May 25,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 31

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

House of Assembly three groups of students. The first, a group of thirty-five

students from Bishop White All Grade School at Port Rexton accompanied by their

teachers, Ms. Arlene Templeman, Wade Gillard and Barry Pierce. The second, is a

group of nine Level I and Level II students from All Saints All Grade School in

Grey River in the District of Burgeo - Bay D'Espoir, accompanied by their

Principal, Mr. Robert Major and six other chaperons, and thirdly, a group of

students from Mount Pearl Senior High School, along with their teacher, Mr. Rex

Roberts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me sincere pleasure to inform hon.

members, that this past Victoria Day weekend was void of any major incidents on

our provincial highways.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the Royal Canadian

Mounted Police report no highway deaths. This is compared to a single death

during the same period in 1994. It is safe to say that stricter drinking and

driving laws and continuous education campaign on highway safety have been the

strong, contributing factors to a fatality-free long, holiday weekend.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, the instances of motorists being

charged for drinking and driving offences have also declined. The RNC and the

RCMP report twenty charges under the .08 law as compared to forty-seven charges

during the same period last year. In addition, twenty-seven motorists registered

the .05 blood alcohol level warning therefore receiving 24-hour licence

suspension.

I think that hon. members would find it interesting to note

that during one RNC roadside check in St. John's, approximately 1,600 vehicles

were stopped and zero alcohol related charges were laid.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, when I introduced the stricter

drinking and driving laws almost six months ago, I did it not to hinder the

alcohol beverage industry or to tell people that they couldn't drink. I did it

to save lives, reduce injuries and to lessen the pain and suffering associated

with alcohol-related mishaps. These declining numbers further reinforce my

message to the motoring public: `If you drink, don't drive. It saves lives'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation can take

no credit for the fact that there were no major accidents on the Province's

roads this Victoria Day weekend. The good weather was probably the major

contributor to the good accident record this past weekend.

This minister, and this government, have no basis for linking

their .05 law with the highway accident or fatality rate. They were unable to

produce any research data when they presented their legislation to show that

there is any undue safety risk associated with drivers having a blood alcohol

level of below .08.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions about the Newfoundland Dockyard, which I

intended to put to the Premier or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, but since neither of those politicians is present in the House this

afternoon, I will address my questions to the government generally. Perhaps the

acting Premier or some other minister will respond.

I would like to know why this Provincial Government have gone

along with the Federal Government scheme to close the Dockyard in St. John's, do

away with 700 jobs, and have ship repair and service business move out of

Newfoundland to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? I would like to know why this

government has been bending over backwards to foster new businesses employing

ten people or employing fifteen people?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having trouble hearing the hon. member's question.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Instead, why has government given up on a

viable older business with a big geographic advantage and a business that is

capable of employing 700 people?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology has gone home, a victim of the 'flu, and the Premier is at a

speaking engagement here in the city. He should be here imminently, so I would

suggest to my hon. friend, the Leader of the Opposition -

AN HON. MEMBER: Here he is.

MR. ROBERTS: See, here I am like John the Baptist. If she

wishes to rephrase the question, once the Premier has taken his seat, I am sure

he would be happy to answer it for her.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for

the Premier and they have to do with the Newfoundland Dockyard. I would like the

Premier to explain why his government has gone along with the Chretien

government's plan to close the dockyard at St. John's and do away with the 700

Dockyard jobs and see ship repair business move out of this Province to Nova

Scotia and New Brunswick.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I can't explain an action I didn't take.

The action that the hon. member outlines is not the position of the government.

We didn't take that action, so therefore I can't explain it.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier didn't

aid and abet the federal government's scheme to close the St. John's Dockyard,

why hasn't he been able to produce any evidence to suggest that he has fought

for the St. John's ship repair facility? Why has he and his administration so

obviously put an emphasis on fostering new businesses employing small numbers of

people but yet made no show of protecting older businesses employing large

numbers of people, specifically the St. John's Dockyard with its huge geographic

advantage?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, this government as has the

government of this Province ever since 1982 or 1983 when the government of the

Province put in place $8 million, I believe - they've paid the interest on that

$8 million. The government has continued to pay an additional $1 million a year

subsidy which we told the federal government that in the circumstances where the

yard was being reduced and the activity that was taking place, we could no

longer justify. We are in a dispute with the federal government over paying an

additional $1 million a year interest toward it. The people of Newfoundland and

Labrador have contributed significantly to keeping the St. John's Dockyard open.

This government wants to see that dockyard kept open, but we

can't with any conscience ask the federal government to treat that dockyard any

differently than we treat Marystown Shipyard. But we say to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member for Green Bay had been asked

to answer the question I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition would have asked

him.

Mr. Speaker, we can't ask the federal government to do more

for the St. John's Dockyard than the government of this Province is prepared to

do for Marystown Shipyard, but we can ask them to do just as much, and that is

what we've done. That is what I will discuss with Mr. Morrison when I meet with

him on Monday morning.

We've put tremendous effort into Marystown. We are trying to

give it a chance to be successful. Great strides are now being taken, and I'm

confident that the new management, the new approach, the new approach that

labour will take down there, will see that Marystown Shipyard recover and become

a viable business. The government will do everything within its power to see

that that is achieved but what the government cannot do, Mr. Speaker, is ask the

taxpayers of this Province to continue to subsidize it forever, no matter what

St. John's dockyard.

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

Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier. Marine

Atlantic, as he knows, is a division of the federal government. Now Marine

Atlantic President Rod Morrison reports to federal Cabinet Minister Doug Young,

who along with Brian Tobin and Prime Minister Chrtien, make decisions about the

fate of the St. John's dockyard. When there are major questions about the future

of the Marystown Shipyard, people expect the Premier and the minister to answer,

not Marystown Shipyard President Max Ruelokke. Now isn't the Premier wasting his

time meeting with Marine Atlantic President Rod Morrison on Monday? Shouldn't he

instead be in Ottawa applying political pressure to the political masters,

namely Doug Young, Brian Tobin and Prime Minister Chrtien?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I follow a practice that I

know members of the Opposition are not terribly familiar with, I get information

first and then I act, after I get the information. When I have the information I

will take whatever action the information that I have gathered warrants, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So is the Premier going to wait until the dockyard is shut

down and all the people laid off before he does anything? Why isn't the Premier

demanding from Prime Minister Chrtien and Brian Tobin that the federal

government give the same benefit, advantage and opportunity to the St. John's

dockyard as facilities elsewhere in Canada that are being much more handsomely

subsidized by the federal government? Why isn't the Premier of this Province

demanding that the St. John's dockyard be allowed to take advantage of its

strategic geographic location in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the hon.

member that it doesn't matter how much she shouts in that way, it does not alter

circumstances. If I were to go to the federal government and shout in the same

way it is not going to alter circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I present a case on a

logical basis that I can sustain intellectually, not that I can shout

politically. We don't operate on that basis. We operate on a sound intelligent

basis and that is what we are doing in the case of dealing with the Newfoundland

dockyard.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier care

to enlighten the members of this House on his intellectual case for the future

of the St. John's dockyard, we haven't seen it yet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Then I commend to the hon. member Hansard,

read Hansard of yesterday, and the answer that I gave yesterday, and the answer

that I gave probably a couple of days before, and it is simply this; I think I

already said it here today but I will repeat it in case the hon. member wasn't

listening: We cannot ask the federal government to do more with respect to

subsidizing, in perpetuity, jobs in what is essentially a commercial activity in

St. John's at the Newfoundland Dockyard than the Government of Newfoundland is

prepared to do in terms of dealing with the Marystown Shipyard, but I also say

to the federal government, we expect you to do no less. We don't expect you to

sit by and see it deteriorate to the point where nobody can make a case for it

continuing to operate. We expect you to establish very clearly that you have

given this business every reasonable opportunity, you have put it in a condition

that it can effectively compete, and if then it cannot be operated, except on

the basis of an annual subsidy that is more than the total amount paid out in

wages, we won't ask you to do it because we are not prepared to do it ourselves.

That is the intellectual case, in case the hon. member hasn't

grasped it up until now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Won't the Premier admit that there is a huge flaw in his

intellectual case, namely that he is comparing apples with oranges? Would he not

admit that it is not valid to compare the St. John's dockyard, which is a ship

repair and service facility, with the Marystown Shipyard? Instead, shouldn't the

Premier, to be intellectually sound, be comparing the St. John's dockyard with

competitors in the Maritimes and Quebec which the federal government is

subsidizing, when the St. John's dockyard has a strategic geographic advantage

by being in the middle of the Atlantic shipping lanes?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the federal government

obviously has a responsibility to treat all provinces fairly. It cannot create a

preferential position for one province over another unless something unusual

justifies it, like, for example, the mismanagement of the fishery by the federal

government has impacted in the way it has in Newfoundland and Labrador that

gives them a special responsibility to deal with the issue on a different basis,

but if you have an older dockyard operating here, an older dockyard in Halifax,

an older dockyard in Quebec City, and an older dockyard in Vancouver, how can we

justify saying:...but give Newfoundland and Labrador special treatment. We can't

do that, and I wouldn't ask them to do it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Natural

Resources.

In December of 1994, the minister introduced in this House a

bill dealing with mineral taxation. In discussions with the minister at that

time, Mr. Speaker, he told us that he was dealing with marginal mines such as

St. Lawrence, Baie Verte Peninsula, Green Bay and other places for this piece of

legislation and I have no reason to doubt that the minister was sincere in what

he said.

Much has now changed since then, particularly as it relates

to the Voisey Bay find, and yesterday the Premier, in his statement to the

House, gave the impression at least, that this find was such that no tax

incentives were necessary. Would the minister confirm that this will be the

case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the record is clear of what we

did last fall and why we did it. The record is also clear on what has happened

since that time with regard to the major mineral discovery in Labrador. I have

said it myself in this House, it is beyond our wildest dreams and it continues

to grow with every news release I see; so as the Premier said in his statement

yesterday, we are reviewing what we did last fall in terms of incentives and we

will be taking the appropriate actions in the near future.

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

West, a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the minister would not

confirm that there would be no tax incentives for this major and significant

find that has been termed the largest find ever by some individuals. As a matter

of fact, Mr. Speaker, based on the fact that the minister has said that it is a

project that could even be larger than Hibernia, I would like to ask the

minister now, Mr. Speaker, would he refer this piece of legislation that they

are bringing in to a select committee of the House to travel this Province and

have public input?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no; I see no need

to do it.

