December

10, 1997

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLIII No. 48

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (L. Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the House of Commons approved the

resolution to amend Term 17 by a majority vote.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: The majority vote, Mr. Speaker, as known now

to the public, was 212 to 53; 80 per cent of the members present and voting

supporting the resolution.

I am pleased to report to the House today that there was

substantive support from all political parties in Ottawa. This result, along

with the 73 per cent approval of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the

September 5 referendum and the unanimous endorsement of this Legislature,

clearly shows the way has been paved for a new single school system for the

children of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is just one hurdle to overcome to achieve

that goal, that is, Senate approval. Today, I call upon the Senate of Canada to

deal with this issue expeditiously, so that we can proceed with a new schools

Act in order to facilitate changes necessary to have the new school system in

place for September 1998, the next school year. The objective of this government

is to finalize the provincial legislation before the Christmas break, with the

co-operation of this Legislature, elect new school boards early in 1998, and

proceed with the organization of our new single school system.

Mr. Speaker, today, I call upon our colleagues in the

Official Opposition again to encourage their federal counterparts in the Senate

to complete the process without any further delay, as we will be encouraging our

counterparts.

It has been a long and difficult process over the last

several years, but I am now confident we can finally proceed with a new single

school system that will greatly benefit the children of Newfoundland and

Labrador. I call upon all of our people to put aside their differences and work

together for the benefit of our children, for they are truly the future of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Together, let us develop a system of education, one that we

can all be proud of and one that can be a model for the rest of Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for providing me with the Term 17 update

number 2. Mr. Speaker, we look forward to reviewing the proposed legislation and

dealing with this matter in an expeditious fashion. This is now important

legislation and I agree with the minister that it must be dealt with, with

haste. We look forward to the draft legislation, and we look forward to debating

the appropriate provisions of the legislation in due course.

I wish to remind the hon. the minister, though, that he

speaks of the Senate and, of course, all hon. members are reminded of the fact

that the majority in the Senate today, is made up of representatives of the

political party akin to the government opposite.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi. Does he have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi, by leave.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed, as a member of

a modern democracy of Canada, that the people of Newfoundland have passed a

referendum, that this elected House has made unanimous declaration passing the

constitutional change, that the elected House of Commons has passed this

resolution yesterday and that now, we have to go to the undemocratic, unelected

Senate, unaccountable Senate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - to see the will of the people implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed. It should be abolished and if they do not pass it

in the next twenty-four hours, I am sure this whole House will call for its

abolition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself

with everything that has no doubt been said by the Leader of the NDP and the

Minister of Education, and I assume, because I missed it, the members of the

Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before the House today, to

declare this, December 10, 1997, to be Human Rights Day in Newfoundland and

Labrador. When the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights forty-nine years ago, it marked a milestone, and here in Newfoundland and

Labrador today, through amending our own Human Rights Code, we mark a milestone

of our own.

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all

people must be treated equally before and under the law. But the Charter does

not govern the attitudes and actions of people, and the hurt and loss of

opportunity that can result when discrimination is practised by a

fellow-citizen. That is why we have legislation in the form of the Human Rights

Code, enforced and administered by the Human Rights Commission.

It is an important safeguard, but we cannot ignore issues as

they arise in our society. In fact, until yesterday there was an important area

in which the Human Rights Code of Newfoundland and Labrador was lacking. Until

an amendment was passed through the House of Assembly yesterday, sexual

orientation was not identified as a prohibited ground of discrimination under

the code. An entire segment of our population was without protection. Mr.

Speaker, why should gays and lesbians lose opportunities and be subjected to

discrimination when other minority groups are not in this society? How could we

in this Chamber let this situation continue?

Several years ago, Supreme Court Justice Leo Barry ruled

that, based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, sexual orientation must be

"read into" the code so that gays and lesbians could avail of its protection. We

could not leave this to the

interpretation of the courts, so we took in this

place the appropriate measures to include this important issue in legislation.

