March 29,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 8

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a very brief statement on a

matter that I am sure will win the accolade of the House. I became aware, only

last night, that a former member of this House died during the recess and I

refer to Peter Walsh who was the Member for Menihek for two terms. He was

elected - if memory serves me - in 1979 and re-elected in 1982 and left the

House in 1984.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my friend, the Member for Mount

Pearl, I will attend to that. I had forgotten. But Mr. Walsh died in the middle

of February. Apparently, he had been ill for some time. He was living near St.

John's and died in hospital here. Mr. Walsh's service is known to many of us who

were in the House with him and many members who served in the House. He

succeeded the late Joe Rousseau as the Member for Menihek and represented his

constituents effectively and served with distinction as a member of the House.

My friend, the Member for Mount Pearl reminds me, and I thank

him, that Mr. Al Andrews who was twice elected as the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir, also died during the recess. Mr. Andrews was elected in a by-election

in 1980 when Roger Simmons resigned to seek the federal seat. He was re-elected

in the general election in 1982 and in 1985 met the fate common to many

political people, as happened at the hands of my friend, the present Member for

Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir who, I believe, defeated him in the general election of

1985. Mr. Andrews served in the Cabinet and I believe was the Minister of

Environment and made his mark there, too.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure I speak for members

on all sides, although I assume others will wish to say a word or two, that Your

Honour, direct the appropriate letter of condolences to be sent to the family of

Mr. Andrews and of Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Sir.

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

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

certainly would like to be associated with the words of the Government House

Leader with respect to the passing of Mr. Peter Walsh and Mr. Al Andrews, having

served with both gentleman in caucus for a number of years. I want to pay

tribute to both of them on behalf of our caucus. I think the Government House

Leader has made most appropriate remarks. Mr. Andrews, indeed, was the Minister

of Environment and as well, for a period of time as Minister of Culture,

Recreation and Youth. I just want to join with the Government House Leader and

all members in asking Your Honour to pass on the appropriate sentiments to the

families of the deceased.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to

be associated with the remarks of the Government House Leader in respect to the

passing of Peter Walsh and Al Andrews who both served in this House, prior to my

time there but I do know certainly of Mr. Andrews' work, as prior to his service

in the House, with CBC Radio.

With respect to Mr. Peter Walsh, after leaving the House he

served with distinction and compassion as a chair of the Federal Pensions

Appeals Board, in which context I was familiar with him through colleagues and

acquaintances.

I would like to join with all members of the House in asking

that an appropriate message of condolence be sent to the Andrews and Walsh

families.

Oral Questions

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

informed us that the sinking fund that has been established to meet the cost of

purchasing the three health care centres from Confederation Life or Trans City

developers, whoever the case may be, at the end of the thirty-year period will

amount to $16 million. He confirmed for us I believe that that will be the total

cost and there will be no additional monies required from the Province in

addition to what builds up in the sinking fund. So $16 million is the final

pay-off to purchase at 60 per cent of the construction cost, as I understand it.

On November 30, 1994 the minister tabled in the House a

stream of lease payments from the various centres to Trans City Holdings. Will

the minister confirm now that these are accurate numbers, and that in fact when

you add the three of these together the total cost over the thirty years of the

lease payment amounts to $96 million in accordance with the lease that was

finally entered into?

In fact, there was an option there of taking a fixed payment,

because the final contract provides for an escalation of 3 per cent every five

years. So it is an increasing rate that we are paying, but we did have the

option of a fixed rate. I believe the minister told us on present net worth

value that the government decided that the escalating rate was more favourable

over the course of the thing. But in real terms today, in fact, had the

government chosen the fixed rate, the total pay-out in fact over thirty years

would have been $84 million. Would the minister confirm those numbers today?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: No, Mr. Speaker, but I will confirm it

shortly. I'm having some information put together for tabling in the House as I

promised yesterday. At that point in time I will table that information. I can't

really confirm any numbers he has here now because I don't have them in front of

me and haven't had them checked.

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

Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: No thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Speaker, the

minister doesn't really have to go check because we do have the document that he

has already tabled, so that is an accurate document, and he did tell us

yesterday that it was $16 million. The total, therefore, based on the escalating

rate, is $96 million plus $16 million, which is $112 million, plus the $3

million penalty government is going to pay for not awarding it to the lower

bidders as ordered by the Supreme Court.

The offer that was made by Health Care Developers Limited in

the documents that have also been made available here and in the court show a

total payout of $2.5 million per year for all three centres. They provided that

option and the Supreme Court has ruled that the preferred bidder, having

considered all of the evidence, and all of the prices tendered, would have been

Health Care Developers. Having giving them all three contracts their price was

better than any of the other combinations. The total cost of that, Mr. Speaker,

was $76 million. Would the minister like to confirm that for us?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the rather convoluted and

complicated introduction the hon. member just gave is entirely incorrect, so I

find it difficult to comment on incorrect premises.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am having a little trouble hearing the members.

The hon the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the

minister would suggest that my numbers are incorrect. The figure I quoted of

$2,527,355 annually for thirty years comes from the tender documents that the

minister has already made available, so I find it strange that the minister can

suggest it is not accurate.

Would the minister like to do some simple Grade II

mathematics on the numbers I have just produced which have been substantiated?

They are the minister's numbers, either from documents he has tabled, or from

the tender documents themselves. If he wanted to do some quick mathematics he

could find out that the contract that was accepted is, in fact $36 million more

expensive than the option of taking Health Care Developers fixed or escalating

rate. Had the government chosen the lowest rate which was a fixed term then you

would see a difference of $48 million additional to the $3 million penalty, $51

million, three times the cost of Sprung.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman well knows,

and I don't know how he can do this with a straight face, he well knows that the

amount you end up paying for something depends upon how long you pay interest on

the money that you borrow. Obviously, if we were to pay $20 million today for

something and had to go and borrow no money, then that would be the cost we

would pay,

whereas if we borrowed the money for over thirty years and then paid

it back over thirty, then obviously, the cost is going to rise. The amount you

pay out depends upon what period of time you pay it out over.

I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that in terms

of the Sprung greenhouse, that will never be paid back. The interest on that

will be paid for infinity or at least until we can get our debt eliminated, so

we can see paying on that debt for the next fifty or sixty years and it will

never be paid off, Mr. Speaker, that costs us, perhaps $1 billion, not $25

million or $26 million that the hon. gentleman threw away.

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

Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister can try to skate

around it all he wants but the numbers I just quoted him were two leases being

front as recommended by his deputy minister and the officials in the Department

of Finance of building it on government financing rather than leasing, we will

see a completely different set of numbers. We will get into that in due course.

I say to the minister: What value did he get for this $48 million that has been

thrown away? No jobs created, no economic activity, no exports, just payoffs to

his political buddies.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's little wonder that this Province is in the mess it is in

today, if an hon. member who was once finance minister of this Province, assumes

that if we go out and borrow money to build something that there is no cost to

it, make no wonder he built up $6 billion worth of debt, Mr. Speaker, that we

are finding very difficult to handle today.

I would like to say to the hon. gentleman, that I will add to

the numbers that I am going to table, a comparison of what he claims is the

lowest, a comparison of that option with the Trans City option, with the option

of government going to the market and borrowing itself. Mr. Speaker, what we did

was cheaper than the government going to the market and borrowing itself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I will give him the information,

he can give it to any financial experts he wants, as long as they really are

financial experts and not figments of his imagination and they will verify those

numbers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Education and Training.

I understand the minister attended a meeting earlier today

with officials of Memorial University and my question is concerning the Budget

allocations to Memorial. The appropriations presented in the Budget indicate

that Memorial's operating Budget will be reduced by nearly $4 million. I want to

ask the minister: how much money did the university originally ask for in its

budget submissions and how does the minister expect Memorial to balance its

budget given the fact that he has allocated them $3.5 million less than they had

in their allocations of last year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts are not

quite right. That doesn't particularly surprise me, because I don't know yet

that he ever had his facts right, but I will wait and see; maybe it will change.

The reality is that we cut the University by $2.5 million. On

a budget of $117 million, I don't see where that is going to create any great

amount of hardship; however, true to the way that we deal with the university,

we don't go in and tell them how to spend, where to cut, what to do. We operate

at arm's length. We believe in institutional autonomy so that they can have

their academic freedom. We simply say to Memorial University: Here is your $117

million. You decide how to spend it. You decide what to do.

As long as we maintain the level of confidence that we now

have in the University, that is the way we will continue to operate. If we lose

the confidence, then we will probably look at a different way, but we have no

reason to do that. We simply have told them that the reduction is $2.5 million,

which is no big amount of money.

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

Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the budgetary allocation last

year was $115,926,000 on the operating budget, and this year it is down to

$112,176,000. That is a little more than $2.5 million; it is nearly $4 million

on operating account. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the University requested

an additional $5 million, so, combining with what the reduction is and what they

had requested, the University really has a shortfall of about $10 million in

preparing their budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: Since the university

is looking at a great reduction in funding, can the minister guarantee the

students of this Province, the parents of this Province, that tuition will not

go up; and, if it is going to go up, and he already knows about that, can he

tell us how much tuition will be increased this year?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not draw

any conclusions from the wish list that the University or any other institutions

put forward. The hon. member should know that in any given year the

municipalities probably ask for about $2 billion worth of water and sewer work

in this Province, so if we come up with $50 million - or, in this case we didn't

go into that at all - would we say that we have taken $2 billion away from

municipalities? This kind of logic the hon. member is using is totally false; it

doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Now, can I guarantee the students that there will not be an

increase in tuition? No, I cannot guarantee that.

As I told the hon. member in my previous answer, we operate

at arm's length. The day we stop operating at arm's length we are going to be

deciding whether or not the economics department is going to teach NDP economics

or Tory economics or Liberal economics. Is that the kind of University he wants?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Does he want to make the University a farce

where the change of government changes the way you teach? The University is

proud to be an autonomous institution. I'm proud to say we have an autonomous

institution.

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

Supplementary -

MR. DECKER: I'm proud to say that academic freedom is

alive and well, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not going to interfere -

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

MR. DECKER: - because the hon. member wants us to go and

poke our noses -

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member to take his

seat.

MR. DECKER: - into the University.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the -

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the only thing operating at

arm's length is the next election when students in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount, which I now do. Go ahead.

MR. HODDER: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The only thing that

will operate at arm's length is when the students of this Province make

judgement on the government at the next election.

I want to say to the minister that in the Budget Speech the

Minister of Finance and Treasury Board indicated that there were efficiencies

that they could have at Memorial University which would make up for this

balance. I can't understand that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board

would make that statement unless the Minister of Education and Training had

identified those efficiencies, had a list made. I say to the minister, what

areas at Memorial were identified for efficiency reduction, and how will the

University be able to implement these reductions and thereby be able to balance

its budget?