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

for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is the same type of answer

that the people of the Province received when they gave away the Churchill Falls

project, and we heard from time to time that the reason there was such a

significant give away with Churchill Falls, was because of the lack of public

input from the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there was public input day in and day out on the

Hibernia project and I ask the minister: why is he afraid to go to the public

and have input as it relates to the mineral taxation programs and the

development of Voisey Bay? Why is he scared to have public input?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the Mining and Mineral Rights

Tax Act is

an act of general application and was brought in back in 1975. There

have been amendments over the years; we made an amendment last December and we

are going to make another amendment to correct what we see as a deficiency in

that one. It will be brought before this House, it will be open in public debate

in this House and I welcome it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Education and Training.

A report prepared for the government about three years ago,

showed that approximately 30 per cent or more than 30,000 students in our school

system live in poverty and regularly go to school hungry. Research has

demonstrated that child hunger has pronounced effects on school attendance and

is a substantive contributor to low school achievement.

What initiatives has the minister undertaken to remove the

barrier called hunger as an impediment to school achievement and more

specifically, what has the minister done to implement recommendation 148 of the

Williams Royal Commission?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we

have put in place an implementation committee for the Royal Commission, and that

the implication committee has dealt with most of the recommendations. Now

specifically, 148, I confess, I don't recall what that one is, I don't have them

memorized in my mind but the Royal Commission implementation committee is moving

quite swiftly to implement most of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

The problem with children going to school hungry, Mr.

Speaker, is a serious problem. It is one that society I suppose, has not dealt

with on a specific term. We do have social programs in place. There have been

attempts by volunteers to have meal services provided and all these things.

Government has social programs in place so we attempt to deal with these things.

The hon. member will know that report also states that some of the children who

attend school hungry are from wealthy families. It is not because they don't

have the money. So it is a very complex issue. It is one that I suppose we can

never say we are totally satisfied with, but it is one that we as a society

continue to grope with.

The whole concept of hunger, whether you are talking about

children attending school or whether you are talking about people in general, is

not an easy one. In some cases people who receive social services manage

themselves quite well and they do have enough to eat. In other cases people

receiving the same money and apparently would have the same expenses are hungry.

These are difficult issues and it is difficult to look to the Department of

Education and Training or any single department. Society as a whole has been

attempting over the years to grasp with these issues and they are complex issues

which are not easy to deal with, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we recognize that it is not

totally a socio-economic problem. In fact, if we include the students that the

minister referred to the number probably is 45,000 students. But we do know that

32,000 students go to school every day hungry in this Province. A substantive

factor leading to disruptive behaviour in the school system is child hunger.

Research shows, and it is common sense, that children react just like adults do

when they are hungry. They have stomach pains, headaches, muscle fatigue, they

become sleepy, irritable, hostile, indecisive, confused and unhappy.

A few days ago, I say to the minister, I visited St. Jean

Vianney Elementary School in Piccadilly where children are offered a free

breakfast. Approximately 70 per cent of the school's children participate

(inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the hon. member to come to the question

(inaudible).

MR. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister,

is he prepared to undertake a comprehensive study of the relationship between

child hunger and school achievement?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member said in that

long drawn-out

preamble to his question, these studies exist. We definitely know

that there is a relationship between hunger and discipline. Mind you, now, that

is not the sole cause of discipline problems in school. The hon. member knows

that. I don't think it is necessary to do a further discussion, research, or put

in place an expensive task force. It would make a lot more sense to take the

money you would spend on a task force and try and apply it to the problem. We

know the problem so we are not prepared to do that.

There have been many attempts to deal with this issue. The

hon. member will know that prior to Confederation the problem was so desperate

that the schools made available Cocoamalt in the schools, the schools made

available cod liver oil. Society has matured since then. We try to deal with our

people who can't afford to buy food for their children, we try to deal with that

through the Social Services network, through the various supports that the

Province has in place. We try to do it too without humiliating people. It is

extremely embarrassing for a school to have meals available to all the children,

and child A who couldn't afford breakfast has to go up and get a hand-out.

I know there have been attempts to deal with that very issue

but we don't believe it would be of any benefit to put in place a task force. We

have to deal with it as a bigger issue which society as a whole has to deal with

and recognize that yes, it is a problem in the schools, but in some cases it is

also a problem throughout the Province as a whole. It is the social safety

network we have to use to deal with that, Mr. Speaker.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, recommendation 148 does call

upon the provincial government to convene a planning group to deal with this

particular matter. I ask the minister: how can his government justify cutting $6

million from the Department of Education and Training and more than $10 million

from the Department of Social Services this year when we have more than a third

of our children going to school every day hungry? Does he not recognize that his

government's balanced Budget comes at the expense of the children in our school

system?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: No, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will

find that one of the reasons for the cut in the Department of Education and

Training's budget was the fact that we are having one less payroll for teachers

this year. That happens every so often, there is one less payroll, and there are

some other cuts. The suggestion that we've taken money from Social Services is

absolute nonsense.

The Department of Social Services anticipated a certain

budget predicting that certain things would happen when the budget was approved.

We did not accept their assumptions, and we have made available more money, I

believe, to social services than last year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, based on what might be, if circumstances

change then we will have to deal with that, but when the Budget was done no

money was being taken away from hungry people to balance the Budget. But I am

quite proud to say that we did balance the Budget and that will make life better

for the hungry people and for all of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who

hope to have a future as a Province in this great nation of Canada. We will not

do it if we have to be dragged along because the rest of the country have

continued to bail us out. We are on the way to becoming a have Province, and I

am quite proud to be part of the government that is making that possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs and concerns that open sewer

that is known as St. John's harbour. This is not a new problem and I do not

accuse the minister of contributing to it, except perhaps on a personal basis

like the rest of us, at least when he is in St. John's. I want to ask the

minister why his government and he are not prepared to help do something about

it, at least to the point of supporting a study into the cost and the methods of

dealing with that problem?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, there has been a fair amount of

confusion over this whole particular question. I had a letter from the City of

St. John's, signed by His Worship, Mayor Murphy, requesting me and the

government to investigate with the federal government ways and means of

supplying money to help clean up St. John's harbour.

I wrote a number of federal ministers, we talked to ministers

in Ottawa, and bureaucrats, and basically after four months of trying to find

some money to help the City of St. John's, the federal government came back and

said: We are sorry; there is no money right now available to help clean up St.

John's harbour.

I wrote back the Mayor and said: Here is what the federal

government have said, they don't have any money; and that is all I was asked. I

was not asked, or this government was not asked, to contribute to the cleanup of

St. John's harbour; were not asked to contribute to a study. We were asked to go

to Ottawa and ask the feds if there was some money, and I did that, and I am

really not in a position to say anything other than that. I think I did what

Mayor Murphy asked me to do, and if the hon. member questions that I will

provide him with the correspondence gladly.

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

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Prime Minister responsible for the environment is

concerned about Prince Edward Island sinking, and I am concerned about St.

John's harbour floating if we don't have something done about this problem. I

realize that the federal government may not be willing at this time to

contribute significant sums of money, but the question at this point is whether

or not this Province is prepared to participate with the city in undertaking a

study to determine the cost. There are so many figures floating around from $120

million to $500 million, can we not find out - with the Province and the city

participating, and perhaps Mount Pearl as well, since they are contributing as

well - what the cost of dealing with this problem is?

I ask the minister, regardless of what the city has asked, is

the Province prepared to contribute to the cost of undertaking a study?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong here, but

I find it difficult, as the minister responsible for municipalities, be it

cities, large towns or small towns, to stand in this House and make commitments

to MHAs, or representatives I suppose, of certain areas of cities or towns when

they ask for requests for cities or towns that they represent.

If the Mayor of St. John's, or the City Council of St.

John's, wants to ask this government to take

part in a study, or to work with

them towards finding a solution to the problems that we have in St. John's

harbour - and I am the first to admit that there are some serious problems there

- if they want to write this minister or the government, be it the Premier or

anyone else, I am certainly sure at that particular point in time due

consideration, ample consideration, and a response will be made at that time,

but for me to answer and to make a commitment to the member, who I do not

consider to be representative of the City of St. John's, is not fair, I don't

think, as far as he is concerned, to ask, and number two, it would not be fair

for me to answer. I think Mayor John Murphy speaks on behalf of the city through

his council, and when that happens I certainly will reply.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is surprising to hear the minister say he is not prepared

to talk about a provincial commitment on a provincial issue when asked by an MHA

who represents a St. John's district. Is the Province prepared to take no

initiative on what is a serious provincial-size problem involving the largest

city in this Province, the capital city? The minister is not prepared to answer

any questions on that city unless they come from the City of St. John's, is that

what the minister is saying?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am saying.

One of the ADMs in my department has been assigned now for over a

year-and-a-half to sit on a special committee, recommended and made up of city

council, to discuss that particular issue. I have already offered assistance to

Mayor Murphy and the council with regard to that issue. The Premier has

discussed that particular issue and others with the Mayor of St. John's, I

believe, and we are with the City of St. John's in trying to find a solution to

the problem. But I will say quite sincerely that I think it is my responsibility

to respond more directly to the city council than it is to be responding to

members of the House of Assembly on those particular questions. This government

will offer any assistance we possibly can to help the City of St. John's in the

clean up of St. John's Harbour and when and if we get a letter requesting that,

I will certainly respond to it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct questions to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

Now, it is my understanding that commercial vehicles over

4,500 kilograms must be inspected before they can operate on our highways. I ask

the minister, would he confirm if that is correct?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct. All

commercial vehicles operating on our highways, tractor-trailers and all

transport trucks, must be inspected on our highways on a regular basis.

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

Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister tell this House if vehicles over 4,500

kilograms must first be inspected and valid inspection certificates presented to

Motor Registration before the registration and stickers are provided to the

owner?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: All commercial vehicles, including school

buses and all that operate on the highways, must be inspected. There is no

abolishment of inspections except on light vehicles.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question was, are vehicles supposed to be inspected and a

valid inspection certificate presented to Motor Registration before the

certificate of registration and the stickers are given to the owner? I say to

the minister, safety on our highways should be a major concern. That's not what

is happening. I am aware of government vehicles obtaining stickers and then

going to garages for inspections before they can operate on our highway. Is the

government not putting the cart before the horse in this case? Will he correct

the problem, have inspections first and give out the stickers later?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I answered the question

correctly in the beginning. All commercial vehicles must be inspected before the

owner receives an operating permit or a license to operate that vehicle. Now,

that is very clear. All vehicles must be inspected, commercial vehicles.