The amendment has now received third reading, and has passed

through the House of Assembly. The next step is Royal Assent.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to members of the House, and

through the House to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that I am proud to

be a member of this Legislature which has given unanimously its consent to this

important evolution in the human rights of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, today I have been made aware,

in the shadow of yesterdays, I think, progress and step forward, of another

issue in this Province which reminds us that we must remain vigilant when it

comes to human rights. There is, in a newspaper in this Province, in The

Aurora newspaper, a Robinson-Blackmore paper, two days ago, an editorial -

and I would ask if I could have a copy be given to members of the House - an

editorial called, "Then Give Em the Keys!" The editorial reminds us that we must

remain vigilant in the area of human rights. It was given to me and brought to

my attention by the members from Labrador, both the Labrador Coast and Labrador

West.

This is a main editorial in a newspaper in our Province, and

it is something we are not familiar with and something that we cannot allow to

pass unchallenged in particular on this day, Human Rights Day. Let me read a

couple of lines:

The day an aboriginal group agrees to take a dollar for

dollar reduction in government pay-outs will be the day gravity ceases to exist

and we will all float off into never, never land. The Europeans who settled this

country were arrogant, murdering pigs. They exterminated whole races solely

because our ancestors were too blinded by religion and conquest to understand

another race of people in their old age ways, but Canada and her people have

been paying for these sins long enough.

"Jail terms end, loans are paid-off, but it seems this

country will burn in the financial fires of eternal damnation if the aboriginals

have their way".

It goes on to say, `Yet if we are to give such natural

resource control to aboriginal groups, the federal government must retain

ultimate control, at least, from an environmental stand point'.

"Allowing them free rein of the forest and lands would be

akin to starving a grossly obese person for days and then letting them run loose

through a chocolate factory." There would be little left for the rest of us to

enjoy and the damage would be irreversible.

Mr. Speaker, this is a main editorial in a newspaper in this

Province. In a pejorative way it describes an entire valued segment of our

population in terms that are unacceptable in 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you on behalf of this House and I ask

the House to join me in sending a letter to Robinson-Blackmore - I am not

interested in who wrote the editorial, it is unsigned, but I am interested in

the House measuring it's disgust with the tone of this editorial, asking for an

apology and, Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the House joining me in expressing

to the aboriginal people of Newfoundland and Labrador, our solidarity when these

kind of racist comments are made about the character and quality of the people

who make up that community.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I join with the hon. Premier in recognizing today as a very

important day, namely, Human Rights Day, here in Newfoundland and Labrador and

we on this side of the House, as the Premier has indicated, we join with

government in making sure that this had unanimous approval. We celebrate with

all those individuals today who are proud of the fact that this House has seen

fit to add the words, sexual orientation, with respect to the amending of our

Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Legislation in this Province before the

amendment dealt with race, religion, creed, political opinion, colour or ethnic,

national or social origin, sex, martial status, physical disability and mental

disability, but today we can all stand proud to ensure that no person in this

Province will be discriminated against, not only on these issues but in addition

to that in response to the amendment namely sexual orientation.

So we join with those members of our society who take pride

in the fact that this amendment has now been given unanimous approval in this

House.

With respect, hon. Premier, to the

article to which you

referred, this is an example of extremism which all of us find abhorrent. There

is no doubt about that. That is why, as you say, we must always be vigilant to

ensure that discrimination of no kind is acceptable, and to ensure that we take

strides at all opportunities to protect the rights and privileges of all our

people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. the Member for Signal Hill -

Quidi Vidi have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to join with

the Premier and the Member for St. John's East in acknowledging Human Rights Day

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is appropriate that it is on

this day we are able to celebrate the recognition by this House at long last of

the need to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground in our Human

Rights Code.

I want to acknowledge the role of the Premier within Cabinet

in making that possible for the House to, at this point, adopt this particular

provision.

I also join with him and the Member for St. John's East in

condemning resoundingly The Aurora editorial which is racist in tone, and

remind him, I guess - I don't know if he was here - of my comments the other day

when I expressed my concern about the potential for a racist backlash in this

Province when we start talking about the development, particularly of Labrador,

and the need for agreement with the aboriginal people. It is something we must,

as leaders of this Province, be ever-vigilant that we do not do anything to

foment, and are unanimous in our condemnation thereof whenever it occurs. I

support what the Premier has said.