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

Training.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I happen to have been present

the day that the hon. Minister of Finance and Treasury Board read the Budget.

What I heard him say was that it was highly unlikely that this should impact on

the student, on the offering of courses at the University. When you are talking

about $115 million, $120 million budget, to take away a mere $2.5 million, that

seems to me to be a perfectly logical statement to make, and I fully support

him.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

the Minister of Natural Resources. For the past two years now I've raised many

concerns pertaining to the forest industry in this Province, and like many

people in the industry, I have many concerns. I believe actually that we are at

a critical stage now in this particular industry. Can the minister tell the

House exactly what affects this Province will experience as a direct result of

the federal Budget as it relates to the CAFD agreement, the Canada-Newfoundland

Cooperation Agreement for Forestry Development?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, frankly I don't think there

will be any affects on the provincial Budget side in what we are doing. We had a

federal-provincial agreement on forestry that expires on Friday. In place of the

$12 million or so per year that we were getting under that agreement we've put

into our provincial Budget about $10 million for forest management activities.

So it is provincial money. We are working that through. We are going to be

having silviculture programs, other related forestry programs, as in the past.

It may not be at exactly the same exact level, but we are going to have a good

healthy forestry program.

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

Verte - White Bay.

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

minister then, the regional centre here in St. John's for the Canadian Forest

Services, which does invaluable work as the minister knows in such things as

silviculture, and also they did some good research this year on insect

infestation which we will be dealing with this summer. The minister knows what a

good job they do in this Province at that particular centre. Can the minister

confirm that as a result that this particular centre will be closed down, and in

fact maybe over 200 jobs will be lost as a result of this cutback?

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

DR. GIBBONS: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not 200 jobs. The

Forestry Centre has about seventy to eighty jobs. I'm not sure of the exact

number, but certainly not 200. The present plan is apparently to keep a small

number of people in the Province. Some will be moving to Fredericton, New

Brunswick. That is the federal matter, that has nothing to do with the

provincial matter, and -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay.

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, I can't believe what the

minister is just telling us, that in fact he really doesn't know what is going

on in the forest industry in this Province. I can tell you that I've talked to

sources today, and if we continue on the same route that we've been on for the

last three or four years with this government putting forestry on the back

burner every time we bring it up in this House - I brought it up so many times,

and it has been pushed to the back burner again - I can tell the minister that I

have sources telling me that centre will be closed. Yes, it is seventy-eight

jobs there, but it is over 200 across the Province in the forest service centre

of this Province.

The truth is, Mr. Speaker, what I am being told is that yes,

the centre here for Newfoundland will be closed down, but no, it will not be

closed down in New Brunswick, and that there will be seventeen -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SHELLEY: I was about to do that, Mr. Speaker, if I

wasn't interrupted by the ignoramus on the other side, there.

Mr. Speaker, my question is: I have been told that there will

be seventeen jobs left in this Province as related to the Canadian Forestry

Service. Not only that, can the minister confirm that those seventeen jobs left

will be controlled out of the office in New Brunswick and not controlled in

Newfoundland at all?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, another outstanding

performance by the minister. I have a question for the Minister of Health. I see

the Minister of Fisheries reaching for his Flemish Cap there, but I have a

question for the Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Oh, yes, he brought it back with him

yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, officials from the minister's department have

been visiting establishments around the Province, service club centres, Lions

Clubs, Kinsmen Centres, restaurants and lounges, I guess as part of government's

clean air program, where it is mandatory now that those establishments install

air exchangers.

I am told by some people in my area who own these facilities,

or are operating them, that the estimates for the air exchange equipment run

from $14,000 to $20,000. Has the minister had any representation from those

service clubs and other establishment owners in the Province who are concerned

about the cost and what it is going to do to their businesses?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I can tell the hon. member that I have had

representation from representatives of the industry. I have met with Hospitality

Newfoundland on the issue; I have met with representatives of the Food and

Beverage Association, and these two groups generally cover the hotel, motel,

bar, lounge and restaurant business in the Province. They have expressed a

position of concern with respect to the implementation of the legislation come

June 17 that will, in effect, require them to have appropriate air filtering

equipment in their premises. They have put forward in terms, on an individual

basis, basically, some estimates of what they think it will cost them to suit up

in terms of equipment, or in terms of the ventilation requirements that they

need.

I have also heard, of course, from the industry themselves,

the people who sell this equipment - quite a number of them, actually, as you

would expect - and I can tell you that the estimates that the industry put

forward as being what it will cost them to meet the requirements of the

legislation versus the quotations that I have actually seen from the industry to

specific establishments to meet the requirements, vary wildly and vary quite,

quite extensively.

So I cannot tell you that the estimates you are referring to

from any one specific proprietor would be accurate or not. I can tell you this,

that on a general basis and as a rule of thumb, the industry are quoting a cost

of somewhere between $30 and $40 per patron seat it would cost them to meet the

requirements for putting in this equipment. Now, I have seen some substantiation

of that figure based on specific establishments being quoted specific figures,

and it seems reasonable that there is a cost involved of somewhere between $30

and $40 or $50 per seat that they would require to ventilate in order to meet

the requirements.

There is a cost involved in meeting the legislative

requirements. There is a need, of course, greater than the cost, to have the

requirements met, because this is a significant health issue. The legislation

and the requirements of the clean air act, and the tobacco sales act, and the

act respecting the control of workplaces -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. L. MATTHEWS: - all are put in place in the context of

significant health concerns, so this government takes pleasure and pride in

having the legislation in place.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the minister to end his question and I will take

a supplementary.

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation take that, after what he did.

That is part of the reason I am asking the question, because of the impact of

what the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has done to a lot of the

industry out and about the Province, I say to him, and with this latest blow

from government, as much as I am in support of clean air, I say to the minister

that hundreds of these small businesses are going to close up; hundreds of those

small businesses will close, laying off their employees, driving up the

Province's unemployment rate so, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to the

minister, that the estimates that have been given to the people in my area, have

been given by the minister's own officials. They have gone into the facilities,

looked at them and told them: For your building, it is going to cost $14,000,

$16,000, $18,000, $20,000 so the estimates that are being quoted and given to

the operators are from the minister's own officials so they must have gotten

them from the industry people, I would say to the minister.

Is there any consideration being given to extending the

deadline for installation of this air exchange, ventilation system? Has the

minister considered extending the deadline to give people perhaps a little more

chance to get their finances in order so that they indeed can purchase the air

exchangers?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That consideration has been requested. Government's position

is basically that the legislation will be enforced as of June 17, '95 which is

the effective date.

To consider deferring of implementation of the legislation

would be inappropriate on a number of accounts and I would be happy to comment

on those accounts if the member would want me to, but amongst them would be the

fact that some of the industry have already complied so it would create an

unfair circumstance out there, amongst people in the industry, the restaurants

and the bars et cetera.

Secondly, the cost involved is nothing of a significance that

they are putting forward as best I can understand, and thirdly, because of the

significant health implications, we cannot afford on a practical basis and on a

health basis to defer the implementation of the legislation. We must do what we

can do to encourage people to quit smoking and for those who still continue to

do it, put them in a circumstance where, their health and the health of

non-smokers will be protected to the best extent that we can ensure that.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

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

I just want to say to the minister, for the record, that I

strongly support clean air policy and I am an avid non-smoker, I say to him. No

one is more upset with the smoking environment than I am, but I also have to

look at the financial and economical implications for the owners and for the

provincial economy.

Has there been any request from the hospitality industry to

the minister or to government for any kind of financial assistance or help in

any way to assist those operators to install this equipment? Has there been any

request to the minister or has he given that any consideration?

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

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There has been no specific request other than in the

discussions that I have had with the industry. They have alluded to how

beneficial that might be to them if government could help them in some way with

a grant or something. In the correspondence that I have had with them, I am,

frankly not sure whether or not they have alluded to that type of request or

not. I will check when I go to my office because I have a response to that

correspondence drafted already but they haven't made an issue of asking for

government assistance to install the equipment, therefore I cannot comment that

we would consider it or not, but probably I can comment, it would be unlikely

that we would in the circumstances that we are in financially.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation.

I wonder if the minister is aware of the potentially

dangerous situation at the Wabush Airport with regards to the full-time

emergency response services being removed as of April 1, this year, and if he is

aware, what has he, or his department done to insure the safety of the

travelling public to this particular airport?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of it because I had a letter recently from the

Mayor of Wabush. We have been in contact with the federal people, the

Transportation Committee. There is a conference coming up in Gander on April 28,

where all the representatives from all the airports in Atlantic Canada will be

attending that conference and this is one of the things under discussion; we are

asking some representatives from the federal Ministry of Transport's office to

be also there, if not the minister himself and I am also going down to Labrador

City - Wabush on the weekend and I will be meeting with Mayor Kelly and

representatives, listening to their concerns this weekend, so we are on top of

the issue and we are equally concerned as is the travelling public.

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

supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister

is going to, himself, accept the dangers of flying into the airport; he is going

down this weekend, is he?

MR. EFFORD: Yes.

MR. A. SNOW: So I am pleased that he is going to accept

this dangerous condition himself to be able to go in there and witness this

because should there be an emergency incident at the airport during a take-off

and landing, such as a plane bursting into flames or any other incident that

could jeopardize the safety of passengers, including himself of course, who is

going to be responsible for saving and protecting the lives of these particular

passengers, including himself, if indeed this incident did arise, between now

and April 28 which is when it is going to be because there is not going to be

any ERS response there at the airport?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am going down on this weekend

and I am just as nervous of flying - when the fire equipment was there I was

nervous of flying, so that is not going to relieve my concern about flying on

the weekend but the hon. member is quite right, we are very concerned about

removing the fire protection services from the airport. The letter that we had

from the council and the people of Wabush explained that their fire fighters

could not adequately handle an emergency situation at the airport. We had been

in contact with Transport Canada and the decision was made by Transport Canada.

We are in contact and we will be in further contact but I cannot guarantee or

tell you that this is going to change today or tomorrow. What we are doing is

exactly what I've told you in my original answer to the first part of your

question. I cannot do anything other than that but I will be there this weekend,

I will be talking to the people and we will be in touch with Transport Canada on

the issue.

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

for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could

tell us exactly, in light of what he has learned so far, if he can tell us

exactly what the response time of an emergency response team in case of an

incident at the Wabush Airport is and what exactly is the Province going to do?