MR. SPEAKER: Another supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was informed today, I say to the

minister, by the motor vehicle registration office that they can get their

stickers and then get their inspection. I ask the minister, will he correct that

problem? I was told by a senior official of his department.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Again, Mr. Speaker, information is being

presented by hon. members opposite with nothing to back it up. If the hon.

member - let me finish now - if the hon. member has a name of an individual who

stated that then the hon. member should pass the information along or report it

to the proper authorities. All vehicles must be inspected by -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, that may very well be. All commercial

vehicles must be inspected according to the highway safety standard and points

in-between. Not only when the licenses are given out but periodic times twice a

year and at periodic times on the highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't here at the outset,

I was speaking to the Newfoundland branch of the Canadian Manufacturers

Association and the media wanted some answers afterwards. So I wasn't here to

make a statement that I would have made - I don't have a detailed statement in

front of me. I know a news release has been prepared but with leave of the House

I would like to revert for a moment. It is only a brief statement and nothing

earth shattering.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Premier have leave to make

a Ministerial Statement at this time?

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I simply want to announce that the Cabinet

this morning asked His Honour to issue a proclamation to call a by-election for

the district of Grand Falls for June 27.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I can't hear the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: I assume I have a moment to respond?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that took about thirty seconds.

MS. VERGE: I would just like to express my disappointment

that the Premier has chosen to have the Grand Falls by-election after school is

closed when a considerable number of Grand Falls voters will be on vacation and

out of the district.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In order for the Premier to speak he would

need leave of the House again.

Does the hon. the Premier have leave to respond to the

statement?

PREMIER WELLS: I just remind members that there is

advanced polling, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

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

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

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

Act, 1991," and then, on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade

and Technology - and this may be why he went home ill, Mr. Speaker, I give

notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act

To Amend The Architect's Act, The Chartered Accountant's Act, The Dietician's

Act, The Embalmer's And Funeral Director's Act, The Engineers And Geoscientist's

Act, The Land Surveyor's Act, The Private Investigation And Security Service's

Act, and The Psychologist's Act."I know that hon. members, including the

Premier, are wondering what this is about. These amendments seek to bring the

legislation listed in the

short title which I just read into conformity with the

internal trade arrangements across the county. The

short title is longer than

the act itself.

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: I give notice that I will on tomorrow

ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting

Mental Health."

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is the sixth time in a row that I stand to present

a petition on behalf of my constituents on the electoral boundaries issue. This

petition contains the names of some 212 residents of King's Point, Springdale,

Miles Cove, Robert's Arm, and Sheppardville.

The prayer of the petition is as follows, Mr. Speaker:

Whereas our communities have been in Green Bay distract for

many years and

whereas a recent government proposal would see some of our

communities assigned to Baie Verte district, therefore, we. the undersigned,

petition the hon. House of Assembly not to entertain or approve any proposal

that would see our communities removed from Green Bay district.

I found it rather curious - I believe it was yesterday in

this House that the current Member for Windsor - Buchans dropped over to see me

for a chat and was enquiring as to just what was my intention in presenting

these petitions in the House. Mr. Speaker, I thought it was clear to all and

sundry in the prayer of the petition just exactly what it was about. Basically,

the communities in Green Bay who are being assigned to the Baie Verte district

do not want to be removed from Baie Verte district, and the other communities do

not want to see their friends and neighbours assigned to another district.

Basically, the joint councils of Green Bay and the Green Bay

Economic Development Association want to see Green Bay district left intact in

the outcome of any changes to the electoral boundaries.

Now, whether or not, in the outcome of any changes to the

boundaries, some other territory is added to the current Green Bay district - be

it Badger, Buchans, parts of the old town of Windsor, whatever - is basically

academic to the citizens of Green Bay. They want the existing Green Bay district

to remain intact after the electoral boundary changes are made.

The government has sat on this matter now for a number of

weeks since it tabled the proposal in the House. I think it is about time that

it made its intentions clear. The Central Newfoundland area is very tied up in

this electoral boundary proposal. Today the Premier mentioned that a by-election

has been called for the district of Grand Falls. I think the people in the

Central Newfoundland area have a right to know what are the intentions of the

government with regard to the electoral boundaries issue.

Suffice it to say that the people of Green Bay, whatever the

outcome of the process, want to remain intact afterwards. If that means that any

district coming out of it is above the population quota established, that is

something that the sitting member would have to deal with, something I would

have no problem with. But I must reiterate concerns of my constituents that

whatever the outcome, whatever additions are put in under a new scenario, that

the existing communities in Green Bay district remain in Green Bay plus X or

Green Bay plus Y, whatever is the outcome in due course. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to Orders

itself, may I bring one matter to the attention of the House. I am told that our

friend, the Member for Humber Valley, has lost his mother. Mrs. Woodford died, I

gather, yesterday or last night or overnight. I wonder if perhaps the House

would agree to send the usual mark of respect and condolence to the member and

to his family. If that is agreed we could -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. ROBERTS: I thank members.

MR. SPEAKER: So agreed.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, before we get into government

business, as such, there is on the Order Paper a motion in the name of my

friend, the Member for Bonavista South, who wishes leave to introduce a bill

entitled, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food."

As the House knows, our rules really don't address the issue

of private members presenting bills. A private member has every right to present

a bill but the private members' motion process doesn't really address a bill as

such. It would take four days to deal with it because it is four motions. Now,

I'm not going to say what position we, on this side, will take with respect to

the bill but we do believe the member has a right to bring it forward for debate

at the principle stage, that is, the second reading stage. Accordingly, I would

ask that we first of all deal with Motion 4.

Assuming it is passed by the House - and we on this side will

support it, and I've no doubt my friends opposite will - then the bill could be

printed and distributed in the usual form. It is up to my friends opposite if

they want to call it the next time they have a right to call a private member's

motion, which would be the next Wednesday we sit. We will deal with it at a

second reading debate and we will see what happens with that. So I would ask

Motion No. 4.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman may give leave for

(inaudible) but we may not. Your Honour, what I want to do is call the first

reading so we can get to the point where we can debate it at second reading when

the next Private Members' Day - if that is the wish of the Opposition members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Motion, the hon. the Member for Bonavista South to introduce

a bill, "An Act Respecting The Good Faith Donation And Distribution Of Food,"

carried.

On motion, bill read a first time, ordered read a second time

on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you. We will leave it, of course, to

the Opposition when they wish to call the matter for debate. That is properly in

their hands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Presently, by leave.

MR. ROBERTS: If we do the other business before, we would

agree to have it on government time.

Your Honour, the Budget Debate has been going so very rapidly

we should carry on with it again. Would you be good enough then, please, to call

Motion 1. Let me say that I have not moved `the' motion, as my friends call it,

the one that the House not rise at 5:00 p.m. because -

MR. TOBIN: Your brains (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I say to my friend, the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, given what happened three or four weeks ago, I have a great deal

more than he has, and he knows whereof I speak. I would say to him, the Leader

of the Opposition didn't laugh at that remark and he should be very careful.

Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus, I understand, between both

sides that by adjournment tomorrow we shall have dealt with all of the Budget

motions so, with that said, I shall not move the motion. We will just get on

with the Budget Debate and see where we get to.

Thank you, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

I am sorry - the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I

would like to briefly acknowledge the remarks of the Government House Leader

about the death of the mother of the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to speak?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

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

MS. VERGE: I am sure all members appreciate the call of

the Government House Leader for a message of condolences to be sent on behalf of

all of us to the Member for Humber Valley. I would like to inform members that

the funeral service will take place in Harbour Main at St. Peter and Paul Church

on Saturday afternoon at 1:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1, the Budget Debate.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, for a few concluding moments; I think I have a

few minutes left from the last day. I have just a few brief comments on a few

issues and topics that I wanted to conclude just a few days ago.

The first issue that I would like to speak about - just

briefly again, what I concluded with last day was transportation. It also

relates to the questions I asked in the House of the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation on Tuesday. It seems that when we keep talking about the

balanced Budget we are starting to see day by day the effects of that so-called

balanced Budget and what it really means. When you say a balanced Budget, what

does it really mean? What are the implications, and who does it affect the most?

Those are the questions we have to ask. It seems to me that the people who are

affected most, are mainly the people in rural Newfoundland, and also people with

lower incomes. Those are the people who have been hit the hardest.

The reason I refer to the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation, there was another example just a few days ago of how this

balanced Budget affected so many people in my district, and I am sure in many

districts of the Province, and I refer to gravel roads in this Province. This

Spring, as the minister knows, I presented petitions on behalf of school

students who gave me petitions, wrote letters, and said basically that they get

sick from travelling over potholes on gravel roads to go to school in the

morning. They have to get off and take half-an-hour to an hour, one teacher told

me, before they even get back to normal so they can sit at their desks and pay

attention. That is a reality. That is not fabrication, that is not an

exaggeration, it is the truth. The truth is that these kids travel, some of them

twenty to twenty-five kilometres, on a gravel road in a bus - and any of us who

have travelled in those school buses realize how bumpy they can be, let alone

what it's like even in a good car, but a bus on those roads, we know what it can

do to these children. The kids come home in the evening - and again, parents

have told me how sick they are and how long it takes for them to just settle

down again in the house.

Mr. Speaker, along with that point, just a couple of days ago

the question to the minister - it is bad enough that with this balanced Budget

we see $15 million this year for road construction in this Province, but when

you look a little bit deeper than that, we find that $1 million of that $15

million - the paltry $15 million that it is, which doesn't cover hardly anything

in this Province when it comes to road construction - goes into road signs, so

that is $1 million gone. Another $500,000, I am told by the officials in the

minister's department, goes towards fixing cracks in pavement throughout the

Province; that is just wonderful. Another $500,000 is held back for emergency,

so we are down to $13 million. Then we find out from officials in the minister's

department again that $5 million was already committed from last year. Let's go

a little bit deeper again. We find out, again, if you ask the minister, the

truth is that very few of these gravel roads are even going to be looked at, and

I don't know if it is zero, but it is pretty close to zero number of dollars

that will actually go towards paving gravel roads. As a matter of fact, the

little bit of paving money that is left will go towards roads that have already

been paved and have deteriorated, and now they have to be paved again.