While we are on the topic of human rights, I would want to

make reference to

article 27 of the international covenant for the rights of the

child which recognizes the right of every child to a standard of living adequate

for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development, and

the obligation of states to provide for children in need -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - material assistance -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and support programs, particularly with

regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. HARRIS: As the Premier is off to Ottawa on the First

Ministers meeting on social policy -

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - I would hope that he would bring the

message of the international convention on the rights of the child to the other

leaders and premiers and try to encourage all of them to take an attack, a

national strategy to attack child poverty throughout this country and

particularly in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Premier. Our Province has seen

a reduction in transfers for health, post-secondary education and for social

services. We received $427 million in 1995-1996 and this year we are receiving

$272 million, a reduction of $155 million or 36 per cent, a decrease, I might

add, that was made by you and your colleagues when you were a federal minister.

Now the federal government anticipates a surplus in the next

fiscal year. The federal finance minister has given indications that half of

that anticipated surplus would go to address cuts that have already been made in

the system and the other half basically to go towards the deficit. Now, has the

government, I ask the Premier, provided any formal presentation to the federal

government outlining our Province's needs for restoration of the transfers that

Ottawa has cut?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of

the Opposition for his very good question. I think it is relevant, twenty-four

hours before the meeting of First Ministers in Ottawa that indeed the Leader of

the Opposition has raised the question of reductions in transfers from the

federal government to the Province.

It is a fact that the federal government is now in a surplus

position, and in assessing its priorities for future expenditures, must take a

look at health care. I indeed completely agree with the conclusion that the

Leader of the Opposition has drawn. The Minister of Health and her officials

will be joining me and the officials of the Intergovernmental Affairs

Secretariat in Ottawa to raise precisely this question.

I hope the Leader of the Opposition will acknowledge that

during the meeting of the Ministers of Finance, finance ministers from all

across Canada, including the Minister of Finance here, Mr. Dicks, gave a

message, a clear message and one that was consistent across Canada, to the

Minister of Finance for Canada, Paul Martin, that our priority in this Province

and indeed the priority across Canada, is to provide additional funds to

stabilize health care right across this country. I assure the Leader of the

Opposition, that will be the number one priority and the number one message that

I and the Minister of Health will bring to the First Ministers' meeting.

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

Opposition.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Premier is well aware, I have stood in this House day

after day on many occasions and talked about the deterioration in the quality of

our health care system, particularly in a country that brags about universal

access to health care. Now, of course, the problem has been money and the

Premier knows only too well the severe cuts I have referred to already that have

been made; and particularly, Minister, when you were there, the cuts were made.

They were increasing prior to that.

Now, I ask the Premier, would he table any particular

documentation that this government forwarded to Ottawa, even pleading, indeed

begging for some money to be put back into our system for health care transfers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would want to assure the

Leader of the Opposition that I think it is appropriate if I am going to a

meeting of First Ministers, attending a meeting with the other premiers, the

Prime Minister and territorial leaders that I ought to table first with them,

the government's position at that meeting before I table it publicly somewhere

else. But I have said, inside this House and I have said outside this House

that, indeed the two priority areas for the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador at this meeting are: Health Care, Medicare, restoring a level of

funding to stabilize the system; that is the first priority for the government,

Mr. Speaker.

The second area of priority is the whole question of student

debt. The debt loads now being carried by students all across Canada and in this

Province as well, this is an issue raised by the Member for Terra Nova, Mr.

Speaker, who cannot be here with us today. He has had a family emergency and is

away. I think all members in the House will join me in wishing him and his

family well in these difficult circumstances.

The Member for Terra Nova has raised this issue, we have

debated it here. It is also a priority for us; we want to ensure that some

remission programs are looked at by all levels of government and that the level

of student loan also be looked at, perhaps at the way in which it is delivered.