In this particular month when we are not going to have this response team

available, what exactly is the Province going to do to ensure that the lives of

the travelling public, to this particular airport, is not going to be in

jeopardy over the next month?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the

hon. member what we are presently doing. Now the hon. member is trying to

sensationalize the issue. It is a very serious issue if adequate services are

not provided at the airport. Transport Canada has made a decision on making all

the airports in Canada operate on a cost effective basis. That is one of the

decisions that has been made. What is the purpose of myself going down there

this weekend, I will be meeting with the officials, I will have a better

understanding of exactly what the response time would be with the present setup,

what it is going to mean to the safety of the commuters at the airport and until

then I cannot give the hon. member any more answers than that. Other than say,

when I go down, if he wants me to, I will take a piece of hose and bring it down

with me but other than that it is not something to be joking about or saying to

me: what will I do this weekend?' I can only do exactly what I am saying, talk

to the people there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We are doing it. I've told you, this is the

third answer to the same question. We are working and talking with the people,

with the council, with the firefighters and with Transport Canada. There will be

a meeting coming up later in Gander but in the meantime we are talking to

Transport Canada and having a full understanding of what the impact is on the

safety of the commuters at the airport.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

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

House of Assembly six, Levels I and II, students from Mary Simms All Grade

School in the Community of Main Brook, Strait of Belle Isle accompanied by their

teacher Mr. Hugh Rowlings and their bus driver Mr. Westley Cull.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I

undertook to table the Order in Council which contains the commission given to

the Hon. Mr. Noel with respect to the electoral boundaries district exercise in

which he is now engaged. I have copies here, a number for the table, for

members, and for the press. If one of the pages would be good enough to take

them. I do not yet have the other information. It is being prepared with respect

to the costs, the detailed breakdown and the cost. I will table that as soon as

I have it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture.

DR. HULAN: I rise in response to a question that was

raised in the House on Monday by the hon. Member for Baie Verte - White Bay

concerning a certain crab license. He implied that the town of Fleur de Lys had

not been given notice of the final decision from the department, and the answer

to the investigation that the Premier had promised some time earlier. I want to

table that response now.

As promised by the Premier the circumstance involved in the

transfer of the crab processing license from Fleur de Lys to Old Perlican in

1989 was fully reviewed by government. This review concluded that there was no

impropriety on the part of the then Department of Fisheries in transferring the

license and the decision arising from the review was that reinstatement of the

license to Fleur de Lys could not be justified.

The town of Fleur de Lys was advised of this decision in a

meeting with the Premier on October 21, 1994, attended by the Mayor and other

representatives of the town of Fleur de Lys. Also in response to an enquiry from

the office of the member of Parliament for the area we advised that the license

would not be reinstated. The Mayor of Fleur de Lys received a copy of this

correspondence dated October 25, 1994.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it being Wednesday, of course,

we are on Private Member's Day and the motion is standing in the name of the

hon. Member for Twillingate.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 2, the hon. the Member for

Twillingate.

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

I was prompted to introduce this motion because I believe the

actions contemplated by the federal government in de-staffing lighthouses around

the coast of our Province, and of course around the coast of the province of

British Columbia and other Maritime provinces is a serious mistake on their part

and one that this government and the Province of Newfoundland, in fact, all

Newfoundlanders oppose.

Let me deal with the first part of my resolution:

WHEREAS lighthouse keepers have throughout our history played

an important role in saving many lives and helping to ensure the safety of many

seafaring people. I do not think any Newfoundlander, Mr. Speaker, who listens to

the news or reads the newspaper can dispute that fact. Down through history

lighthouse keepers have been credited with having contributed to the rescue of

indeed hundreds of people who otherwise would have died at sea. An

article in

the newspapers on July 26, 1994 makes reference to the situation that occurred

just off the south coast of our Province when two lighthouse keepers, Calvin

Thornhill of Fortune and Brian Cull of Marystown were credited with saving four

lives. Five people set out in a small boat from St. Pierre, four adults and a

child, and ran into trouble, bad weather and fog. Their boat capsized and the

occupants of the boat were thrown into the water, the five of them. They were

clinging to the overturned twenty-one-foot boat for a number of hours, and were

sighted by these two gentlemen. The rescue was effected by virtue of their

vigilance and alertness.

I might point out, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TOBIN: What boat was that, `Walter'?

MR. CARTER: Pardon?

MR. TOBIN: What boat was that?

MR. CARTER: It was a - five people from St. Pierre, Green

Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a pleasure craft.

MR. CARTER: Was it a pleasure craft?

AN HON. MEMBER: A pleasure craft, yes, going from St.

Pierre to Langlade.

MR. CARTER: Okay, a small vessel.

Mr. Speaker, I'm quite interested in a telephone call I

received last night in anticipation of this debate today from a person who

informed me that these two people, the people I just referred to, are tomorrow

going to be the recipients of an award, a medal from the Federal Government, and

rightly so. They have already received commendation from the Government of St.

Pierre. In fact, both gentleman were made honourary citizens of that island,

that country. Tomorrow, they are to be awarded a medal from the Federal

Government for their act of heroism.

I ask you: How many people in this House or in the press

gallery have heard any reference to that through the public news media? I don't

think anybody has heard a word mentioned of what is going to occur tomorrow when

these two gentlemen will receive their award. I'm told that the Canadian Coast

Guard very deliberately downplayed the awarding of this medal, in fact, very

deliberately downplayed the whole affair, because it might not tie in with what

they are saying with respect to lighthouse keepers.

Now, I hope I'm wrong, but that is the story I have been

told. I haven't had time to check it out thoroughly, but I've been told from two

different sources, as a matter of fact, that this award will be made tomorrow

and that the powers-that-be in Ottawa have very deliberately downplayed it. They

have not made any reference to it publicly, there have been no announcements

coming out of Ottawa. They want to go to Grand Bank or Fortune tomorrow very

quietly, make the award, and very quietly leave without any reference at all to

it. They are doing that, of course, for a very good reason. They do not want

anything to happen to interfere with their overall master plan to de-staff

lighthouses around our coastline.

I think it is absolutely shameful that our government would

do that, that the Coast Guard would do that. These men obviously deserve the

award they are getting, and they deserve all of the accolades that would

normally go with the awarding of those medals. Again, I repeat, there has been

no publicity, no mention of it publicly, because I suspect the Coast Guard does

not want anything to interfere with the strategy they have to de-staff

lighthouses. They don't want to do or say anything that might give the

impression that indeed lighthouses do have an important role to play in the

future scheme of things around our coast.

I understand that the Coast Guard and the federal Department

of Transport have hired a very high-powered public relations firm, Hill and

Knowlton, to do their public relations, to put together a strategy whereby they

can close lighthouses without arousing too much publicity or too much resistance

on the part of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is wrong. I think lighthouses play

a very important role in the marine life of this country and this Province. I,

for one, will not stand by and see it happen without raising my objections to

it, and I think most Newfoundlanders should be encouraged to do likewise.

In countries where they have de-staffed lighthouses, I am

told - I don't have a list of them here - that they are now having some second

thoughts and, in fact, in some cases are contemplating reinstating the

humanizing, or whatever you want to call it, the staffing of lighthouses around

their coast.

Norway, for example, a country somewhat similar to

Newfoundland, a country with a great maritime history, quite a substantial

involvement in nautical - things of the sea, and marine things, like

Newfoundland. They have reduced their lighthouses from 100 down to 31, but I am

told that they are now levelled off at thirty-one. They will not have any less

than thirty-one lighthouses around their coast. Yes, they have reduced their

numbers, but I am told that they have installed a number of lights around the

coast, and have taken other measures to protect the men who go down to the sea

in ships in that country.

It is another rather interesting statistic that while we have

one-third of all of the vessels in Canada operating out of this Province, small

and large, roughly only 4.8 per cent of the total number of navigational aids

around our coast are in this Province; 4.8 per cent of total navigational aids

are in Newfoundland, notwithstanding the fact that we have one-third of all of

the vessels plying the waters around the coast of Canada operating out of this

Province. That, too, is a very important statistic because it shows that we are

not getting the attention that we deserve, even with the existing number of

lighthouses. In fact, it has been suggested by an organization that I have come

to respect and have some admiration for - they call themselves `Survive' - it is

a group of local people who feel as I do, and I am sure as my colleagues do,

with respect to the de-staffing of lighthouses, and they have set themselves up

and have become a very effective voice for people in this Province who resist

what the Federal Government is doing. They have put together quite a document

here which gives all of the statistics on lighthouses, all of the information

that one would want in order to properly speak on behalf of maintaining

lighthouses in the Province, and I would suggest that most members should

endeavour to get a copy of it.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that in this Province, 162

years after the Speech from the Throne in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, of

January 1, 1833, in 1833, while the people of Upper and Lower Canada were

pondering over the merits of union, and while Sir John A. Macdonald was still

wearing knickerbockers, and probably drinking lemonade, the Speech from the

Throne in the House of Assembly of that day, January 1st, 162 years ago,

included such civilized ideas as town planning, the establishment of new schools

and roads, a police force for rural Newfoundland, a savings bank - hear this -

an act for the establishment of lighthouses in this Province, or country as we

were then.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Pardon? One hundred and sixty-two years ago.

In some of the things I have read in recent days in preparation for this debate,

I find that there was quite a lot of pressure then being applied on the

powers-that-be, on the government, for lighthouses. People from various

communities and bays and headlands were petitioning their government for the

establishment of lighthouses because they were necessary - very necessary. So I

am, in fact, somewhat disappointed, given the importance of this issue, that

there has not been a greater outcry coming from this Legislature or this

government, and up until last August, I must accept some responsibility for

that. I think if I knew then what I know now, I would have probably spoken out

against what is happening, but I didn't, and for that I am sorry. I believe that

this government should speak out in a loud voice, taking objections, opposing

what the Federal Government are contemplating, because I believe they are doing

it for all the wrong reasons. I believe it is being done by bureaucrats, Mr.

Speaker, in Ottawa who have been told by their political masters to reduce their

respective budgets.

I believe they are now picking on lighthouse keepers and

lighthouses in this Province without giving it sufficient thought. The sad part

about it is, most of these bureaucrats who work on Parliament Hill and in the

streets around Ottawa, if a traffic light, Mr. Speaker, were out of commission,

they would probably have it declared a national emergency. I spent a number of

years in Ottawa and I know how finicky they can be when it comes to little

things that affect them. I have seen the government in Ottawa close down the

entire public service and the House of Commons because of a snowstorm. And I can

tell you that I, as a boy, woke up many a morning with more snow on the foot of

my bed than was on Rideau Street that day - some of the times when they have -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: They will close her down for any reason at

all. If a traffic light goes on Wellington Street, I am sure there will be a

bigger outcry than what they are doing here now. So I think for that reason -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CARTER: Yes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I quite frankly cannot understand why they

are doing it. I think it is wrong. Instead of de-staffing lighthouses, I think

they should probably increase the activity, increase their capability, give them

more responsibilities, involve them to a greater extent in search and rescue.

