador West.

MR. A. SNOW: I do not know, but I would think that -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a difference.

MR. A. SNOW: So now the reasoning is becoming true. It

has absolutely nothing to do -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Chairman, I feel fortunate and so does

99.9 per cent of who are living in Labrador City feel fortunate and proud that

they have lived and worked in Labrador City and they have earned a lot of wealth

and turned in a lot of wealth to this Province. But what really galls them, Mr.

Chairman, is when they have this arrogant Minister, this arrogant bungling

Minister who suggests that because they have full employment they have to be

paying more taxes than elsewhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well why do you not treat them the same as

the other Labradorians who are in a border community?

DR. KITCHEN: I treat them like the rest of the Province.

MR. A. SNOW: But why are they left out and not being

treated like the people in Red Bay? You argue that it is too far to drive in

Western Labrador which is forty clicks, and yet in southern Labrador, you

include an area that is one hundred clicks. It does not make sense. Again your

mathematics is completely unfounded. It does not hold water. Your argument is

false.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the people on the other

side are not going over and picking him up by the scruff of the neck and shaking

him, getting some sense into him like they used to do with the kids in the back

of the room.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, probably like that. That is probably

what they should be doing to him.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy

understands the problem. He should explain it to them. One doctor to another

doctor. He would understand it maybe then. That is what we need to do. They have

to consult with each other. The Minister of Mines and Energy understands that

this is an important issue in western Labrador, and he understands what I am

trying to do. But I think deep down he probably agrees with it. But he cannot

get it through to the Minister of Finance. I hope they would get together in a

little huddle out behind, and they could then maybe work it out.

Mr. Chairman, it really, really disappoints me when we see

the arrogance of the Minister of Finance coming through in not supporting this

amendment. Because all this amendment, and I say again, all this amendment does

is permit the Minister of Finance to treat the people of western Labrador in a

similar fashion as he treats them in southern Labrador, the both border areas of

this Province. It is fair. This Government often says all you people ever do is

criticize. You never offer solutions. Well I have offered you a solution -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. Member's time has

elapsed.

MR. A. SNOW: (Inaudible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. After my

two colleagues from Menihek and Eagle River spoke for a while on this particular

Bill, I thought that I would have a few words to say also. I was listening to

the Minister of Finance saying he believes in balance. Maybe the Minister of

Finance can also explain why, as my colleague from Eagle River said, the gas in

Forteau is 68 cents a litre, the gas in Nain is 87 cents a litre, so is that

fairness and balance, I say to the hon. Minister?

I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, just now to hear my colleague

from Eagle River getting up and saying do not be too political, you know, stand

up for your district and all these kinds of things. I was hoping that the Member

would have read a particular letter that was sent to him a while ago. It really

shows that he does not speak out for his district very well. During the last

number of days, Mr. Chairman, we have been debating this particular gasoline

Bill, and I would say to the Minister of Finance, if he wants to have fairness

and balance, why doesn't he with the Minister of Mines and Energy come in with a

uniform, a fuel price throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what you

would call then fairness and balance.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, I understood that he

visited the Straits area not too long ago. I understood the Minister of Finance

was down in that area, but surely goodness the Minister of Finance went from the

airstrip in Blanc Sablon to L'Anse-au-Clair. That is about as far as the

Minister travelled, and went all the way to Red Bay. The Minister realizes that

is over 50 miles, and here in Labrador City - Wabush we are only talking about

roughly 15 to 20 miles.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe that what the Minister is doing

here is playing politics. The Minister is playing politics and he realizes that

he is doing that too. All of a sudden, Mr. Chairman, and maybe it is a wise move

if he would carry it out throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, what he is doing

now is asking the rich to pay more because, like the Minister said, the

unemployment rate in Labrador West is very low and everybody is employed,

therefore you pay more.

Now, on the southern coast of Labrador where unemployment is

high, they are given a different rate, but in northern coast of Labrador where

the unemployment is even higher, they are paying more again, and at the same

time they are financially less fortunate than anywhere else in Labrador. So I

would say to the Minister, if he is going to do a uniform rate, surely goodness

the consumers in Nain should not have to pay 87 cents a litre as of today. Mr.

Chairman, I am surprised that my hon. colleague from Eagle River is afraid to

stand up and ask for a uniform price all throughout Labrador, not just in Red

Bay. What about the people in Mary's Harbour? What about the people who signed

99 signatures on a letter, and the people who told the Member that you are not

doing us any good?

Mr. Chairman, my colleague said this earlier this morning.

You know, sometimes we have to put our own personal politics out the window

altogether and do what we believe is right for our constituents. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, I believe Yvonne Rumbolt said it very well in her letter to my

colleague, and I want to read that for the record because she does say it very,

very well on what we should do about politicians. This letter was addressed,

naturally, to the Member for Eagle River, however I think it would be

interesting to read a paragraph of that particular letter because the Member let

his constituents down in Mary's Harbour. He let them down, and the lady asked

the Member a straightforward question: Is this going to be the practice of our

elected Member in the future? When he is asked to represent the needs and the

concerns of the people in his district, when such things as cuts, closures of

offices, people losing their jobs and the area losing valuable resources, will

he then turn around and say he cannot protest these issues in the House of

Assembly because of the fear the Government may cut some other services to the

people of Labrador.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what logic could the hon. gentleman have

in this Legislature by saying I am afraid to get up and kick the Government that

I am a part of because if I kick about the cut the Government may cut other

parts of Labrador. Mr. Chairman, that is what the hon. gentleman is believing.

He is believing that because I am a Liberal I cannot kick this Government. In

fact, Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is one Member opposite other than the

Member for Placentia, on one occasion, have gotten up and said anything against

this Government about the wrongdoings that they doing with the people in the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Chairman, not one Member has really

gotten up and really said that this Government is doing the right thing.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what else did this letter say? Or is that

Mr. Dumaresque that he fear - and there was rumpling in the paper the other day,

I think in the weekend paper - there may be a Cabinet shuffle coming up. There

is a Cabinet shuffle in the wind. And the Member for Eagle River has said to

some of his constituents I am afraid to say too much about this Government now

because I am in the running. And, Mr. Chairman, the Member is in the running for

a Cabinet post, and that is why he never spoke up about the Mun Extension on

coastal Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. WARREN: That is why, Mr. Chairman.

But I would say to my hon. colleague -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Well why did you not say it louder?

There is one thing that I will not do though, I will not turn

my back on my constituents like you did to the people of Mary's Harbour. You

turned your back on ninety-nine people in Mary's Harbour that signed the

petition and you would not present it in the Legislature. You were afraid to

present it in the Legislature. And I would think it is shameful that Member

would not get up and present a petition in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman. I

think it is ridiculous. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, the final paragraph of that

letter said, 'We look forward to meeting with you on one of your very few visits

to our community'. Mr. Chairman, that is what the people in Mary's Harbour said

to the Member, we look forward to seeing you on one of your very few visits.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Chairman, if you look at the record of

the hon. Member, and I say this I suppose every week there are write-ups in the

papers about the Member for Eagle River, and mostly about the fishery. And I

would say, Mr. Chairman, I am doubtful if the hon. Member knows if a codfish had

a puddick or not. I am very doubtful, Mr. Chairman, if he knows there is a

puddick in a codfish. You know, he is talking about the fish day in and day out,

but he does not know th