These are the two priority areas for Newfoundland and Labrador at the First

Ministers' Meeting.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have already referred to that. It is not only health

care; as the Premier indicated, too, there have been severe cuts in transfers

that have affected the levels of tuition that are putting undue strain on

students, in fact, forcing students out of the Province.

I say to the Premier, we have seen countless examples of

those cuts going on - we have seen cuts to EI, and when we are seeing a surplus

ballooning that could hit $20 billion next year, I think it is criminal, what is

happening there. In social assistance, we have seen it - we have seen it in

numerous areas being capped by costs arising to our Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Now, I ask the Premier, when he goes to the

First Ministers' Conference this week, will he go, I ask him, with hat in hand,

saying to his colleagues: When I was in Cabinet and sat with you in the Commons

and voted for those cuts, and when I voted `yes' for EI cuts, and yes, when I

voted `yes' to transfer cuts to health, post-secondary education and so on, will

you tell them I was wrong then, and will you, now, Premier, demonstrate humility

now to say to them for the benefit of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that you

were wrong

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

I ask the hon. member (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: - and that you now fight for it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with the shadow of Christmas

just in front of us, for a little while, just for a moment, a magic moment, I

imagined that the Leader of the Opposition was really up asking questions about

Medicare; I thought he was asking questions about the level of student loans and

debt in this country. I thought he was going to ask a third question about the

Rights of Children, as was raised by the Leader of the NDP, and the need to

provide proper programming, federally and provincially, and deal with children's

issues but, Mr. Speaker, I was wrong. This is just the opening salvo in the

leadership campaign.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier knows quite well, at the First Ministers'

Conference, I say to him, there are times for strutting and preening and

boasting and bragging - here is an opportunity, I say to the Premier, and I am

sure he will find time for attempting to brag about Hibernia when he is up

there, the oil, that the Tories are (inaudible) in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to

his question.

MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier: Will he also take time

to drill home to his counterparts, that growth projections are not going to put

food on the tables of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that growth projections

will do nothing to cancel the repealed TAGS Program that he committed for five

years, that growth projections will do nothing to curb the haemorrhaging of the

human life blood here in our Province, that we are in a crisis here in our

Province, just as Black Tickle, here in our Province, is in a crisis, and we

need something now, to tide us over until that better tomorrow comes; I ask the

Premier: will he do that when he goes to the First Ministers' Conference this

week?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I did not know better, it

would sound to me like the Leader of the Opposition has a real fear of growth.

You know, he is concerned that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador may see

some significant growth in a number of important areas - in the resource area,

where we have seen in one well at Hibernia, just one, a level of production of

42,000 barrels a day, with the choke on that well only opened up 70 per cent. If

it were 100 per cent open, we would go to 60,000 barrels a day.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell that this is causing the

consternation of the Leader of the Opposition, but I thought he was going to ask

me - because that is the job of the Opposition, to hold the government

accountable - about the story in today's Globe and Mail , where Inco said

that they might be re-examining the smelter/refinery complex for Argentia. I

thought he was going to stand up and demand that we hold Inco accountable. Mr.

Speaker, had he asked me that question, I would have said, if there is no

smelter/refinery complex, there is no mine!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: But, Mr. Speaker, he did not ask me that

question about jobs that affect ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

because it is another job he is concerned about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, a supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was tempted not to ask any more questions, but I have to

ask a simple question. He has encouraged me to stand up.

Will he confirm that he has brought the agreement signed on

the offshore by the former Liberal government - the agreement in 1991 -will be

confirm that of the first $1 billion worth of oil that comes out of the earth,

this Province will get $10 million in royalties, 1 per cent on oil in the first

eighteen months, and 2 per cent - double it - in the next eighteen months? Will

the Premier confirm we will get a measly $10 million out of $1 billion?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that my good

friend, the hon. John Crosbie, is going to take well the way in which the Leader

of the Opposition has described his contribution to the economic life of this

Province; that is, the Hibernia oil project. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that

the hon. John Crosbie is going to be an ex officio delegate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if he continues to attack ex

officio delegates like this, the Leader of the Opposition will have a book of

his own, but his will be called, `Where I Stood'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Labour.