Certainly, we shouldn't de-staff the lighthouses because it is going to have a

detrimental effect on the lives and safety of the many thousands of people in

this Province who go down to the sea in ships and who often have occasion to

place their own safety and well-being in the hands of a lighthouse keeper.

I am rather intrigued too, Mr. Speaker, by - when this

motions of engaging in consultation with the people. They announced a -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. CARTER: They announced a series of meetings around

the Province, Mr. Speaker, encouraging Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to make

representation but, Mr. Speaker, that had to be the biggest charade ever

perpetrated on the people because the decision was already made. And the people,

I think, in most communities, including the people in that fine old community of

St. Bride's on the Cape Shore, where a meeting was called and not one person

turned up to debate the fate of the lighthouse on Cape St. Mary's -I know the

people of St. Bride's well enough to know it is not their nature to back away

from something like that. But I think, when they were questioned as to why they

didn't turn up, most of them admitted quite freely that they were given to

understand it was already an accomplished fact that the lighthouse would go, and

why should they dignify the Coast Guard people, who were initiating those

meetings, to go through the charade of attending a meeting for no purpose?

So, Mr. Speaker, again I would ask my colleagues, on both

sides of the House, to support this resolution and let's send a message to

Ottawa in a loud and clear voice. That is something that we started in this

Province 162 years ago, as I said, when they were pondering whether or not they

would become part of a union, and we are not prepared to sit back and allow them

to take it away from us without a fight. Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

pleased today to rise to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for

Twillingate, a motion that I consider to be most appropriate in light of what

the Federal Government and the Coast Guard are proposing to do. I want to go on

record from the outset as telling the hon. member that I certainly will support

the resolution and the `Be it resolved' is:

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of

Assembly does not support the de-staffing of lighthouses and calls on the

Federal Government to continue funding for staffed lighthouses. I want to tell

the hon. member and other members that I certainly will support the resolution

as put forward by the Member for Twillingate, and I am sure all members will.

I was quite interested in listening to the member. He has

done some research on the matter. And I just want to tell him, he referred to

Green Island, particularly. One of the gentlemen he referred to there is my

brother-in-law, by the way, Calvin Thornhill, my wife's brother, who was

involved in that rescue, which was an unfortunate incident involving people from

St. Pierre, where a young girl drowned and was kept up on the bottom of the boat

until they got them to shore, a very sad incident which had a very emotional

effect upon the light keepers, I must say to the member. It was something that

bothered Calvin for quite a period of time, of witnessing the loss of life of

someone so young, and I guess, having to be involved with bringing her to shore.

I guess it is pretty traumatic. So I am familiar with that one.

I also say to the member that another brother-in-law of mine,

Ronald Thornhill, was involved a number of years ago as well, in another

situation on Little Green Island, which is really large rocks - we would call it

a bunch of rocks. He observed, early one morning, a person, the waving of arms

and so on, and he went over to find two people from St. Pierre. One man had

drowned and the other person had survived. So, I have two brothers-in-law who

were indeed involved in a rescue situation, but yet, where there was loss of

life. So I can readily identify with the benefits, I guess, of having manned

lighthouses and light stations in this Province.

My father-in-law, by the way, was a light keeper for

twenty-odd years. As a matter of fact, he retired as a light keeper on Green

Island, which is between the nearest point of the Burin Peninsula, Point May and

St. Pierre, more than halfway towards St. Pierre and Miquelon.

MR. BAKER: Are there women working at those lighthouses?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't know. I don't want to be sexist

by calling it `manning' them, but I don't know. I say to the Minister of Finance

that at one time, of course, not too long ago, families lived there. My wife

lived on Green Island, by the way.

MR. TOBIN: That is where you met her.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, it is not where I met her, but she

lived on Green Island and their whole family did. Then she would come to Point

May, and finally to Fortune to go to school. I torment her all the time about

the education she received on Green Island, which she doesn't appreciate.

MR. TOBIN: I though you met her the night you stayed out

there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I did stay there, actually, I say to the

Member for Burin - Placentia West. I did spend a couple of nights at the Green

Island light station, I say to the Member for Twillingate, when my father-in-law

was there and I was teaching school here in St. John's, I say to the Minister of

Finance. One summer I went down and spent a couple of nights with my

father-in-law on Green Island. It was quite an experience. I enjoyed it

actually. It was a different experience.

MR. TOBIN: Well, tell the story.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is the story. I can't tell all of

the story, I say to the hon. member, because I don't want it all to be recorded.

We do have a Minister of Finance here, a Minister of Justice, and we do have a

constable down there, so there are some things I don't want to tell with

everyone around.

I have a close association with people who have worked those

light stations, and people who have been involved in sort of mixed occasions,

where they have been thankful that they have been able to help and save lives

but have witnessed the loss of life. It is kind of moving, really, and to hear

my father-in-law tell so many stories about the things he observed during the

twenty-odd years he was there. As a matter of fact, one of my brothers-in-law

right now is on Baccalieu Island, the light keeper there, and the other fellow,

Calvin Thornhill, that the member referred to, is a relief light keeper on Green

Island, still. He goes out there occasionally. So I want to support the

resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Another thing I want to say to the member, as I am sure he is

aware, but I don't think he mentioned, is that from all the information I have

heard, there really wasn't an adequate cost analysis done on this. The officials

who went around doing those hearings, and listening to what people had to say,

when it got to the question: How much are you going to save because of what you

are proposing? They couldn't tell them. They couldn't tell them if indeed there

would be any savings. Of course, we see that quite often with governments, this

government included, where they propose to do things and some bureaucrats talk

about the efficiencies and savings, but when you ask with a direct question:

Well, how much are you going to save by shutting down those lighthouses or by

automating the lighthouses? They can't tell you. And if there is indeed no

savings associated with the changes, then why don't they leave well enough

alone? Why do it because they are in a mode to automate? Quite often, that is

what we find, and I am sure that's the case we are finding here, that they want

to install automated equipment because it is the thing to do, it is the `in'

thing, without looking at the consequences, the human consequences of job losses

but most importantly, the human consequences of safety or lack thereof, because

we have people who observe and watch the marine traffic.

And that's what they do. They watch weather conditions, they

are tuned in to weather forecasts. As a matter of fact, if you want to know a

forecast, call one of them, call them at one of the light stations and ask them

what to expect in the next day or two days or a week, because they watch the

weather on a religious basis; they know what the ocean conditions are going to

be in the area that they observe, and they watch for marine traffic. An

automated station with automated equipment can't do that, but that doesn't seem

to matter. For some reason we have gone cold, we don't seem to care anymore, we

don't attach much value to human life anymore, you know, and I say that with all

due respect.

We have become somewhat callous as a people; we have, it

doesn't seem to matter anymore if there is a loss of life here and a loss of

life there as long as it isn't someone related to us or that we care about.

Really, that is the way society has gone today, and that is what we are finding

here. It doesn't matter if two or three or five or ten people drown somewhere

around our shores, as long as it is no one we know. We say: `Ah, too bad what

happened up in Fortune Bay or Placentia Bay or Trinity Bay,' but that's all it

means, you know - `He shouldn't have been out there in that size of boat,

anyway.' You know, we have become kind of callous as a society and it bothers

me.

But what really got to me is, when they really couldn't tell

the people they went out and met with, whether or not they were going to save

any money - it told me everything. It is just this automated mode that we are in

so let's go and do it anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I know there is a number of other people who

want to speak to this. I certainly support the member's resolution. I have been

contacted by a few people; I have talked to a representative of Survive -

well, before they became Survive , and I told him I would do whatever I

could to help them, and so on, if there is anything they felt I could do. And I

know they have generated a lot of publicity on the public airwaves, to the Open

Lines and everything else and I guess, perhaps, more of us should have supported

their efforts, I mean, us, being members.

Perhaps there are more of us who publicly should have

supported their efforts in what they are trying to achieve and I know that the

member won't just let his resolution stay here because I have noticed as a

matter of fact, in one of the papers over the last couple of days, where it was

mentioned that the hon. member was doing this resolution, which I think is fine.

And I just hope that the news media will listen to what is being said here today

and they will listen with respect to the consequences of what the federal

government is proposing to do, what it may mean, as I said, not only to job

losses which are very important but to safety - safety along our coastlines.

It was very interesting to hear the member give the

statistics that he gave, with percentages and so on, looking at the vast

coastline that we have and the rural communities and the vessel traffic that we

have off our shores.

Mr. Speaker, I won't take any more time except to say that, I

very strongly support the member's resolution. I am going to vote for it and I

am going to do whatever I can. I am going to make some noise publicly over the

next few days in support of the member's resolution and to denounce basically,

what the Federal Government is proposing to do by shutting down and de-staffing

of lighthouses. I thank the member and congratulate him for bringing the motion

forward.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I rise to support the resolution

presented by the Member for Twillingate on this issue. While it may, to some

members of our population, seem unimportant, it is one of great significance to

a province like Newfoundland which depends for so much of its history and

current and future existence on the use of the sea by our people, and not only

that, in support of our maritime tradition of making available to the seafarers

of all nations, the kind of protection that is provided by having a lighthouse

service that is not only sending out beacons into the night, but that also has

available an individual who can respond to an emergency on the spot, who can,

himself or herself, call upon the assistance of emergency response craft, one

who is on the spot whenever an emergency arises.

It is a function of our modern times, Mr. Speaker, with

technology, and technology being sought to replace human beings in many

different locations and locales. We see it in the airports: a system the Federal

Government is now proposing would tell somebody flying a plane into Stephenville

what the weather is like from St. John's. Someone in St. John's is going to tell

someone out in - and they are going to turn on the lights for them. Someone in

St. John's is going to turn on the lights at the Stephenville airport because a

plane is landing. They won't know whether the lights are on or not, or whether

it is blowing a gale out there and what is going on out in Stephenville on the

ground. The weather systems and monitors that are out there that are supposed to

be reporting may or may not be working. But there is going to be someone in St.

John's telling a pilot, for example, whether he can land a plane or not at

Stephenville when that person is in St. John's.

Similarly, the lighthouses that dot this Province's coast and

this country's coast before that for hundreds of years, provide a service in

keeping the light lit. Obviously, you can have some sort of monitor that will

tell you whether the light is out or the light is not out. That can happen. You

can't necessarily relight the light from 150 or 200 miles away if you are that

close, but you could probably tell whether the light is out or not. But it takes

someone on the spot to make emergency repairs, to look after not only the

maintenance of the light and the foghorn and other navigational aids, but to

also provide that ongoing security to the men and women of our Province who put

their lives in danger by going out to sea, either in fishing boats, pleasure

craft, for transportation, ferry boats travelling to and from this Province,

ferry boats travelling from islands or from isolated coastal regions from one to

another, travelling up and down the Labrador Coast.