So when we jump up and down about a balanced Budget, we have

to ask, `Who is this balanced Budget affecting the most?' And it is people like

I just described, people in these small communities, who don't have the

necessities of life, of water and sewer and roads, and here we are talking about

ring roads, talking about renovations to buildings and our offices here, so

where are the priorities? That is what the people of this Province are asking.

They are asking, when we talk about a balanced Budget: What are your priorities?

Obviously, the priorities for spending should tighten up and we should give

people in the Province who look for necessities of water and sewer and road work

- that should be the priority, Mr. Speaker, not renovations to buildings, not a

Ring Road in St. John's; none of those, Mr. Speaker, are necessities of life. So

that is why I ask the minister - I am glad the minister is back in the House -

how he could even `swallow' getting that amount of money, the paltry $15 million

for transportation this year?

Now, Mr. Speaker, to put a little bit of icing on top of all

that cake for the people of rural Newfoundland, we find out then that these

people who are waiting for the roads to be paved, who are still looking at dirt

roads and pot holes, they had a little reprieve for the last few years because

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation would sprinkle a bit of

calcium on the road, the liquid calcium, to keep the dust down so that if we got

another summer like we had last year, at least the whole community - with one

car going around the community you would see a dust bowl for the next couple of

hours.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on top of no pavement and no upgrading, the

minister, in his wisdom, and of course, using priorities, decided to cut the bit

of calcium that they sprinkle around these communities. Mr. Speaker, how low

will the minister go in that department? How low can you go? Here it is, it is

bad enough; they have accepted it, okay our roads won't be paved this year, they

accepted that our roads won't be upgraded this year, they can hardly get a

grader there when you need one and now, Mr. Speaker, on top of all that, the

minister has the gall to announce yesterday with not even a smile, not even a

smirk, no calcium for these communities this year either! I mean, what is the

message out of all this, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the cuts in the

different departments?

Why doesn't he just put up a big sign and say: Get to heck

out of rural Newfoundland? Your roads are not going to be done, we are not going

to give you a bit of calcium; water and sewer are not going to be done, why

don't you just come straight out and say it?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Now, here is the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation with a joke because it is usually a joke to him, he is

saying: `Get out, rural Newfoundland, get out'. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to

tell you that the minister had better go back to his roots, because I know what

the minister's roots are, and he should be proud of rural Newfoundland. He has

to realize that these people are not ready to move out. These people are not

going to give up because the minister decides he is not going to pave roads and

now, he is not even going to put a drop of calcium on the roads?

Mr. Speaker, these people are not asking for paved driveways,

they are not even asking for pavement, and at this point, they are not even

upset if they don't get a bit of upgrading for the roads, but on top of all

that, the minister in his wisdom, with the clout in Cabinet that I thought he

had, gets $15 million and now, he is not even going to give them a drop of

calcium to spread around their communities! I mean, Mr. Speaker, how low are we

going with a balanced Budget so we can get up next Spring again when the Budget

comes in and say: "yes, balanced Budget". Well, you ask the people in rural

Newfoundland if they are so happy about the Premier saying it was a balanced

Budget, when they can't even drive over a decent road, when they beat up their

cars, and they have just as much right as the minister when he talks about

people in urban areas, just as much right, they pay their taxes; they pay

provincial taxes, too, and for this minister to look back and put `the icing on

the cake', the humiliation, I call it, and say: No, you are not going to get

roads paved, you are not going to get them upgraded but not only that, I tell

you what I am going to do to you, you are not even getting a bit of calcium to

keep the dust down during the summer.

Mr. Speaker, one constituent from Shoe Cove said to me: You

know, last year we had such a good summer, such good weather, but we are hoping

this year that we have rain for most of the summer. And that's not because they

like the bad weather, Mr. Speaker, but when it dries up for three or four days

or they have a week of sunshine - and anybody who drives in rural Newfoundland

knows this. You go around those communities with the pot holes and drive around

once at any speed within the law, and you have a dust bowl in that community for

hours afterwards, so if you have a little bit of traffic at all coming through

those communities, it is all dust. So, Mr. Speaker, these communities weren't

asking for a lot when they asked for the calcium on the road to keep the dust

down.

Now, they accepted a few years ago, an announcement by the

minister that calcium would not be put on the whole highway entering into the

communities, and a lot of people swallowed that and decided, well, okay, if

that's a cut then that's a cut we will accept so the roads leading in to the

communities were not done with calcium, but this year, Mr. Speaker, he decides,

in his wisdom, that he is going to cut the calcium for roads within the

community. People can't even go out for a walk in the summer time; when they see

one car coming they have to head into their houses. Mr. Speaker, the way this

minister is going with the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, I

won't be surprised that soon you will see bulldozers in the community taking the

road up altogether, and they'll be telling them to go around on quads and

skidoos. I mean, it is totally ridiculous! How low is he going to go?

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, if the minister had the

championship in him that he had a few years ago with the fishery and he put it

into his portfolio in this department he would be standing up and saying to his

Cabinet colleagues, `Listen, $15 million is not adequate, will not come near to

what we need in this budget for transportation in this Province.' The truth is

that there are many roads in this Province at a breaking point where they are

almost impassable and if they are not done now they are going to deteriorate

even further. Then to slap the people of rural Newfoundland in the face by

saying, we are not going to supply a bit of calcium to keep the dust down this

year. That is unacceptable.

The minister is alright while he sits here in St. John's but

I can tell you, when he goes back out to rural Newfoundland he will hear it soon

enough. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the next time he goes out to rural

Newfoundland that he doesn't take the helicopter like he did the last time. To

go out and check the road in Bonavista he flew in a helicopter. Let me tell you,

Mr. Speaker, a helicopter stirs up a lot of dust, so I will suggest to the

minister that he leave his helicopter home this summer. Don't come out stirring

up dust in rural Newfoundland. If you are going to come at all come driving and

drive very slowly because they don't want the dust kicked up, Mr. Speaker. That

is what I say to the minister.

So when we talk about the balanced budget, and a big hurrah,

a big hooray for the government to balance the budget - well, there is a lot

more behind that word, `balanced budget' than what we see in our face right

here, Mr. Speaker. If you want the real answer to the balanced budget and what

it means to people, go out to rural Newfoundland to places where they don't have

the basic necessities of running water and sewer, places where they can't travel

up the road using their cars. They would rather walk because they are afraid

they will stir up dust in the community. That is what a balanced budget means,

Mr. Speaker.

Then, of course, there are the social programs. We will go

further again - just off the topic of transportation - Mr. Speaker, social

programs. Bill C-76, that has gone through second reading in the House of

Commons in Ottawa is going to have dramatic impact in this Province to the

social programs. Now, Mr. Speaker, we were told that not one of the MPs,

including our minister, not one - as a matter of fact, three of them never heard

of the bill and not one of the seven MPs, including the minister, knew in detail

what the bill meant after going through second reading in the House of Commons

in Ottawa - a bill that is going to impact on this Province more than any other

bill ever introduced in the history of this country, probably. We have seven

MPS, three - I won't even use their names because it is too embarrassing for

everybody - three MPs in Ottawa, after going through second reading on Bill

C-76, the biggest impact in this Province on social programs, have admitted

openly that they have never even seen the bill. Now, Mr. Speaker, some people

may be guessing who those MPs are, and I bet you they are guessing right. That

just gives you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of what kind of representation we have in

Ottawa right now.

We have a minister who has been vigilant on the turbot wars

and I commend him for that. We have done that before but, Mr. Speaker, there are

more major problems then that relating to the fishery but also outside the

fishery. Those problems are going to be major on the social impact in this

Province in the next year, Mr. Speaker, very soon; unemployment and welfare.

That is the thing -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Speaker, a couple of minutes?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to continue?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave given.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, just a couple of minutes to clue

up, Mr. Speaker.

I would really like to make issue of that point, Mr. Speaker,

that Bill C-76, which a lot of members I know in this House are not fully aware

of, is introduced on the table in Ottawa right now. It has been in second

reading, it is about to be passed and it is going to have the biggest impact on

social programs this Province has ever seen. Now, what we can do about that -

and the implications for that will unfold as it may but we should certainly, as

elected politicians in this Province, be aware of what that bill contains and

its implications for Newfoundland, especially as it relates to unemployment

insurance and also how it relates to the social programs.

So, Mr. Speaker, we all have a duty, as elected people in

this Province, to make sure that we are aware of what happens up there. I can

say to all members here, we can't certainly depend on our federal MPs because if

ever there was a deafening silence in Ottawa it is from our seven MPs who are

there with us now. We need some representation up there, Mr. Speaker, and we are

going to have to do it from this House of Assembly right here. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of hon. members, I would like to

welcome to the galleries today, forty-eight Grades IV, V and VI students from

St. Mark's All-Grade School in King's Cove, accompanied by their teachers, Tom

Maddox, Maurice Lewis and Diane Curtis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to go on record as well, in welcoming the

students from St. Mark's All-Grade School, and the three educators, Mr. Lewis,

Mr. Maddox and Ms. Curtis.

I say to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

that hopefully, those people, Sir, will hold you accountable for when you went

down to their territory about four weeks ago and promised those students and the

concerned parents who were at a public meeting that you would get back to them

in four days time to let them know what you were going to do with Route 235, how

much money it would cost to upgrade the road, and what your intentions were for

Route 235. I talked to the gentleman who headed up that committee, a Mr. Monks

down in King's Cove, this morning, knowing I would be speaking on debate of the

Budget here today, and up until now, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation has not made a call down there to those concerned citizens, those

concerned community leaders.

Many of the people who are sitting here in the gallery today

are the very students who wrote the minister. They wrote their concerns about

how they were getting sick travelling twenty kilometres over a stretch of road

that was constructed twenty-three or twenty-four years ago, but the minister has

seen fit to turn his back on them. I say, he and his party will be judged in due

time. They will be judged in Grand Falls. Watch what will happen in Grand Falls

when the by-election takes place there, at the announcement of the Chair here

today.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister as well, from now on

when he goes out to rural Newfoundland, that he drive over the road instead of

taking a helicopter out, or instead of taking his boat and pulling into the

wharves along the coastline. I suggest he drive over the roads himself. The

minister reminds me of the story of the fellow who has a leak in his roof - he

never repairs it when it's raining because it is to dirty, and when the sun is

shining it doesn't need to be repaired. That is like the minister going out and

looking at the highway. He doesn't need to fix it in the summertime because many

of the humps and bumps disappear. They disappear in the summertime and in the

wintertime he can't fix them because the weather doesn't co-operate.