In the community of Paradise River in Labrador, where there

is a population of about thirty people, there are approximately a dozen

forty-five gallon drums of oil, possibly PCBs, that have been left abandoned

near the community water supply. Almost half the population of Paradise River

uses this supply as drinking water. The minister's department is aware of the

situation. I ask the minister: Does his department have any plans to clean up

this potentially hazardous situation of leaking oil drums? Mr. Speaker, can the

minister tell us what he intends to do?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier this year we allocated some funds to clean up some of

the barrels in North West Point and in Hopedale, and recently we also allocated

another $200,000 to do more work on the assessment in the Labrador area. After

that is done, if further funds have to be expended there to do the job, then we

will do that as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister, considering half the people in Paradise River rely

on this particular water source as their only supply of drinking water, I ask

you: Do you intend, in the near future - as a matter of fact, immediately - to

conduct an environmental assessment of the soil and the water supply to ensure

that there are no health hazards or environmental damage?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, we have allocated extra money, an extra

$200,000, to do further assessment of these sites in Labrador, and we will do

that as expeditiously as possible to see what further work needs to be done, and

after that is done, allocate further money to remediate the sites and ensure

that public health is secured for all the people in the region.

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

John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, considering these drums have

been abandoned for almost fifteen years, I ask the minister: When can we expect

to see action on this particular site regarding environmental assessment of the

land and water supply? Minister, can you give us an exact date?

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

Labour.

MR LANGDON: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an exact date,

but we will do it as expeditiously as possibly.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a long-term energy plan,

government is trying to come to grips with how to supply energy for the Argentia

smelter and other pending energy needs that we have. As a result of this, the

government, through its minister, put out an open call inviting private hydro

developments, or NUGs they are called, non-utility generators, to harness our

small rivers to add to the Province's total energy supply.

In view of the fact the minister is not here today, I would

like to ask the acting minister, can he tell us to date how many proposals

government has received? Can he tell us, once such a utility is approved under

what pieces of legislation will the utility's operations and sales be governed?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall the exact

number. I think there were six or seven, or perhaps eight or nine, proposals. I

do not have an exact number with me. The Minister of Mines and Energy, as you

have noted, is not here today. I would undertake - because I know the member is

serious about this issue, it is a reasonable question, and it deserves a full

explanation - I will undertake to ensure the information is available to you as

soon as the Minister of Mines and Energy returns.

Indeed, this particular call, which was issued some time ago

by Hydro, has since been cancelled pending final determination by Inco of their

requirements: both the timing of requirements, and the full extent of power that

is required. Hydro and government will consult again and take whatever measures

are necessary to ensure that power is provided.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the important question there

is that once a non-utility generator comes into existence, under what Act does

it continue or will it be operated? That is the question that is still looming.

I would submit that the Public Utilities Act was put in place

for a purpose, to protect the consumer and the taxpayer. I would like to ask the

Premier, in view of his answering the question: It is obvious that through Bill

44, "An Act To Amend The Public Utilities Act" - and I will ask him to confirm

this - that it is government's intention this Fall to broaden the exemption of

the Act to cover any public utility that generates electricity and sells it to a

regulated utility like Hydro.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) privatization (inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The second question I would like to ask

him, in confirming that, is: Could he inform the House which of the many

developers does government want to exempt, and to which of the companies will

the Act continue to apply?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to the

attention of the House that the bill in question is not a very complex document.

It is rather straightforward. The Leader of the Opposition, during the course of

the Member for Kilbride's question, was saying loud enough for many in the House

to hear: Privatization, privatization, they are getting ready for privatization.

This was the

interpretation being put -

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question!

PREMIER TOBIN: I am trying hard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: This was the

interpretation being put on

the question -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this was the

interpretation

being put by the Leader of the Opposition, on the question being raised by the

Member for Kilbride.