This resolution is very simple and straightforward and says

that we, as members of the House of Assembly, as we have privately - I know the

Member for Twillingate has, I have certainly indicated my support to a group

that is trying to make representations to the Federal Government to stop the

replacement system to take staff away from lighthouses. There is a lack of

understanding in the bureaucrats who are dealing with this issue of the

importance of having staffed lighthouses. Not only - and I can see there is

certainly an historical tradition, perhaps sentimental argument, that we have

had these lighthouses and lighthouse keepers and their families down through the

generations for hundreds of years, that it is important to keep up that

tradition.

But that is not the real reason. It is an important reason,

it is a reason that has some relevance to our current status, our economy, our

heritage, and part of our new economy of tourism and hospitality and welcoming

visitors to our Province. Having a staffed lighthouse is there for safety

reasons, but it also plays an important role, I think - I know the Member for

Bonavista North would be very concerned if someone was going to the lighthouse,

couldn't talk to a lighthouse keeper of the history of that particular light,

the history of that particular part of the coast, and pass on to visitors to the

Province a little bit of our history based on the experiences of that particular

coast, of shipwrecks, of rescue efforts, of part of our history and culture that

is maintained by these families and these individuals who staff and support the

lighthouses.

I am going to let other members speak, who wish to have an

opportunity to join in speaking on this resolution, and I will end my remarks

there, to say only that I welcome the resolution being brought by the hon.

Member for Twillingate, and I want to offer my support wholeheartedly, but I

would like to hear some government ministers speak on this resolution and see

how strong an interest the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, for

example, is taking in this issue. What representations has he made to the

Federal Government on this issue as Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation?

What representations has the Minister of Fisheries, Food and

Agriculture made to the government in Ottawa, the Minister of Fisheries and Food

and his other responsibilities? Are his other responsibilities taking him away

important issue? What about the Minister of Environment? Is he having something

to say on this important issue to his counterpart in Ottawa and to the Federal

Government? What about the Premier? Is he having something to say about this, as

official spokesperson for all of Newfoundland and Labrador? What about the

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation? Has he made representations? Have

the Cabinet, as a government, taken a strong interest in this issue, and have

that change in policy? Have we heard anything from them? Have the Federal

Government heard anything from them?

It is all very well for me, on this side of the House, or

members in the Official Opposition, to say things, or backbenchers on the other

side, but what about the government? Has the President of Treasury Board, the

Deputy Premier, the Acting Premier, has he taken an interest in this issue, and

has he instructed other members of the Cabinet to take a forceful stand on this

Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation back in the House. We would like to

hear from them as to how supportive they are of this resolution, and what action

to change this policy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am privileged today to stand and debate this resolution so

ably presented by my colleague, the Member for Twillingate. The resolve portion

of the resolution states that the House of Assembly does not support the

de-staffing of lighthouses, and calls on the Federal Government to continue

funding for staffed lighthouses.

Mr. Speaker, that is an issue that I have been involved with

since probably the middle of 1994 when I first found out about this by seeing it

in a newspaper article. Since then I have travelled to Ottawa; I have met with

Mr. Robert King, the Director General of Marine Navigational Services. At the

time of the meeting, the MP for the district, Mr. Baker, was there with me,as

well.

I can say that Mr. King was polite, but that is about all I

can say. I can say he listened, but I don't think he heard what I said. So when

my opportunity presented itself to make a presentation at what they called the

public consultation process in Lewisporte in January, I did that. That was

attended by two individuals from Coast Guard, Mr. Clements, and Mr. Browne, who

is the Regional Manager of Marine Navigational Services. I was very impressed

that evening, because we had another MHA, my colleague, the Member for Mount

Pearl, who was there and made a presentation, a presentation from council, the

Chamber of Commerce, the local yacht club, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the

Lewisporte Development Association, fishermen's committee, and at least 100

private boat owners who take advantage of the lighthouse out on Exploit's

Island.

The position that I presented then is the position that I

have now. I can't insult the intelligence of the officials in Coast Guard or my

colleagues here by stating categorically that every lighthouse must remain open.

I can't do that.

Technology has evolved to the point now that most commercial

vessels no longer have the same dependence on the light station that they did

twenty, thirty or forty years ago. The commercial vessel that comes around the

capes of our coasts, equipped with radar and global positioning systems, no

longer are as dependent on that lighthouse as they were but, Mr. Speaker, as the

dependence by the commercial vessels decreases the dependency by the

recreational boaters increases proportionally.

There are several prime examples of that around the coast,

probably one of the better ones, the one I am more familiar with, is the one in

the Lewisporte district, Seargent Cove Head on Exploits Island. We are

strategically located at the entrance of Notre Dame Bay and we are also

strategically located on the entrance to a bay that is going to have a

world-class marina situated there in just a couple of years. We have already

spent somewhere in the area of $1 million preparing for the construction of that

marina. Last year, the vessels using that lighthouse area, taking advantage of

the services by the individuals who staff that lighthouse, were approximately

600. Six hundred boats used the waters around the bottom of Seargent Cove. We

anticipate that within the first year of full operation of the world-class

marina in Lewisporte, that figure will increase ten-fold. Instead of being 600

vessels it will be 6,000 and these are not commercial vessels headed for Botwood

or headed for Labrador. These are not commercial vessels who no longer need to

take advantage of the services. These are private yacht owners, fishermen,

pleasure boat operators from the area and they do take advantage of the

lighthouse, they do take comfort from the fact that there is somebody up there

who can look down from the light station and see them. They take comfort from

the fact that there is somebody there who can actually see a flare if they send

it up. They take comfort from the fact that there is somebody there who can

actually speak to them on the radio. Now, we have fifty-six stations in the

Province, thirty-two of them are still staffed and twenty-four have already been

de-staffed.

The thing that we are concerned about is that the service is

decreasing at time when we maintain, or at least, I maintain, that the service

should be expanded. A memo sent out from the commissioner of light services on

August 10, says, `The department's intent is to de-staff lighthouses and an

expanded role for light keepers is not an option.' Mr. Speaker, that is just

totally unacceptable. The recommendation that I made to Mr. Kingston the day

that I met with him in Ottawa suggested that we should expand the light service,

expand the role of the light keepers to include what they now do - which is

provide a light visible twenty to thirty feet, fog horn audible for whatever the

maximum possible distance and the provision of visual surveillance of vessels

visible from 300-foot high lighthouses - but to include as well, the provision

of an expanded marine radio communication available to all VHF radio operators.

Now, we were told at that meeting in Lewisporte that night,

that the light keepers in Seargent Cove or all the light keepers on the stations

around the coast do not have the authority to speak to vessels on a VHF radio,

they are not licensed to do so. Maybe they are not, then let's fix it, license

them. If they are not licensed, that's not hard to fix. The provision of weather

forecasting and ice reporting, they say, `Well that's not their mandate either.'

Mandate them. Provision of expanded service of environmental monitoring,

particularly as it relates to oil spills at sea - now, you can have the

electronic equipment stationed all around the coast of Canada but there is

nobody who can better detect an oil spill six miles outside of Exploits than the

light keepers at the station who are 300 feet up in the air.

The provision of assistance in all search and rescue missions

in the area or where radio contact can be of assistance: We are told as well,

that that is not the mandate of the light keepers. They are not Search and

Rescue personnel and they have no business to be doing it. That is what we are

told, they have no business to be doing it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I tell you, if I

run into difficulty out off Exploits or out off Twillingate - Long Point next

November, it would be nice to know there is somebody in one of the lighthouses

who can see me, whether it is their mandate or whether it isn't. And if it isn't

their mandate, let's make it their mandate.

Let me give you just a few examples of some of the search and

rescues that the staff at Surgeon Cove have been involved in. I have documented

just a few here of the dozens that are available and I will read a couple of

them into the record: `1988 - the staff at Surgeon Cove assisted in the rescue

of a local fisherman. They saw him drifting offshore displaying a signal on one

of his paddles. There was a strong southwest wind, the light keepers arranged

for a boat to pick him up. By the time they got to him he was eight to ten miles

offshore.' Now, Mr. Speaker, had there not been staff at the lighthouse, would

that man have been saved? I don't know. But had there been just electronic

equipment at the light station I will assure you that the electronic equipment

would not have seen him.

`1989 - four seal hunters from Twillingate rescued by the

light keepers at Surgeon Cove. Kept there for two days at the light station

because of the weather.' `1990 - the keepers watched as a small speed boat hit a

large pan of ice about a mile-and-a-half off Surgeon Cove.' It was in the

spring, it was 7:00 p.m., little daylight remaining. Because of the quick action

of those light keepers a boat from Exploits was found, sent out to pick them up,

and this man at the time was clinging to his boat still in the water. Had the

light keepers not gotten to him, surely this man would have drowned.

`1991 - boat spotted broken down, engine trouble, called

fisherman in Exploits who towed him in.' `1992 - the light keepers in Surgeon

Cove received a call on the VHF from a sixty-foot longliner from Labrador, the

Ensemble . It was lost in a snowstorm. It was determined that the location

was somewhere near Northern Head. Using radio and lights the light keepers

guided them back to Exploits Harbour. It took three to four hours.' Would he

have gotten back there safely without any loss of life had it not been for the

people at Surgeon Cove? I don't know. But they were certainly instrumental in

bringing him back.

`May 3 1993, approximately 10:00 p.m. Light keepers in

Surgeon Cove light received a call on a mobile phone from Search and Rescue in

St. John's.' Now, these are the same people who are saying that the light

keepers are not supposed to be involved with search and rescue. Well, here is

Search and Rescue in St. John's calling the light keepers at Exploits saying: We

have overdue hunters from the Twillingate area. `A few minutes later the Coast

Guard vessel Franklin was contacted. A short time later flares were

sighted northeast of Surgeon Cove. The information was passed to Search and

Rescue and the men were picked up by the Franklin .' Had the men not been

at the station in Surgeon Cove, undoubtedly, the flare would never have been

seen.

They are suggesting that we don't need staffed lighthouses,

that the electronic equipment that we now have available to us is just as

efficient. Maybe it can put off just as bright as light, and maybe our equipment

can send off just as loud a horn, but there is no electronic equipment that you

can put up onto any of those headlands and to any of those light stations that

is going to detect a flare that is sent up when a fisherman or a boater is in

trouble.

`1993, in May, light keepers received a call on the mobile

phone from Search and Rescue in St. John's. Overdue hunters from Lushes Bight.