That is the kind of analogy that the minister uses, Mr.

Speaker, when he goes out in rural Newfoundland and looks at some of the

problems that are out there. I say to the minister, go out and look at the

problem and respond to it. If he had gone out there a month or so before he made

his trip in a helicopter, he would have found that it was almost like an

obstacle course. Moving back and forth over that Route 235 there are mufflers

and parts of automobiles all along the highway. The minister shakes his head,

but it is true, and many of the kids up there is the gallery today can verify

that. I know because I travel that stretch of highway at least twice a week. And

they were not exaggerating one little bit when they called you and told you

about the concerns they had and about the children being sick going to school, I

say to the minister.

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

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent on the hon.

member opposite that when he is making a speech and giving information to the

House, and especially when he is talking to his constituents in the gallery that

he give the correct information. The correct information is that I did drive out

over that road that day, with one of his constituents. He took me over the road.

We took our time, went through all the communities, and saw first-hand the

condition of the road the hon. member is talking about. Give the correct

information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct, he

did drive. A gentleman took him in a car and drove him over part of the highway.

But the issue is that the minister had promised at the meeting that he would get

back to the individuals within four days, within that week, and they are still

waiting. They are still waiting for an answer four weeks later.

Mr. Speaker, if we were seeing a Budget being brought forward

in this House, a balanced Budget, and the roads were being repaired, our

hospitals were being looked after, and the education system in this Province was

being looked after, we would all be happy. I say we would all be happy, we would

be rejoicing. But I take no pride in it, nor, I fear, does any member on the

opposite side, when they see the need that is out there today. If people from

the government side are spending any time in their constituencies, they will

know that the concerns that have been brought forward by the speakers here on

this side of the House are for what is happening out there today in every rural

Newfoundland district. It is not only in Bonavista South but every district that

I drive through - Trinity North, Terra Nova, Bellevue, all the way out, the

needs are quite evident. It is shameful!

When we see the cutbacks in our health care - and I referred

to this a couple of days ago when the minister wasn't in his seat but he is

there today, I have to refer to it once again, about an experience that I

encountered by going to the Health Sciences Centre myself here in St. John's

about three weeks ago. I say to the minister that I had occasion to take my wife

to the emergency ward of the Health Sciences Centre. I called her doctor that

night and her doctor suggested that I take her out to the emergency ward,

suggested I take the ambulance. I said: No, there is no need of that, I will

take her in my car and we will go out.

I went out and she sat in a chair for two hours. While she

was waiting there I had an opportunity to talk with other people. There was one

lady there, I say to the minister, sitting in the emergency ward at the Health

Sciences Centre for eight hours - eight hours at the emergency ward at the

Health Sciences Centre. Another lady from Clarenville was there for six hours -

six hours standing, waiting, in an emergency ward in one of our most modern

hospitals.

Is this what we have to experience in order to balance the

Budget? Is this what we are going to put our people through? Take away their

health care, take away all other things that they were once entitled to and

believe that they should get from government. If this is what the people have to

go through, then we should take no pride in the balancing of this Budget or

bringing forward a surplus. That is the reason why we saw a non-confidence

motion moved on this Budget a few days ago by the Leader of the Opposition.

The reason those people were sitting in the Health Sciences

Centre, from what I am told in talking to one of the head nurses there, is that

the beds were full in the emergency ward and in order for them to be moved

upstairs they had to find a vacant bed. There were no vacant beds. The beds down

at emergency were filled and everybody else had to sit and wait in a chair until

they could be attended to.

Water and sewer - another fundamental right that we should

all expect as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is now being taken away from us.

If we are going to have water and sewer, we are expected to fund our own, 100

per cent payment. I say to the minister, when he talks about putting out

infrastructure money on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

communities which have a tax base that can fully pay back 100 per cent of

infrastructure money, maybe he should look at the communities that are making an

effort, Look at the communities that are trying and allow those people to enjoy

some of those given rights.

The Member for Conception Bay South stood here in responding

to the Throne Speech a few short months ago and talked about the concerns in her

district. She said some of her greatest concerns were traffic lights and

sidewalks. I only wish that she could come out to rural Newfoundland and see

some of the needs that are existing out there. I can assure her that traffic

lights and sidewalks are a long, long way down the list - a long way down the

list - and I kind of envy her.

Housing - the Member for St. John's South introduced a

Private Members' motion here some time ago and talked about the need for -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's Centre.

MR. FITZGERALD: St. John's Centre - and talked about the

need for housing in his district. I reminded him at that time, in response to

his Private Members' motion, that this not only exists in St. John's Centre but

it is a problem that exists in all of Newfoundland.

At one time when we saw the program known as the RRAP program

that was sponsored, I think, 75 per cent federal and 25 per cent provincial, we

saw a fair number of houses in our areas being upgraded, new windows, new doors,

new siding, good foundation, and all of a sudden some of the rundown places,

some of the places that were not so nice looking, took on a new appearance;

people became proud of their property. When they did up their houses, you saw

them take pride, then, in their landscaping. The next thing you know, they had a

lawn. The next thing, you saw the car wrecks disappearing - a good program.

When John Crosbie was there, our federal minister, and cut

back on the program, there was a loud noise made from the people opposite, a

loud noise made saying: How dare you take away money from this program that is

doing so much for rural Newfoundland? And people over here said the same thing.

Just because they were of the same political stripe did not mean to say that you

had to be quiet when something was being done that you did not believe in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this year there is absolutely no money

whatsoever being put in that much needed program, and not a murmur from the

people opposite, not a complaint. Nobody seems to care, because they are of the

same colour and they represent the same values and morals. I say that if those

people are listening to their constituents, and if they see a need out there in

the area that they represent, then they should do no less than speak up for the

people who elected them and put them in this House, and bring forward their

cares and their suggestions, and if it means taking it to Ottawa then do that as

well.

Unemployment was never greater in this Province before than

it is today. It was never greater than it is today, and we continue to talk

about people moving outside the Province; there are work opportunities in

Alberta, there are work opportunities in Ontario and British Columbia. I could

never tell anybody from my district that. If somebody called in looking for a

work opportunity, they know that; that is not what they want to hear. They want

to know if something is happening in this Province, somewhere where they can be

with their families. I don't think we should have to pull up roots and move to

Vancouver, or move to Alberta. I think we should be visionaries enough that we

should create some opportunities here and try to keep our people here. If we are

going to allow our young people, our post-secondary graduates, to come out of

university, to come out of our technical colleges today and move to the

mainland, then I fear that we will always be existing in the doldrums of

double-digit 20 per cent unemployment for today and a long, long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about the private sector;

the private sector has to be the vehicle to take us into the next century. The

private sector is the area of growth. Well, I don't know how many people here

have had an experience of directing some of their constituents to go and look

for funding, to go and look for loans at ENL or ACOA, or Community Futures, or

rural development. I don't know how many people here have run into that

experience, because I can assure you it is not a very pleasant one. We go and

continue to buy newspaper ads and radio ads, television clips, talking about all

the things that are there for somebody who wants to start and create their own

business. Once you start, you will find that you get involved in so much

bureaucracy that you will throw your hands up in frustration and walk away from

it. You will walk away from it because the people who are involved in those

lending agencies I am not so sure has the right approach or are listening to the

right people. Most of them are Liberals by the way, most of them are Liberals

put there as patronage payments. Patronage payments for what they have done in

the past and far too often they are the wrong people not listening to good ideas

and not listening to suggestions.

A prime example I suppose was the suggestion that was put

forward by a group of councils in the lower part of the Bonavista Peninsula a

couple of months ago. A prime example of a group of people had gotten together

and said: Look let's take this Crown land that is now lying vacant, let's take

this Crown land and apply it to the Department of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture and see if we can get a wild berry industry going here. Maybe we can

get the land brought up to fertility where we can get the berries growing;

partridgeberries, blueberries, bakeapples, maybe we can get a jam factory going,

maybe we can create some employment. It is called diversification but I don't

know if anybody over there knows the meaning of the word.

They went and the first thing they were told - HRD, the new

name for the Canada Manpower, they agreed with the suggestion. They agreed that

it was a wonderful idea. They were going to give them the manpower, they were

going to use the TAGS program. They went and applied for - I think it was

something like 200 acres of land. They came and applied for it and they wanted

it for, I think, a fifteen year period. What did the minister do, Mr. Speaker,

but turn them down. You cannot use that Crown land. You cannot use it. We are

going to take that opportunity away from you. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why couldn't

they use the Crown land? Why couldn't they burn off the shrub, the shrub and the

brush and put it back into berry production and employ some people? It took a

lot of convincing, Mr. Speaker, to go to the minister and plead to him in order

to get that project back on track again.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day came up with

another bright idea, they were going to do away with red tape. They said the

days are gone when you have to go through three and four levels of government.

We are going to do away with all of that. We are going to give you one-stop

shopping. If you want to take part and be part of some organization or get into

some industry then why should you have to go through the Department of Health,

the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the Department of

Environment and the Department of Employment and Labour Relations? Let's send

them in one direction. This is what they had on the go last year and everybody

were all happy about it, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for people who are

sitting here, if you have ever had the opportunity to go and get a permit to cut

some firewood? Have you ever had the opportunity to go and look for a permit to

cut firewood? They will give you a permit to cut firewood. They will give you a

permit for - depending on where you get it. On the Bonavista Peninsula now I

think it is something like eight cords of wood. They had it down to six but

finally after enough complaining and the minister listened, he put it back up to

eight. But if you want to get 200 logs, Mr. Speaker, and build a shed, 200 logs

to complete your house, go and try it I plead with any member here and see the

red tape that you have to go through.

If you want 200 logs the first thing you have to do, if you

cannot get them out in the four month period that has been designated, you have

to go to the minister. Now just imagine! The minister has to sign a document,

sign a paper to allow you to bring your wood out of the woods. Now if the

Minister of Natural Resources - a man who I have great respect for and I think

that that man will change it. I think that he will see fit that there is a lot

of bureaucracy there that should be done away with. I believe enough in the

minister that he will change it and I am sure that he has more to do with his

time then go and sign a paper and say to somebody that you need this paper in

case somebody stops you bringing your firewood home. What other rights have we

got as Newfoundlanders? We talk about living in a free country. Mr. Speaker, I

don't call that living in a free country if you have to go and ask somebody to

give you permission in order to do things like the things that we were always

used to being able to do: Go and cut a few logs or go and cut some firewood.