I want to assure the Member for Kilbride that this

Administration and this government have no intention whatsoever to privatize

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro - none.

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

Kilbride.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the

Premier is: In view of the fact that the act will be broadened for exemption,

what companies, if any, does government have in mind to exempt from the act?

Because there has to be a reason for this piece of legislation coming into

effect or being brought before us. What companies will continue to be applicable

to the act? I have not received any answer yet.

I would like to say to the Premier that there are at least

eighteen private proposals being brought before government, and I will, at some

point in the debate on this bill, outline those. I would like to ask the Premier

this question, Mr. Speaker, and the other point in reference to what the Premier

said in terms of it is not a complex piece of legislation. It may not, but the

impact of it may be long lasting on the people of the Province, I say to the

Premier.

The question then is this, Mr. Speaker, that before the

Premier or government embarked on drafting Bill No. 44, did the government do

any analysis -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Did the government do any analysis of the

impact on Hydro, on tax payers and on consumers of opening up the market to

private generators of electricity and exempting - the act is clear - and

exempting companies from regulation, which is open to

interpretation, I believe

that that is what is going to take place - exempting companies under the

regulation of the Public Utilities Act, no matter how large they may be, if not,

why not

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: - and if so, could he prove it by tabling

what analysis they did?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking

questions which deserve some response and I would suggest to the member that the

Minister of Mines and Energy will be back in the House shortly, while this

matter is being debated and will provide a full dialogue on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is no master plan to specifically list or

delineate a list of companies who will be exempted. There is no such thing. Mr.

Speaker, this gives flexibility under the current act. It allows for the

generation of electricity and sales through a regulated utility, the regulated

utility is Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and for the member, quite honestly,

to try and see a conspiracy in this or to see some master plot or plan in this,

Mr. Speaker, is not worthy of the member. I assure him there is no such plot or

plan.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues raised in the last period of

time, in which in

part is answered by this amendment, is the position of the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador which we have given to Inco, that if

Inco is going to provide power themselves, - there own source power - for their

facility at Argentia, by the way Inco or whomever develops this facility because

I am surprised that members of the Opposition have let slide this question of

whether or not Inco is going to provide a full smelter-refinery-complex for

Argentia. We have not let it slide. What we are saying however, Mr. Speaker, the

energy is provided and it could be by Inco itself on site, this act would

facilitate the sale of that energy, if there is surplus energy, to Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to draw the hon. Member for Kilbride's attention to

the question that he is now raising. His questions ought not to anticipate

Orders of the Day and clearly the bill that he is referring to is now on the

Order Paper for second reading. So, I ask the hon. member if he has questions on

that to keep them until we get into the debate in second reading.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: My questions today again are for the

Minister of Justice.

Has the minister had an opportunity to review his answers

from yesterday and does he now realize that the Inkpen report was indeed

commissioned after the tragedy at Whitbourne?

I do not fault the minister for his

interpretation yesterday,

he was probably unable to see the date on the report, a lot of dust builds up in

nineteen months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: And it is to this report that I would

again like to focus my questions.

Have the young offenders charts at Whitbourne been

computerized permitting the sharing of information about young people so staff

will be aware of any circumstances that may place the young people at risk, for

example, at risk of suicide.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday after I left the

House, I was attacked by a reporter from The Evening Telegram who said:

Look, the hon. member is right, the Inkpen report was not commissioned until

October 26, 1995.

Now, I was absolutely certain that government had dealt with

that issue long before October 26, 1995. So, I went back and I learned that my

memory was not totally gone. In May of 1995, before there was a suicide out in

that position, Social Services had proposed to government and had gotten

authority from government to review the overall custody functioning of the youth

centre and that Social Services was going to engage Dr. Inkpen to do the report,

that's what it was. Now before Social Services, who had the authority to engage

a consultant, before Social Services got the time - before they had time to do

it, then we had a suicide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: I don't find suicide that funny, Mr. Speaker.

I don't find suicide funny at all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't find suicide a laughing

matter. Now before Dr. Inkpen was engaged, before we had time to engage her,

there was a suicide. The minister of the day decided that she would wait until

after the police investigation had begun - remember now there was a suicide.