The keepers maintain surveillance and eventually they spotted flares twelve to

fourteen miles north of the station. Longliners were notified; the hunters were

picked up.' This was approximately 2:00 a.m. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest

to you, 2:00 a.m. with nobody to see the flares, the chances of survival were

not nearly as great. `June 15 1994, vessel sighted off Northern Head, broken

down. The light keepers notified the DFO vessel the Goose Bay which

intercepted and towed the vessel home to Glovers Harbour.'

Those are eight examples. I have a couple of more there but I

see I'm running out of time. Before I do that, they tell us that they have to

de-staff for reason of cost. One of the Backgrounders from the Light

Station Services Project - Backgrounder , the information they send around to

the light keepers themselves, suggests that the average annual cost to maintain

a staffed light station is $115,000. The average annual cost to maintain a

de-staffed light station is $26,000. By my calculation, there is a saving of

$89,000. Okay, maybe, we will save $89,000 per station by taking the men out of

it, but how many lives will we lose? And I ask you, Mr. Speaker: What is the

value we put on human lives today? And I ask that question of my hon. colleagues

at Ottawa. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask that question of the hon. minister

responsible. I ask: What value do we put on human life and how many are we

prepared to lose in order to save $89,000?

The decision, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable. That's a

position, that not only do I take in my district, but everybody I have spoken to

out there who takes advantage of the lighthouse and takes some comfort from the

fact that the keepers are there, has supported me.

During the month of July, we put a petition paper out to

several business houses for seven days only, and I ask all members here in the

House of Assembly, to recognize what I am saying. This was a petition that was

not solicited, the forms were put there and left and people were asked to affix

their signatures if they agreed with the position that the lighthouse was not to

be de-staffed. In seven days, without solicitation, it had 1,800 names on the

petition. That petition was presented - I see my colleague, the Member for Mount

Pearl coming in, he was at the same public hearing function to which I referred

and gave a very supportive presentation after I had done so and I am hoping

maybe, he will speak in this debate as well, today - 1,800 names on a petition

that was presented to the minister, through Mr. Young, at the meeting that

night.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I totally support the resolution

as it is on the Order Paper, and I think we must do whatever it takes to make

sure that this de-staffing of the critical lighthouses around the coast does not

take place.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My timing was impeccable. I expected my good friend opposite

from Lewisporte would speak and I wanted the opportunity to follow him as I did,

as he just pointed out, in Lewisporte when the public hearings were held there,

and let me say that the hon. gentleman did a tremendous job of researching the

facts as they relate to the lighthouses and the one in particular on Exploits

Island, in which we both have an interest. He did a tremendous job of

researching that and he made a very, very good, well-researched and

well-presented presentation to the commission there, Mr. Speaker, and it made it

easy for me. All I had to do was stand up and say: ditto, I agree entirely; on

this, we have no difference of opinion.

The hon. gentleman pointed out, I think, eight or nine or ten

examples where lives have been saved. Now, since that time - I don't know if my

hon. friend is aware - but since that time, I have taken the trouble in fact to

visit the lighthouse on Exploits Island, about three weeks ago. I travelled out

by snowmobile to the lighthouse on Exploits Island, my first time going out the

bay on the ice. I went to the lighthouse and visited with the keepers there and

had a look at the operation and got a much better appreciation -

AN HON. MEMBER: When?

MR. WINDSOR: Three weeks ago.

- a better appreciation for what it is, in fact, that is done

by the lighthouse. And I am now more determined than ever that that lighthouse

should be kept there. Now, I know my hon. colleagues who have spoken - and I

regret I was upstairs and didn't hear what had been said - but I have no doubt

that we talked a great deal about the importance of the lighthouses to the

fishing industry and to the commercial shipping industry and everything else,

but I wanted to deal a little bit with the tourism industry.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I say to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation, you can't dwink and dwive a boat either, on the way to the

lighthouse.

MR. EFFORD: You can't dwink and dwive on a skidoo either.

MR. WINDSOR: No, I don't dwink on the skidoo, Sir.

MR. EFFORD: It couldn't carry you.

MR. WINDSOR: I don't dwink and dwive on the skidoo.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to waste my time with that

hon. minister, he is not worth the time of day. I want to get on with this very

important issue. We can see how important the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation feels about the safety of mariners in this Province. He wants to

crack jokes while we are talking about a very, very, serious issue, not only

about the jobs that are going to be lost to those people out there, but to the

safety of thousands of people who are travelling on the water around this coast.

We can see how important the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation

thinks it is, just as concerned as he is about safety on the highways, Mr.

Speaker, just as concerned as he is about highway driving conditions. All he can

do is make jokes, Mr. Speaker. He is a joke himself.

Mr. Speaker, let me get back again to the Minister of

Tourism, Culture and Recreation. I particularly want to address this because my

friend for Lewisporte has done a great job, together with his colleagues here

and in Ottawa, of putting together a package of financing for a new marina in

Lewisporte. Now, the great Strategic Economic Plan that this government puts

forward, puts a tremendous amount of credence in the tourism industry for

developing, particularly rural Newfoundland, and I could not agree more. There

is a tremendous potential in the tourist industry in this Province that we have

not even begun to tap.

An area like the Exploits Island is a prime one, and I am

going to be involved in it myself. There is a tremendous amount of potential

there. The money that is being put into the Lewisporte marina is extremely

well-spent, but why are the governments of Canada and Newfoundland putting money

into the Lewisporte marina? To attract thousands of more mariners, Mr. Speaker,

more pleasure craft, and let us be quite honest, those people who are sailing in

pleasure craft are probably not as experienced as our fisherpersons are out

there on the water.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, will you stifle that member,

wherever he is? If he has nothing intelligent to say, go out of here and stop

making a fool of yourself and being a disgrace to the people who elected you.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying the people who are operating

pleasure craft are probably far less experienced and far less qualified to be on

the water than are our fisherpeople who have grown up all their lives on the

water, and it is second nature to them, and they are probably less able to

respond in the case of an emergency than those people who have that kind of

experience. They are far more likely therefore to depend on somebody who is

there watching over them, and having visited a lighthouse let me tell you, you

do watch over a tremendous expanse of water.

As I sat there in a lighthouse and looked up at Cape St. John

in my friend's district in Baie Verte you can almost see forever. On a clear day

you can see Cape St. John from the water. Up in the lighthouse, three weeks ago,

on a nice sunny day, a little hazy, but I could see Cape St. John clear as a

bell and everything in between, and all the bay going into Botwood, a tremendous

opportunity to save lives and to see somebody in danger. As was said by several

people at the hearing in Lewisporte, Mr. Speaker, there is little comfort when a

light is not working, or even if a light is working and you get in trouble and

put off a flare, that light is not going to see it. That light cannot see an

emergency flare and there is nobody else in that area. There are no houses in

that area, no permanent residences in view of the area that is surveyed by that

lighthouse on Exploits Island. It is not as if you are just outside St. John's

harbour and you can expect there to be somebody up in Cabot Tower, or somebody

out in Torbay or Logy Bay, or somewhere like that, that might see a flare. When

you get outside of Exploits Island it is not lightly that a flare is going to be

seen by anybody who is normally resident on land, so unless there is another

boat in the area, then you are on your own, quite literally.

The advantage of having that facility there, from that point

of view, I think is critically important now. I am first to say that the people

who are responsible for the lighthouses are not responsible for safety, for

marine safety, and here is our problem, I think. The people who are making

decisions as to whether or not they need that lighthouse, whether the level of

service from the point of view of having a light, is adequately served by an

automatic system, by new technology, they may well have a valid argument. Our

argument is not about the light. Our argument is about the safety that is

provided.

What we would like to see, Mr. Speaker, is the Canadian Coast

Guard who are responsible for safety, combining with Transport Canada who are

responsible for the lighthouses, recognize that there is a dual role. Even

thought our lighthouse keepers are not trained, and are not really authorized to

be providing this kind of safety service, they do it. Just as if you and I were

driving on the highway, as I was last night, and there were two or three cars

off the road up by Butterpot Park, I called the RCMP on a cellular phone to let

them know, and they were there shortly thereafter. We all do what we have to do

in the case of an emergency, and lighthouse keepers have saved hundreds of lives

in this Province, not because it was part of their job, but because they were

there, so we have to be very careful in our argument, that we are not arguing so

much with Transport Canada for their technical decision to replace persons with

machinery that probably is becoming somewhat dependable, but not 100 per cent

dependable.

Let me make this point, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down, and I

think my friend from Lewisporte will agree, that there were tremendous

presentations made at that meeting in Lewisporte, and the people there listened,

and as I walked out somebody said: How did you feel about the hearing? I said:

The big problem here is the people that we were speaking to were the people who

said: Mr. Minister, we think we should replace these lighthouses with automatic

systems, and those same people now are sent out and said: Go ask the people if

they think that the recommendation you made to the minister were correct. Now

that is like asking the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to go out and

hold public hearings and ask the people if they think he should be a Liberal.

What public servant have you ever met who is going to go out

and hold public meetings and come back and say: Well, Mr. Minister, we had good

recommendations, and you brought your legislation forward, but I was out talking

to the people now - I have finally consulted them - and they have proven to me

that I was wrong, and I am recommending something different - not a chance.

lighthouses, let's have some real hearings. Let's have public hearings with an

independent commissioner who is not involved, who doesn't have a bias for the

recommendations that were made already. Let's not send out the same people who

made the wrong recommendations in the first place.

Let's remember, this is not just the operation of lights we

are talking about. We are talking about the life and safety of people; we are

talking about developing a tourism industry that is going to put tremendous more

pressure, and tremendous more benefit and importance, on keeping those

lighthouses manned on a twenty-four hour, 365 day-a-year basis, and I support my

friend from Twillingate entirely.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, being the member for that historic

District of Bonavista North, on the Northeast Coast of Newfoundland, I couldn't

let this opportunity go by without standing in my place on behalf of the people

of Bonavista North, the seafaring people of Bonavista North, the people who had

300 or 400 years of experience in the marine world, to not get up on their

behalf, and to go on record. I would certainly be remiss in my duty if I did not

do that today.

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years there has been a

downgrading of lighthouses throughout Canada as automation takes over. I think

at one point in the eighties there were 800 lighthouses in Canada, in the whole

of Canada, and since the 1960s, actually, with automation, they have gradually

been reduced. I don't know what the numbers are today, but they are probably

around, I would suggest, not more than 100 lighthouses in the whole of Canada,

with the most of those that are remaining now being in Atlantic Canada. Again, I

don't know the numbers that are in Newfoundland right now, but I think again it

is probably close to thirty, in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: Yes, right.