How about the person who is fortunate enough to have a job? I

know they are few but there are still some. How about the fellow who is

fortunate enough to have a job in the winter? Take a winter like this, for

instance. The only time he can cut his firewood now is between I think September

28 and May 31. I believe those days are - in fact, I'm sure they are correct. He

must also transport his wood within those dates as well. How about the person,

say the fellow who is working on CN boats, working with CN Marine, gone for a

month at a time? A couple of times they double back and work a double shift.

Right? How is this gentleman expected to go and get his wood? Why shouldn't he

be allowed to go back in the woods in June month and go and cut his wood? Sure,

if he has to take a fire extinguisher with him or take something with him in

case a fire starts, that can be accommodated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister that I do spend a

lot of time in the woods. I say to the minister that a commercial woodcutter

must take fire extinguishers in the woods. I say to the minister that most of

the people over here on this side do come out of the woods, and that is more

than I can say for some of the people opposite.

Mr. Speaker, some people when they go in - the commercial

woodcutters do have to take fire extinguishing equipment, as the Minister of

Natural Resources knows. What is so wrong with allowing those people to go and

cut their firewood and bring it out in a responsible way and heat their homes

like they've been used to doing over the past number of years. Let's do away

with the restrictions. Let's be ever cognizant of what might happen. Make them

take all the necessary safety precautions, but don't put the stranglehold on

them and say: You can't do this and you can't do something else. Allow them to

do their God-given right, as far as I am concerned, to go and be able to cut a

few sticks of wood.

I know that the people from my community, and I'm sure the

people from my district have always taken a great lot of pride in owning their

own homes. That was one of the things that we always put forward when we lived

in rural Newfoundland: Boy, at least we own our own homes. We can grow our own

vegetables, we can build our own houses, we can raise our own livestock and this

sort of thing. Now it seems that we have a government which somebody compared to

- the front seven, the seven millionaires who are making all those decisions,

and don't realize what people have to go through today in order to go and build

those houses. They can't reach in their back pocket and pull out their wallet

and write out a cheque and buy a new home. They've always taken a great pride in

being able to do that. That now is being taken from them and we are all put in,

I suppose, the same classification that we are going to owe.

Mobilization allowance. I referred a few minutes ago to

people looking for a job and knowing that jobs existed in other provinces. The

last few days I've had several calls with people looking for mobilization

allowance. They go to HRD and the first thing this government agency tells them

is: We will give you mobility allowance, mobility allowance is there for you,

but you have to meet certain criteria. Number one is, you must have a job. I

have no problem with that. The other one, the one that I have a real problem

with, is that there can be nobody else from that particular jurisdiction who is

capable of doing the job that you apply for.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have always been able to find myself a

job. Sometimes it meant leaving the Province but I have always been able to find

myself a job and I have always thanked God I have been able to pay my way to go

there, but there are people out there today who are even less fortunate than me,

God help them, they have to look for help to get there and by the time that they

go through the red tape of trying to get financial sponsorship to travel to some

other jurisdiction, to some other area to go to work, they find that the job has

disappeared.

If somebody wants an employee today, it is today that they

want them not two weeks time, Mr. Speaker, not two weeks time to wait for

somebody who is travelling from Newfoundland or some other province; they need

somebody today and they need them now, and I am a firm believer that if there is

a job somewhere and if you have a person who is willing to take that job, the

person who is trying to get off either unemployment or social assistance, then

we should do whatever we can in order to encourage them and in order for them to

get off the welfare rolls and once again be a contributor to society.

Education, Mr. Speaker, education. We have two schools, not

in my district but in the District of Terra Nova which many of my constituents

attend, two schools that are dilapidated, they are obsolete and it is a shame.

The Government House, that's another story and I have already expressed my views

on that so I won't get into that one today. Mr. Speaker, those schools are to

the point where the ceilings are falling down, the roof leaks, they have

classrooms in the corridors, water buckets set up around the aisles in order to

catch leaks and we say we are giving our students in rural Newfoundland the same

opportunities as some of our students here in urban areas.

I would like the Minister of Education and Training to go out

and visit some of those schools. I would like him to go out and see the

conditions that some of those students have to contend with every day when they

attend school in order to try to eke out an education. I don't think that's good

enough, Mr. Speaker. I think if we believe in the fairness and balance that the

Liberal government is putting forward in their belief and their manifesto that

they put forward and declared some wonderful things in the past, Mr. Speaker, if

they believe in that then they should believe in treating everybody in rural

Newfoundland alike; they should believe in equal opportunity for education as

well as water and sewer, fair, good drinking water, et cetera, et cetera.

Drinking water, Mr. Speaker, another topic, where we have to

come back to government, begging today for as simple a thing as an artesian

well, a water supply, for which people are willing to assume the responsibility,

they are willing to assume the payments, willing to look after the costs

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a mortgage.

MR. FITZGERALD: Well, it is a mortgage, yes that's what

it is, a mortgage. They had to go to the bank and they had to borrow money. Many

times the government of the day would only allow them financial contributions in

order to put the well, the pump and other things in place and the holes and

people will assume responsibility and would pay their debt back to society. In

fact, I am a firm believer that we shouldn't give anybody anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. FITZGERALD: I am a firm believer that we shouldn't

give anybody anything.

MR. TOBIN: What would you (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Let them make them responsible for paying

back. By all means help them, give them a loan, but let's not go giving people

outright gifts; make them responsible. If you start a business today and the

business can't stand on its own two feet after a number of years, say five

years, it deserves to die; it does not deserve to be helped but, Mr. Speaker,

there is no reason why the government of today can't provide funding and help

those businesses and not go looking a month after or two months after for their

first return on their money but they should be looking for their money back,

treat everybody alike.

The EDGE legislation, fairness and balance, I say to the

minister, fairness and balance, but when you look at what the minister is doing

in rural Newfoundland and when he stood in his place today and talked about the

wonderful thing that he had done by introducing the .05-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave?

By leave.

MR. FITZGERALD: So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I say to

the minister, if he is going to do away with drinking and driving then have no

drinking and driving. Never mind .08 or .05, or have somebody say because I am

150 pounds I can drink two beer, or the Member for Harbour Grace saying I can

drink half a dozen and not be .05. There should be none of that. There should be

absolutely no drinking and driving, and when the minister stands in his place he

will be applauded.

Mr. Speaker, members here on this side do not take any

pleasure in getting up and talking about a balanced Budget. We take a great

amount of pleasure in speaking on the non-confidence motion that was brought

forward by our leader, but we do not take any pride in talking about a balanced

Budget, or surplus, when there are so many needs out there in rural Newfoundland

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The armchair socialist.

MR. A. SNOW: No, I am not an armchair socialist. I am a

very community minded businessman with a very large social conscience.

MS. COWAN: A large heart.

MR. A. SNOW: A large heart and empty pockets.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is a big businessman.

MR. A. SNOW: I am a big businessman operating a small

family business.

Anyway, I will be glad to have the opportunity, sometime this

afternoon, to speak on the non-confidence motion, and probably nobody will

listen. It is unfortunate, that in the streets of the Province today people are

saying that it does not matter what you say to this government because they will

not listen, and we have had it verified here in the House today by the

Government House Leader.

The Government House Leader openly and publicly stated in the

House, for Hansard to record, that they are not going to listen to what people

are saying, and that is one of the first signs that appears in a government on

its way out. That is one of the first signs that occurs, when they do not

listen. This government has not been listening for years and the people of this

Province, I believe, are fed up with it. They are fed up with this attitude of

father knows best. A poll recently done in this Province showed that 54 per cent

of the people favoured a public inquiry into the latest scandal that this

government was involved in.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are they saying in Grand Falls?

MR. A. SNOW: I do not know what the polls are saying in

Grand Falls but I do know that 54 per cent of the people polled favoured having

a public enquiry into the Trans City hospital scandal, this scandal where it is

possible that over $30 million of taxpayer money, in reality over $100 million

of taxpayers money was illegally spent and possibly as much as $30 million over

what it should have cost, or what it could have cost. That is a tremendous

amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, these arrogant attitudes and policies - I am not

sure if you can call participating in a scandal a giveaway of $30 million, a

policy. I do not think it is something that the Liberal government would have

put out in the booklet they put out in the last election, their red book.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, whether it is their written policy or not, the attitude of

not listening to people -

MR. EFFORD: Tell us about your Voisey Bay stocks.

MR. A. SNOW: My Voisey Bay stocks are doing well, Sir,

doing very, very well, and so is everybody else who participated in investing

their hard-earned dollars in purchasing shares. The Voisey Bay ore discovery is

one of the best things that has happened to this Province, and I just hope -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: How much money have you made so far?

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, I haven't made near the amount of money

that is going to be made.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I just hope that this government

approaches Voisey Bay -

MR. EFFORD: You are hoping the stock goes up.

MR. A. SNOW: Sure, there is nothing wrong with the

marketplace -

MR. EFFORD: Oh, I agree with you.

MR. A. SNOW: Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

MR. SULLIVAN: Castle Rock is gone down.

MR. A. SNOW: As soon as they found out I -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Those who laugh last...

MR. A. SNOW: Laugh best.

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite raise the issue about

Voisey Bay, the Voisey Bay development or the Voisey Bay ore deposit. It is one

of the most significant mineral finds of the last fifty years. Some people have

even said that it is probably the greatest mineral find in the last 100 years.

That is a tremendous, tremendous amount of wealth, and we have to ensure that if

we are going to develop - and it will be developed - that the people of this

Province get a maximum benefit from that particular resource, because we don't

get many opportunities in our lifetime to correct things, and one of the things

we have been - I don't know what the correct term is, but we have fouled up a

few development opportunities in this Province, one in the fishery -

MR. SULLIVAN: Fouled up or followed up?

MR. A. SNOW: Foul, f-o-u. The Member for Ferryland was

wondering whether my foul had a `u' or a `w'. I don't know why he would be

concerned.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said, `followed up'.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, we, as a Province, did not

properly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: We have to ensure that this is properly

developed to maximize the benefit to the people of this Province.