There was a police investigation and subsequently there was a judicial inquiry.

So after the police investigation and the judicial inquiry was finished then the

minister went back, picked up where she left off, she already had approval and

on October 26, 1995, Dr. Inkpen was indeed engaged, Mr. Speaker. So the hon.

member was partially right, not totally right but -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DECKER: - she could not be expected to be totally

right because there was knowledge that I had that there was no way under the sun

that she could have (inaudible).

Now as for the remark about - the hon. member seems to think

- this is the second part of her question, Mr. Speaker, about the report not

being acted upon. The hon. member insinuates that there was dust on the report.

I can tell her that there was no dust on the report. By the time we made the

report public, Mr. Speaker, we had implemented something like 80 per cent of the

recommendations, Mr. Speaker. We had changed the whole management system out

there, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly,

please.

MR. DECKER: We had corrected a problem with

communication, Mr. Speaker, where the various people who were in charge of

looking after the residents were not communicating -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. DECKER: - all these things were done so that the

report did not collect any dust, Mr. Speaker, no dust.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, were the

charts computerized? If they are not, what are you doing in the meantime to heed

the warning that Dr. Inkpen gave the government about streamlining the flow of

critical information?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the whole problem was with

communication. Remember now there are, I think, a maximum of sixty young people

in that facility at some times. What Dr. Inkpen found was that the person who

was teaching the children in the school for example, had no communication with

the child - the work out there or the people who were doing security work. They

were all sort of operating in isolation from each other. So Dr. Inkpen pointed

it out as a problem and she suggested that one way to do that would be to

computerize the charts or whatever. We have gone further than that, Mr. Speaker.

When a person is admitted to that facility now - he or she - there is an

assessment done on that person. Every single person who in any way comes in

contact with that child is required to have certain knowledge and is shared at

that level. There is continuous sharing, Mr. Speaker, back and forth. Now are

the charts computerized? I don't even know for sure if they are computerized. I

will get that answer for the hon. member shortly but I can assure her that the

intent of Dr. Inkpen was that the children would not be compartmentalized but

that all the knowledge, all the information about the child -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to finish his answer quickly.

MR. DECKER: - barring the child's human rights of course,

you can't give the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Okay, this question is regarding

recommendation No. 56. When is the government going to do what is needed to

ensure its correction system stops trapping our young people into a life of

crime and desperation with a revolving door that cycles them endlessly between

the streets and prisons? Or, after twenty months, are you still doing some

reconfiguration of staff responsibilities as well as the implementation of

partnerships with government agencies and organizations?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely, totally

disgraceful, and it shows a misunderstanding of the institution at Whitbourne.

The Youth Centre in Whitbourne is second to none in this country. The stress at

that institution is on rehabilitation. I would challenge the hon. member to

visit the institution and get her eyes opened. I did it. I would encourage any

member to go out and visit. We have had people down from the mainland go out and

visit that institution and have gone back and attempted to copy it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker!

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the member is supposed to

answer the question that is asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: In this particular case it was about

recommendation number fifty-six. What are you doing about it? Get to the point,

Mr. Speaker, as required by the (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is no point of order.

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer quickly.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there were insinuations made in

that question which have to be addressed. We have an institution that we are

proud of. If hon. members are going to abuse this question period by making

insinuations that I cannot reply to, then I will keep standing, I will not sit

down. Because it is the top institution in this Province, in this country, and

we are proud of it, and hon. members don't know what they are talking about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Transportation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present the report of Public Tender Act

exemptions for the month of October, fully five months in advance of the

required statutory date.

Notices of Motion

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

Provincial Affairs.

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

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

Municipalities Act". (Bill No. 55).