Having said that, I recognize the importance of technology,

and recognize what technology can do today. When we can place a man on the moon,

when society has reached the stage where it can place a man on the moon, we

certainly should be able to do something in terms of lighthouses, or take

advantage of that technology and apply it to the marine world, and apply it to

lighthouses, but I wanted to follow on from what the Member for Mount Pearl was

saying. We should be able to use this technology to improve the system and make

it a more viable operation, not to close it down and just to have and just to

have a light, an impersonal light, Mr. Speaker. Did you ever hear of a light

saving somebody's life? Did you ever hear of a light taking

part in a rescue

operation? Did you ever hear of somebody talking to a light? I mean, it is just

an impersonal object that offers no sense of feeling, no connection with people.

Today, with automation, we should be able to do something to develop the tourism

basis along which the Member for Mount Pearl just alluded to.

I've talked about the number of lighthouses in Canada.

Newfoundland, I would suggest, being an island, more than any other place in the

country needs lighthouses. We need lighthouses more than any other part of

Canada. Lighthouses have become a part of the culture and the heritage of this

Province. When we are doing things, when we are preserving things, we don't

always just only look to the dollar value. I would suggest the fact that

lighthouses and light keepers have become such an integral part of the culture

and the heritage of this Province, that that in itself deserves keeping the

lighthouses. The fact that it is so tied up with our culture and our heritage,

that in itself is enough to preserve lighthouses in this Province.

I was on a visitation to my district about a year ago. I ran

into this marvellous couple who wanted me to come into their house and talk to

me. Come in for a cup of tea. I came to find out this is what they've been used

to doing for a number of years. They both, man and wife, were lighthouse

keepers. If hon. members want to know about them and to follow up on the little

story I'm going to allude to you, there was a thesis done for an MA at Memorial

University by a girl Fulton from Ontario. She did a study on lighthouses in

Newfoundland. It was in the folklore department. She did a study on these two

marvellous people, a Mr. and Mrs. Wakeley, presently living in Centreville.

Mrs. Wakeley was a war bride, comes from Scotland. The minute

that they - when they came here after the Second World War, Mr. Wakeley applied

for a lighthouse keeper and got the job on Puffin Island, which is an island

just off from Greenspond, and he served in that position for something like

thirteen years, he and his wife. They raised their family there. Their kids

didn't go to school. Mrs. Wakeley taught them. I think there were four or five.

At least four members of the family, and I think there were more. She taught

every one of them to read and write. Today all of these kids are working with

good jobs, and they were taught on this little island, Puffin island, by their

mother and father.

This girl selected these two people. She interviewed a number

of people but she selected those two people because of their openness and

because of their interest in lighthouses and because of the kind of people they

were. She selected these two people and wrote her thesis on these two people.

It has become - lighthouses are part, as I've said, of the

culture and the folklore of this Province, as this story illustrates. I had my

office contact this girl Fulton because I wanted to find out - I thought in the

conversation with Mr. and Mrs. Wakeley that she was not a Newfoundlander, so I

had my office contact her to find out where she did come from. As I indicated in

my opening remarks, she was from Ontario, but she was born in London, England,

really, and her father was an officer in the Royal Navy. That is how come she

got interested in lighthouses.

She grew up in London, moved to Ontario, and when she finally

decided that she wanted to pursue this interest in lighthouses she herself

concluded that the best place to study about lighthouses, and particulary from a

folklore point of view, was in Newfoundland. She came here and did this study on

Mr. and Mrs. Wakeley. So if hon. members wanted to read it, the thesis is at

Memorial University in the folklore department.

I tell hon. members that to illustrate how lighthouses, light

keepers have become part of the very fabric of this Province. That in itself, in

my view, is worth preserving. It has become a way of life with us. The hon.

Member from Mount Pearl mentioned the tourism value and I don't think we should

forget that. I think it has tremendous value. If we are going to take advantage

of technology, let's take advantage of technology in making something more

productive out of these lighthouses. Let's train the lighthouse keepers in terms

of being able to work in some area related to tourism. Let's make them

communication centres, the lighthouses, so that there can be more effective

communication between the ships and the boats that are out there that need the

services of this lighthouse. Let's do things like that and as I said, let's make

them centres of information and centres for tourism.

Last year or a couple of years ago now this Province hosted

the Canadian Parliamentary Conference here and, as hon. members know, when you

do that, when you are hosting, there is always an anxiety about what you are

going to show the people coming in and their social activities. We took them up

the Southern Shore and do you know one of the biggest attractions up the

Southern Shore? I mean you and I take it for granted, the biggest attraction -

we took these people from all across Canada up the Southern Shore - was the

foghorn at St. Shotts. I think it is St. Shotts, the foghorn there where you

look out into the fiord. Well that was the big attraction, of just a simple old

foghorn. On that particular day it was foggy and it let out its cavernous sound

while we were there looking down, as I said, into the fiord. Well a lighthouse.

I don't know what they would have done had they seen a lighthouse with a

lighthouse keeper. They were so excited with the foghorn, with the lonely

foghorn, had they been able to see a lighthouse with a lighthouse keeper, as I

said, I don't know what their reaction would have been.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as supporting the

resolution introduced by my colleague the Member from Twillingate. I would hope

that we can mount the kind of protest, the kind of opposition to the staffing of

these lighthouses that the federal government will finally see how important

these lighthouses and the lighthouse keepers are to the very fabric of this

Province, that they will change their minds and instead will do something to

make these lighthouses even a more meaningful part of the fabric of this

Province. Let's do something so that they can - let's take them and turn them

into an opportunity to do something for the Province. Let's not look at them as

a liability, as something that we've got to do away with but something that,

with intelligent minds, something that people with creativity, people being

innovative can do something to contribute to the economy of this Province, Mr.

Speaker, and I believe it can be done. If we have the political will to do it, I

am sure that it can be done and we can preserve those lighthouses, not as a

liability but as an economic advantage to the Province. I thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

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

I am pleased to rise today in my place and commend the Member

for Twillingate for bringing forward such a motion. As the former speaker just

mentioned, I also come from a district of Baie Verte - White Bay who have

lighthouses in that area and over the years, the history of it, I would be

remiss if I did not stand up and speak on behalf of the people of Baie Verte -

White Bay district in supporting such a motion about this particular issue of

the lighthouses.

Mr. Speaker, I think that some good points were made with the

previous speakers. We go way beyond the budgetary or monetary move as far as

what money and savings could be done with such a move by the federal government,

and also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention too, that I would like to see

more members on that side get up and speak on this particular issue and that we

all - and of course, we don't see this in the media a lot - but we all do

support this from both sides of this whole House, this entire Chamber supports

it as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, to support a move that these lighthouses

are not just a move to solve our budgetary problems, but is a part of our

heritage, a part of our history and more so than ever, it is a need in this

Province for our fishermen and also for the people who use it as we said, it

relates to the tourism and the pleasure boat people in this Province.

It is much deeper, I think the quote was - the Member for

Lewisporte said it earlier, I am not sure if I have his figures right - but they

would save somewhere in the area of $89,000 a year on each lighthouse. What a

ridiculous amount to be even mentioned, Mr. Speaker, what a ridiculous amount.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. SHELLEY: Eighty-nine thousand dollars would be saved

per lighthouse in this Province if that move follows through. Now I look at that

amount of money, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the different members here who

spoke today, have talked to lighthouse keepers who are a minority, there are

only a very few of them across the Province but, Mr. Speaker, there are

thousands of people whose lives have been affected by those lighthouse keepers.

Thousands of people, hundreds have lives saved and I know, I have talked to

lighthouse keepers who tell you stories about lives that were saved over the

years by lighthouse keepers and, as the previous speaker just mentioned, a light

can't come out and save them.

The human factor of the lighthouse keeper has to be at the

forefront of this whole argument. An analogy one person gave to me, he says it

is almost as bad when you automate the lighthouse keepers as when you call

someone on the phone these days and you get that bloody answering machine! It is

the same thing. It might serve the purpose of getting a message across but there

is no human connection there. There are many fishermen, who, over the years,

will tell you, Mr. Speaker, over the many years that lighthouses have been

around this Province, that they feel a comfort knowing that, that light that is

spinning around in the darkness or in the fog, that there is somebody up there;

they will not feel the comfort, Mr. Speaker, knowing that up in that lighthouse,

where that light is revolving that there is a machine.

The whole purpose of this is that, we realize there is a

human being up there who can relate to you, who can talk to you. That is what is

important about this, Mr. Speaker, that is why every member in this House, this

entire Chamber, the Premier, our seven MPs in Ottawa, all of them should

remember and keep in mind that this is a heritage and a history of Newfoundland

of which we are very, very, proud; beside the historical attachment, we also

have a human factor involved and the human factor is simple, that the people who

sat in those lighthouses for years and years have comforted a lot of people.

Fishermen in boats, people out in cruisers or in pleasure boats and for whatever

they were out there, the bottom line is, that they knew there was a human being

sitting up there where that light was revolving and that they possibly could be

helped if they so needed that kind of help.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a few of the people here mentioned today

that already there is a tourism related aspect to this, and in the next few

years, Newfoundland, as we talk about the Cabot celebrations and so on, I am

willing to bet that tourism and I think the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation will agree with this, you will see an increase in boats in these

waters around this coast as people see more and more with those Cabot

celebrations that are coming, that more and more people will be travelling to

these coasts. Pleasure boats I hear now, talked about from the Eastern Seaboard,

the New York/Boston area, will be delighted to come up here in the summer time,

and tour the Island, going around the Island discovering of course, the inlets

and the coves and what makes Newfoundland so special.

Now, Mr. Speaker, knowing that there are lighthouses there

and lighthouse keepers, like the member said earlier, that first of all, that is

an attraction to tourists, to see a lighthouse and to actually go up to the

lighthouse and have the lighthouse keeper come down and talk to you. Just a few

weeks ago, I can't remember the program, I think it was CBC that did a

documentary on a particular lighthouse keeper who has been there for years and

years and how he worked in that lighthouse and spent many nights, of course, a

lonely lighthouse keeper as you hear the stories but, Mr. Speaker, a lot of

fishermen will tell you that knowing that, that person was there in that

particular structure that we call a lighthouse, was a comfort to them and we

cannot lose sight of that fact; but what we have to keep in mind, is that there

are only a few lighthouse keepers, so it is very important that the member

brought this forward today that we, as a group, as a governing body in this

Province, bring forward as strong as we can the message to the federal

government that this is the wrong approach; this is the wrong move.