I have said it many times, that I am proud to represent the

District of Menihek, which is the towns of Labrador City and Wabush, the two

largest mines operating, I guess, in the Province today. These people who work

in the mines produce a tremendous amount of wealth for this Province, about

three-quarters of a billion dollars amount of wealth to this Province. There is

no other electoral district in this Province that produces a similar amount of

wealth. They contribute tremendously in economics, revenue to the coffers of

this government, in income tax, sales tax, and yet they are treated with utter

disdain by the government when the government looks at the delivery of services

in Labrador.

So I readily recognize how much a mine, a properly developed

mine, can contribute to a local economy and also to the provincial and national

economies, but I am more concerned about what it can contribute, how much more

we can contribute, through a properly developed mining operation, to our

provincial economy.

I have seen, I have witnessed, I have lived, part of the

development in Western Labrador when they developed the mines in Wabush. There

was considerable debate over where a pelletizing plant would be built for the

Wabush concentrator, or the ore that is mined by Wabush Mines in that mining

property. That value-added process, adding the value to the concentrate, making

a pellet from it, the debate at the time in the early 1960s was whether it would

go in Pointe Noire, Quebec, or in Newfoundland. The company wanted to put it

down there for whatever reasons. A lot of people speculate the reasons that the

company did it was more political in the sense of the company, where a lot of

the company management was located in Quebec and that is why it was being put

there.

Indeed, that is exactly what occurred. The pellet plant did

get constructed in Pointe Noire and we lost hundreds of jobs. The iron ore

complex over on the other side of the lake, the Iron Ore Company of Canada, in

their facility they have a value-added process over there. The pellet plant in

Labrador City, the Carroll project, today makes the best pellet in the world.

The best pellet in the world is made in Western Labrador, in Labrador City. They

are going to be producing next year probably 20 million tons of concentrate and

12 million to 13 million tons of pellets - hopefully, next year.

Mr. Speaker, most of the jobs in the Iron Ore complex in

Labrador City are in the pellet plant, in that value-added process. What we have

to ensure in the Voisey Bay development is that we, as a people, derive the

greatest benefit from it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, through revenues accruing from

salaries, mining taxes, Royalties, but we also have to ensure that when this is

being developed, we add as much value to the resource. Because that is where the

real opportunities are. We have seen Quebec utilize our resource from Churchill

Falls. We have seen Quebec derive a revenue - an economic rent is the method

that they use to calculate how much wealth an area derives from a resources.

Quebec, it has been suggested, is getting an economic rent from the Churchill

Falls development of about $750 million and we get about $25 million. Now, that

is a tremendous difference.

We have to ensure that when we develop Voisey we don't make

the mistakes we have made with our fishery, the mistakes we have made with the

forest industry development vis--vis the Abitibi property in Stephenville

rather than being constructed in Labrador. We have to ensure that we have as

much value-added in Voisey Bay ore as we possibly can do from the approach that

it has to be developed - and I say it basing it on economic sense - it has to be

developed within Labrador. Put together a package. I don't raise that issue just

because I'm a member representing a community in Labrador. I say it because I

recognize that it wouldn't make sense to catch fish on the Grand Banks and put a

fish plant in Western Labrador and expect it to make any economic sense. Neither

will it make, I believe, any economic sense to take an ore out of the ground in

Labrador and bring it to some other province, or even to the Island, to add

value to it. We are going to have to add as much value as we can as close to the

source as we possibly can.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk recently about -

this government is saying that things are getting better. News reports today

indicate that - the Premier was up in my district last week saying: The

provincial economy is on the upswing. That is what the Premier told the chamber.

Everything is rosy. It is all because of the policies of this government. Well,

it may be rosy for a few businessmen that got involved in a scandal in ripping

off the people of this Province to the tune of $100 million in the Trans City

scandal. It may be rosy for them, but it is not rosy according to the recent

reports that are being covered that say we are entering a recession and that the

province with the least amount of growth next year will be this Province. That

is what they are predicting. We are going to have the least amount of growth in

this country next year.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board says that is

correct and -

MR. BAKER: No, he is totally `out to lunch' on his

figures.

MR. SULLIVAN: Tell us how he is `out to lunch'.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Who? Mr. Speaker, this is another hallmark

of this government. They don't believe The Conference Board of Canada, they

don't know what they are talking about. Now, I don't know if the Minister of

Finance and Treasury Board can remember. Who was it? How is the memory today?

MR. DUMARESQUE: The first time you have been allowed to

speak since the leadership.

MR. A. SNOW: I have been allowed to speak quite often

since the leadership and before. But, Mr. Speaker, again, another one of the

hallmarks of this particular government is they don't believe anybody from the

outside, `Father knows best'; `Father knows best' and that is exactly what is

getting them into a lot of trouble. Listen to me, don't believe The Conference

Board of Canada, don't believe them, predicting that this Province is going to

be mired into a recession, that we are going to have the least amount of growth

of any province in the country next year, don't believe that, don't believe The

Conference Board of Canada, believe me.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board says

that's all malarkey, it is not true; The Conference Board of Canada doesn't know

what they are talking about. It is not true that The Conference Board of Canada

says that Ontario and British Columbia are going to lead the country in economic

growth, that's what he is saying - `believe me, don't believe them'. Again, Mr.

Speaker, that is one of the problems with this government, that they won't

listen to anybody else, they will only cook up their own figures such as this

so-called balanced Budget this year. It is not a balanced Budget, Mr. Speaker,

it is creative bookkeeping, that's all it is.

In the real estate industry you hear people talking about

when they put together a deal, sometimes they have to do some creative

financing. Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board has done

with this Budget, is creative financing; it is not a balanced Budget. It is like

an individual attempting to pay off their Visa with their MasterCard; it is not

balanced, it's not paid off, they still have a debt. And this Province has done

a very similar type of thing. It is all smoke and mirrors. It is exactly what

this government has been doing year after year after year; saying one thing,

doing another and attempting to mislead and deceive the people of the Province

through slick talk, and I am saying, Mr. Speaker, to the people on the other

side, that the people of this Province are sick and tired of the slick talk.

They want a common-sense approach; they are tired of the

slick, fast-talking, smooth-talking lawyers who take advantage of them with the

fine print, and they remember this government which tried to give away their

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and they are also going to figure out very

quickly how much this government is gouging out of the ratepayers of this

Province through the money that they are asking Newfoundland Hydro to pay to

them for guaranteeing the loan, and the rural subsidy that this government took

back in their first few years in office. The voters are going to remember that,

and that is why I know they are not going to be re-electing this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

in his speech, talked about how the private sector was going to be the engine of

recovery and he said that they have been doing everything to allow businesses to

grow and prosper, they are going to create a better economic climate, thus

giving business a better opportunity to operate. Mr. Speaker, again, it is smoke

and mirrors. They talked about, in their EDGE Program, this program that they

lifted from Indiana, the only difference is a little change in the acronym, it's

EDGE, the Economic Diversification and Growth Enterprise in this Province but in

Indiana, they call it the Economic Development for a Growing Economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in Indiana, they saw that yes, indeed, it

did attract a few businesses to Indiana.

I was surprised to hear the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology last week suggest that he wasn't even aware of it. I find it a

tremendous coincidence that the programs are very, very similar in the type of

incentives that they offer to businesses, and being that it is exactly the same

acronym, I don't fault them for copying somebody else's wheel, so to speak. I

don't think it is necessary at times, just because somebody has it somewhere

else, if it is a good piece of legislation, copy it. If it is good for the

economy there, it should help here.

Mr. Speaker, it is not going to help a lot of the businesses

I know in Western Labrador that this government is hurting through not coming in

with some of the policies that they suggested they should be doing, such as

increasing the rebate on the tobacco tax.

A lot of people in Western Labrador are looking forward to

the tourism industry being more properly developed, and I am hoping to get the

minister responsible for tourism in this Province off the Island, because he is

going to have to try to get more delegates than just the ones around Central

Newfoundland. If he is going to be going after the Premier's job, he is going to

have to go out and get some of the delegates even from Labrador, because the

Member for Eagle River doesn't have all those delegates in Western Labrador for

sure. I know the Member for Eagle River doesn't have them wrapped up. So the

Minister of Tourism should get up to Menihek and get some of those delegates.

While he is in there, he should have a talk to the Tourism Development Board up

there and they will explain to him some of the problems they are having with

regard to developing tourism in Western Labrador. Instead of just staying here

on the Island, he should get up and have a look at the problems up in Labrador,

and then we will probably get some action and get some more businesses

operating, and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the pellet plant when you get

down there.

MR. A. SNOW: Oh, I wouldn't want to take the minister to

the pellet plant. That is not the type of operation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: May get a little dirt under the fingernails

if he were to travel in the pellet plant in the mining industry. He is not

interested in this, and that is probably one of the reasons he is not going to

get the amount of support that is going to be necessary to put him over the top

to get the job as leader of the Liberal Party and temporary Premier for a year

or so. He is not going to get enough delegate support.

When the Premier was in Western Labrador, he met with

concerned groups up there, and they explained to him some of the problems they

are having. One of the things that did come up, and I hope the Minister of

Finance is listening, is the tobacco tax problem again. I have mentioned it to

him several times and he says he is going to have his officials study it. There

is nothing being done on it, and it is not fair for the businesses in Western

Labrador to treat them the way this government has been treating them. They are

not on a level playing field with the businesses in Quebec. Again, one of the

hallmarks of this government is the smoke and mirrors thing where they say one

thing and do another. They say that they are going to do whatever they can to

assist businesses; they are going to create a climate to allow them to grow and

prosper. Yet, what do they do here? They allow the tax differential to be so

great between the Province of Quebec and the Province of Newfoundland that the

people are going up there to shop and buy because of the difference in tobacco

tax, the difference in sales tax, and thus people are cross-border shopping.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) smuggling (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the attitude, you

see; they think it is smuggling. How is it smuggling that a housewife goes up

and spends $200 worth of groceries, buys two packages of cigarettes, and she

gets arrested. It is crazy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: That is exactly what happens. It is

cross-border shopping, and we should - this government has a policy of tobacco

tax rebates in border communities, but the problem is that they did not increase

the tobacco tax rebate when the federal tobacco sales tax was lowered and so was

the provincial tax lowered in the Province of Quebec. They again say one thing

and do another. They did not implement the rebate to a higher level and that is

what created the problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a simple solution to it, follow

the policy that they continue to follow which the previous Administration put in

place. That is all they have to do. But they won't listen to the Chamber of

Commerce, they won't listen to the business people, they won't listen to the

town councils or the unions - they know best. And people are sick and tired of

it. They are sick and tired of this government's arrogant attitude, whether it's

the treatment of the people, in this particular case the businesses in Western

Labrador. They are sick and tired of the Premier saying everything is rosy, the

economy is on an upswing. Then a day later the Conference Board of Canada

predicts we are entering a recession and Newfoundland is going to have the least

amount of growth in this country, the least amount of economic growth next year.