As some of the other speakers mentioned earlier, not only

should we keep the lighthouses, but we should expand and improve them, to the

effect that not only will they be lighthouse keepers, but they should be

improved and educated and trained in communications, so that people who would

like to come to this part of the world and explore our coast which is talked

about so widely in all nations of the world, that they would be encouraged to

come to this part of the Province and go around the Island in their boats and in

their pleasure cruisers and use that.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the amount of $89,000 per year

for these lighthouses, I wonder - I really ask myself the question - what does

the federal government see in the big saving that this would create, $89,000 per

year for one lighthouse. Do they realize how many people, how many hundreds of

lives, have been saved over the years, and, therefore, how many families have

been affected by their loved ones who have been saved due to a lighthouse keeper

and what had taken place with the rescue. Do they realize that? How can you put

a dollar sign on something like that?

When I first heard about this move, I couldn't believe it. I

thought it was ludicrous that there was even consideration of that. When we see

so much waste in government these days, at provincial and federal levels, that

we see such a measly attack on something that is so special and so human, that

they would attack such a part of their budget. It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to hear that the Member for Twillingate would bring

this forward, and I know there are a few other members who wanted to speak on

it, but I just want to make sure that the district I come from, Baie Verte -

White Bay, was represented in defending that these lighthouses stay there.

The Member for Mount Pearl mentioned earlier that on a clear

day from the lighthouse you can actually see the lighthouse from Twillingate

area into LaScie, but when the lighthouses really come into effect is on those

foggy and stormy nights, and winter storms, when you can see the lights

revolving and know that there is a human being up there who can maybe be helpful

if they need it.

Mr. Speaker, from this I hope that we can continue on and

also encourage the federal MPs, and I hope the member who put forward this

motion will be in contact with those people, and have them join with us, as the

Members of the House of Assembly for this Province, in supporting this

particular resolution, and I hope that we will be able to gain enough support so

that these people come to their senses and realize that this budgetary move has

a lot more to it than just a budgetary, monetary position. It has a human factor

that has to be considered. It is part of our heritage, part of our culture.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying to the

Member for Twillingate that I am very pleased that you brought this forward. I

know that everybody on this side of the House supports you. I assume, and I

hope, that everybody on that side of the House supports you. I know that the

member of the NDP Party here supports you, the Member for St. John's East. Now

we have to get the support of the federal MPs, and hopefully we will have them

come to their senses and realize that this move should be chopped, should be

terminated, forgotten about, and let's get back and expand and improve - not

cut, but expand and improve - the lighthouses we have in this Province today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Scio - Bell

Island.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join with fellow members

here today who are expressing their concerns with respect to the closure of

lighthouses in Newfoundland. In my own district, in particular on Bell Island,

we have a lighthouse there that has been there for many, many generations. I

didn't have the privilege of knowing the previous lighthouse keepers, but I must

say that since 1989 I have gotten to know, and have had the opportunity to visit

with the current lighthouse keeper on many occasions. Bill Clarke, who is the

lighthouse keeper on Bell Island, and his family, have made me welcome there on

more than one occasion. I visited them not only during the times when it was

just nice to be there on a summer afternoon, on a good day, but I also visited

them on numerous occasions when we had situations in the Tickle where the ice

was coming in and sitting in his house when some of the ferry captains would

phone and ask Bill for his personal update as to where the ice was moving, how

fast it was moving, giving them advance notice as to the kind of problems they

may encounter.

I've been there also, Mr. Speaker, when one of the oil

tankers was coming in and there was a small craft in trouble in the Conception

Bay area. The lighthouse keeper was visually directing the oil tanker in terms

of trying to assist some of the people who were in trouble on the small craft.

In total in the Conception Bay area there are probably in

excess of 200 to 300 pleasure craft that rely on the lighthouse keeper on Bell

Island to give them assistance and direction on any given time. I must say that

during the tough times it is good if you are aboard of a vessel, be it a small

boat or a large boat, to know that the lighthouse is there so that you can look

for guidance yourself. Sitting on the bridge of - whether it is a small vessel

or a large vessel, knowing that when you look up and see the light during some

troubled times, that at least you have some guidance. But allow me to assure you

that there is no greater satisfaction or no greater solace taken by an

individual who is in trouble on the bridge of a boat in knowing that in the

remaining lighthouses in Newfoundland there is a set of eyes looking back at

you. That there is someone there who is either directing you and helping you and

assisting you, or that indeed in many cases, and I've seen this again in the

Conception Bay area, where the Coast Guard is being directed by the lighthouse

keeper in terms of where there is trouble.

There is a member of our own House of Assembly who had some

difficulties in Conception Bay some time ago on his own boat. The lighthouse

keeper was there to offer some assistance to him during those troubled times.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are fellows out in boats who don't

know what they are at.

MR. WALSH: There are fellows out in boats who know very

well what they are at, but at the same time were experiencing difficulties. I

must say, our lighthouse keeper on Bell Island was there to offer assistance and

to give some direction to a member of our own Legislature who was having

difficulty that particular day.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to say really is that it is fine for

the federal government to look at some of its own cost-saving measures, but I

think that it tends to be looking at this particular problem with blinders on.

As the hon. Member for Twillingate said in the early part of his remarks, they

sit in Ottawa concerned about a traffic light being out, and probably willing to

spend hours arguing with people over a traffic light, in trying to solve those

problems, when indeed the set of eyes that sits in the lighthouse keeper's home

looking back at the vessel that may be in trouble, or giving guidance to those

that are sailing by, that that set of eyes has probably saved more lives than

any of us would want to remember or even imagine.

The mere fact that, as was said earlier, two individuals will

be receiving an award tomorrow - and that in actual fact the media has not

picked up on it, and indeed I believe that the Coast Guard itself has probably

played down the issue, because to give recognition to individuals who have gone

beyond the call of duty is something that it doesn't probably want to do at this

point in time, because it flies in the face of what it is attempting to do

itself in closing down the lighthouses.

I want to go on record today saying that when they come to

close the one on Bell Island, not only will I be there to make sure and do what

I can to obstruct literally the equipment that they may wish to transport off

the ferries to install upon the top of that hill, and I am sure that many Bell

Islanders will be with me. We are going to insist and work very hard, and we are

going to be very determined to make sure that a set of eyes remain, and that a

family, or at least a lighthouse keeper remains in the lighthouse on Bell

Island.

There are too many people who are going to have problems, I

think, in the coming years. The traffic in Conception Bay itself warrants a

lighthouse keeper and I do not believe the traffic that we experience in

Conception Bay is much different than in other areas of the Province where there

are remaining lighthouses. I think we have to stand up and be strong, and to

argue and defend with all the means we have at our disposal to ensure that the

remaining lighthouses in Newfoundland remain active, remain operational, but

more important remain in a situation where there are lighthouse keepers like

Bill Clarke on Bell Island who will ensure the safety, and indeed be there to

meet any of the requirements that vessel owners may have when they are in

distress.

It is almost like the fire department, Mr. Speaker. We are

happy enough to pay them and we pray that we do not have to use them. I think we

are taking the attitude with lighthouse keepers where we say, we are happy

enough to have a light there but we do not need the set of eyes. I believe that

attitude we are taking in terms of the federal government's viewpoint is a wrong

attitude and one that collectively, we here in this House of Assembly, have to

fight, and we have to defend the lighthouse keepers who remain for the sake of

all those who wish to use, and indeed do use, our coastal waters.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very proud to rise today and support the resolution as

put forward by the Member for Twillingate. When the last speaker, the Member for

Mount Scio -Bell Island, spoke and talked about the experience that the Minister

of Works, Services and Transportation had, and how he used the beacon, the

lighthouse, and how it was of some help to him, but that does not surprise me

because he has allowed the roads to deteriorate to such a condition that he has

no other choice but to use a boat now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: I ask the minister, did he pass by a

lighthouse in my district? He came into Kings Cove and he has some trouble with

his motor there and a couple of the boys went down and spent the whole evening

with him. I just want to tell this brief story. They spent the whole evening

with him and did not charge him anything. He got down and did not know how to

use the motor. Those are the people who are there today in pleasure crafts that

should never be out there. They are out there in those pleasure crafts, do not

know how to read a compass, do not know how to use the loran-C or the global

positioning system. If something goes wrong with their motor they do not know

how to fix it. They have to be either towed in or drift in to one of our

community waters around the area.

This is what happened to the minister. He happened to come

into my district. He came into Kings Cove, a very friendly district, and a

couple of the boys there being good samaritans, good fishermen, knew how to fix

motors, knew all about diesel motors, went down and took it over. They said to

the minister: you stay out of the way and we will fix your motor for you, and

they did. They did it and I am sure the minister was very happy, so I hope he

shows them the same courtesy now and gives them a little bit of money to repair

their roads so that they can go the other way, too, now that they come looking

for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand

here today and voice a few words in support of the resolution of the Member for

Twillingate. Bonavista South, being a marine district, we have two lighthouses,

one is at Kings Cove and that is controlled by a beacon, by a light and a horn

as well. There are no electricity services to it. There is a solar panel there

that attracts the light from the sun and that charges the batteries, and that

supplies the power to the foghorn and to the light when it is needed. That is at

King's Cove.

We also have another lighthouse which is pretty well known

around the world, at Cape Bonavista.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: No, it is not at Cape Spear, it is at

Cape Bonavista. Mr. Speaker, when the Member for Bonavista North was up speaking

he talked about people coming here and what they were attracted to. He is so

right. Because I think the lighthouse at Bonavista is probably the biggest

attraction in the whole area there. In fact, it is depicted on a lot of our

provincial stationery. It is an historic site, and a lot of people when they

come, that is what they want to see. They go out and they take the walkway down

around and they make it an outing. They spend most of the day there just looking

at the beautiful scenery and the services that this facility has offered in the

past. They have somebody there full-time giving them tours, a very knowledgeable

fellow, and I'm sure they go away with many thoughts. A lot off them return

again to look at the beautiful things that are offered there.

Some of those lighthouses I've seen from both sides. I've

seen them by going and looking at them from the land, and I've also seen them by

boat from the other side. I can assure you that there is nothing more consoling,

there is nothing that will give you more of a piece of mind, a better form of

contentment, than to know that somebody in that building, the only structure you

see, there is no better feeling than knowing that there is somebody there, there

is a set of human eyes looking out, protecting you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Someone watching (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Someone watching over you. I don't know

how much participation was brought forward by the government of the day when the

federal team went around the Province having a few hearings in a couple of local

places. I know they were down in my district. I made representation, Mr.

Speaker, and told them the importance as I saw it, and as was expressed to me by

many of my constituents, the importance of not going and taking away the human

element from those lighthouses, and having it being controlled by just foghorns

and lights.

I have also had an opportunity to go out and visit a

lighthouse in another district, the District of Trinity North, on an area known

say it has to be five or six miles, on this point of land just going right out

into the Atlantic. If you could only see the money that the federal government

has spent out there since it did away with the lighthouse keeper ther