Mr. Speaker, they are tired of being misled, of listening to

this type of propaganda, because that is all it is. The reality of it is that we

are entering a recession and we have just barely got out of the last one. Some

people would even suggest that we never came out of it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to inform the

House of the questions for the Adjournment Debate at 4:30?

The first question is from the hon. the Member for Green Bay

and it is to the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation: Re my

question on the provincial roads program. The second question is from the hon.

the Opposition House Leader to the Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture

on the processing sector reduction by the industry renewal board. The third

question is to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation from the hon.

the Member for Ferryland on the inspection of vehicles over 4,500 kilograms.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, nice try! Nice try, `Baker'!

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

Again, this is exactly what I have been saying. The Minister

of Finance still will not listen. It doesn't matter who tells him, he will not

listen. It doesn't matter unless `Clyde' tells him. Now, if `Clyde' tells him:

`You forget this `Winst',' Winst' forgets. Whatever `Clyde' says, `Winst' says,

`Yes, Sir.'

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem, as recognized by Atlantic

Progress.

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, because it is exactly what the big

problem is in this Province. This Atlantic Progress says the Premier's report

card says that Clyde Wells is concerned with image and public perception but

there is often no real substance beneath the veneer of the position or the

program. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Atlantic Progress said on the Premier's

report card with regard to his performance and they gave him a failing grade.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Well I did not buy the magazine I can tell

you, but I am trying to find out who wrote the article. I am going to have to

either get longer arms or a pair of glasses. I cannot find exactly who wrote -

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: But anyway, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems

this magazine identified is exactly the problem that I have been talking about

for the last few minutes, Mr. Speaker. It is that this government is all full of

perception, smoke and mirrors but no real substance. Exactly how these people

failed, the Premier and this government, with regard to what they are doing to

promote and develop a climate for business to properly develop and prosper in

this Province, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, maybe the problem is indeed the leadership

of this particular government. Maybe that is the problem and maybe they will

correct it over the summer. If that was the problem and if that is the exact

problem and you correct it over the summer, who is going to solve all the

problems next, Mr. Speaker? Who is going to clean up this mess that has been

created over the last six to seven years? We don't know who is going to win. We

know that there are people jockeying for a position over there and they are

getting ready to the post, Mr. Speaker, they are coming up close to the post. I

am sure that it is going to be an exciting summer, an exciting race and I look

forward to it, Mr. Speaker, but I don't think that they are going to be able to

attempt to just change leaders and go ahead and get re-elected. I don't think

that they are going to be able to fool the people in that manner. Thank you very

much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to

have an opportunity to say a few more words, although I did have ample

opportunity -

MR. ROBERTS: A pleasure for whom?

MR. WINDSOR: A pleasure for me. It should be a pleasure

for hon. members opposite as well. I saw great looks of disappointment when I

sat down a number of days ago after having spoken only for three or four days in

my response to the Budget Speech. I have had an amazing recovery.

I have had some second thoughts.

Whereas I condemned the

government for their Budget a few weeks ago now I feel much more strongly - if

my colleague will pass me back my speech notes - on the front page of The

Evening Telegram the Conference Board of Canada has now given the greatest

condemnation to this government that we have ever seen. I think it confirms

everything that we have been saying on this side of the House about this

particular Budget, as my colleague just said so well, it is indeed smoke and

mirrors. There is nothing in it to stimulate the economy. In fact the Conference

Board of Canada now confirms that we are heading into a recession in this

Province next year, in their view. Admittedly, it is simply the view of some

economists who advise the Conference Board of Canada but it is a collected

wisdom and they are a well respected organization.

The Conference Board predicts that Newfoundland should remain

at the bottom of the economic heap this year with a meagre 1.7 per cent growth

and that private industries, such as fishing and fish processing being sluggish

but a stable growth of 1.7 per cent this year and a recessionary 0.4 per cent

decline in 1996. Now, Mr. Speaker, that has to say something about the economic

policies of this government; the great Economic Recovery Commission, Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador and all the philosophizing of this government about

the great improvements to the economy that they are going to bring forward. This

is in spite of the great Hibernia development and in spite of the major world

scale development expected in Voisey Bay, Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

In spite of all of that, giving recognition to the fact that

the fishing industry has been extremely weak, particularly in the processing

sector, been very weak in the groundfish sector and the processing sector, but

did very well in some other species, nevertheless that has been a major impact.

It should have been more than offset by developments in Labrador and by the

Hibernia development. Mr. Speaker, that hasn't taken place and we are now

finding, and now seeing, we are now being told that we are probably looking

forward to very much more difficult times over the next couple of years. We

should be progressing but we are not.

What is the reason for it? Obviously it has to be that this

government in the Budget has done nothing to stimulate the economy. There are no

programs there, nothing new, no great initiatives, no great imaginative concepts

to stimulate the economy. In fact, what we are seeing are great cutbacks. To say

that we are balancing the Budget - smoke-and-mirrors is being kind to it.

Outright deceitful statements would be more accurate. There is no question that

the Budget is far from balanced.

I won't go into those details again. I've gone through that

on at least two or three occasions in the House. There is no point in saying

again what I said before, other than to emphasize the fact that the Budget is

far from being a balanced budget. It pretends to be, it purports to be, but by

no means is it a balanced budget. Not even cleverly disguised. Attempted to

disguise it but not very cleverly. Very transparent to see through that

particular document.

There are a few things I want to talk about. I don't have a

lot of time. It is getting late in the day. One thing that is obvious: The

Budget talked about $5 million in savings as a result of lay-offs. We are seeing

those now. We saw them in the adult basic education courses at Cabot College and

other institutions across the Province. The impact of that is just incredible.

For a government to say that it wants to stimulate the economy and yet it is all

but eliminating adult basic education courses at Cabot College, it just doesn't

jive. There is no consistency here. It makes a lie of the statement that we want

to stimulate the economy and that education is an important factor in

stimulating the economy. That education is the basic tool for which

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can contribute to our society and stimulate our

economy, contribute to the economy of this Province.

To take away the opportunity for those persons for whatever

reasons who did not have the opportunity in their younger years to obtain even

basic high school education, to take away their opportunity to better

themselves, to get themselves in a position where they can become greater

contributors to society, be better able to support themselves and their

families, be less of a burden on the social structure of government, of the

taxpayers, to remove that is absolutely counterproductive and has to be the most

blatant error that I've seen this government commit since it came into office,

the most blatant of many.

I mentioned in Question Period some time ago that I had a

constituent who was attending Cabot College, paying something like $70 per

semester to receive basic education. This is a woman who has raised her family

to the point where now they are not gone from home but much more

self-sufficient, and she is able to find more time now to try to better herself.

Now where she was paying $70 per semester she is told that opportunity is no

longer available to her, and many more like her, and that she is expected to go

to a private college and pay something like $200 per credit, which is totally

out of reach, well out of reach. The Minister of Education and Training would

have us believe that this is simply a make-work or a means of receiving some

sort of income, a subsidy, while one is attending school.

I have no doubt that there may be some persons who do take

advantage of this system. We have seen many cases where the system has been

abused by those who use it not for the purpose for which it was intended, not to

better themselves, but simply as a crutch when they have no other means of

supporting themselves. You can hardly fault them. We all have to put bread on

the table for our families, and I guess if there is no other way to do it than

to take advantage of the system and to go into an educational institution in

order to qualify for support during the terms of being in that institution, then

I guess you do what you have to do. It doesn't make it right, but it is another

sad reflection on the state of the economy and how difficult it really is out

there for the average Newfoundlander, particularly those who don't have skills

and the basic educational tools to work with in order to find gainful employment

to support themselves and their family.

It is a very, very difficult situation, but to attack those

who are least able to help themselves, those who are trying to crawl up from the

depths of which they probably have been in for so many years, unable to support

themselves and their family, who are really making that effort, they should be

encouraged, not penalized. I think it is a very, very regressive step.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of issues... The Minister of

Finance is gone for the moment, but I wanted to talk to him. The Minister of

Health is here, and there is an issue that he has dealt with, and I want to

throw him somewhat of a bouquet, the issue of speech pathology. I had a

constituent who called me, and I know there are others in the same position,

where we found that children who are preschool children fall under the auspices

of the Department of Health and are receiving, I think, two hours a week of

speech therapy, or even more, basically all year long, and there are children

who need that and probably more, but certainly the level that had been provided,

I believe was two hours a week, was absolutely essential to those individuals.

It was one hour per week for ten weeks, with a four week break and then another

ten weeks. That is what this young person that I referred to, and I will use no

names, that is the kind of support that person was getting, but once they get

over five years old and go to school, now you leave the ambit of the Department

of Health and come under the Department of Education, and that service, that

special attention, is meant to be provided by the Department of Education.

Apparently you get one-half hour every six school days, so it is less than

half-an-hour a week, so that is quite a change. Of course, you only get it when

school is in session. You don't get it during Christmas recess or Easter recess,

or during the summer holiday break. That is a big, big change to young people

who are quite reliant on this kind of special education training in order to try

to deal with the difficulties with which they are faced.

There is one private school only, one office available, that

has a three month waiting list, and that charges $68 per hour for that training,

in other words $240 to $480 per month depending on the number of hours.

Insurance, I am told, pays $200 per year in compensation.

I did receive a copy of a letter from the minister whereby he

has taken some action, has undertaken to deal with the issue, together with the

Minister of Education, to try to correct this anomaly whereby one department

provides one level of service and the other department provides a different

level of service altogether. So I simply want to encourage the Minister of

Health to continue with that, to pursue that quickly, and perhaps he would like

to stifle the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who has no interest

in any matter whatsoever. The Minister of Health is trying to deal with what is

a very serious problem, with what is unfair, and I thank the minister for

responding quickly to that issue, and I hope he will proceed quickly to try to

resolve that, because a