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

MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to read into the record a Private Members

Resolution to move the following:

WHEREAS current legislation and practice permit the

provincial government to remove individuals from their homes based on concerns

about either their mental health or their physical health; and

WHEREAS any municipality in the Province can issue a closure

order on a property based on the condition of that property; and

WHEREAS these considerable powers of state against

individuals must be exercised with great restraint respecting the rights and

freedoms of individuals in our society; and

WHEREAS questions have been raised in recent months about the

way in which these powers have been exercised and regarding the safeguards in

place to ensure individuals so removed from their homes are provided on an

emergency basis with adequate, alternate accommodations

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this hon. House urge the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to review, with the goal of improving

the legislation and practices of the provincial government regarding the closure

orders on homes and the removal from those homes of individuals on the basis of

mental or physical health concerns.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House urge the government to

make appropriate changes so that individuals targeted by such a process are as

follows: Given prior information detailing the ground on which the government is

assessing them under the Neglected Adults Welfare Act or the Mental Health Act;

Given the right to appeal such a decision in a timely matter; Given suitable

emergency alternate accommodations while it is determined whether it is more

viable for the Province to repair the structure or rather, provide permanent,

long-term accommodations from Newfoundland and Labrador Housing or some other

public office, if it is more viable to make alterations rather than provide

long-term care; Given assurances that the appropriate action will be taken as

soon and as effectively as possible for both individuals affected and the

government; and otherwise, if it is more viable to provide long-term

accommodations or care to the individual based on an assessment of the

individual's medical or other needs; Given assurances that the transition will

be done as smoothly as possible in recognition of the human factor of any

decisions to displace people from their traditional place of residence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. A. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely sure of

this, but I believe the hon. Member for Waterford Valley asked me a question

some time ago to which I have provided him only half an answer, and one of the

questions that he asked me had to do with the selling -

MR. FITZGERALD: (Inaudible) the wrong information so he

settled for half of it (inaudible).

MR. A. REID: Boy, you are lucky to get half, I would say.

I want to inform the hon. member and members in the House

that Linden Court and Pinebud Avenue apartments and Allandale Place, properties

now, bids have been received from Maritime Realty Limited, owned and operated by

Des and Brendan Sullivan, in the amount of $2.2438 million.

The Pinebud, Allandale properties were offered in seven

blocks with a total of the high bid of $1.921 compared with the market appraisal

of $1.5. The high bids were submitted by a Mr. Gerald Allen, two blocks, 10278

Newfoundland Incorporated, Con Sullivan one block, and NEWCO Investments, Gladys

Marche four blocks, and, Mr. Speaker, as most of you would know in the House as

well.

The final part of the answer is, Maritime Realty Limited were

also the successful bidder of Elizabeth Towers, and Maritime Realty Limited is

owned as well by Des and Brendan Sullivan.

This leaves 138 units at Pleasantville, inclusive of ten

units that we have not sold in Arnold's Loop to be sold, and we are expecting

before the year's end to maybe be in a position to advertise the sale of these

particular properties.

Thank you.

Petitions

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

MS S. OSBORNE: To the hon. House of Assembly in

legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned student-parents of

Newfoundland:

WHEREAS the Department of Human Resources and Employment

fostered an atmosphere of confusion by failing to provide clients in

post-secondary institutions with timely information regarding the changes to

policy concerning the issue of shelter component of the student loan; and

WHEREAS clients, based on inaccurate information, went on to

spend this money on essential items such as food and day care costs, thereby

rendering them unable to repay the shelter component; and

WHEREAS, in response to this confusion, the Department of

Human Resources and Employment went on to claw back this money at such a rate as

to leave people unable to pay for food, rent, heat, light, and other items

essential to life;

The prayer of our petition is that the Department of Human

Resources and Employment change its policy regarding this area and allow the

student-parents involved to be able to pay back this money over a more

reasonable period of time.

This grinch-like policy has stolen the spirit of Christmas

for many student-parents and their innocent children across the Province, as in

duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: This petition today from student-parents

who find themselves in horrendous situations is not unlike the students who

asked me to present a petition yesterday. Once again we are dealing with parents

of young children who have no money not only for Christmas but for winter

necessities such as boots, snowsuits, and mittens for children and, as well,

have no money for food. Once again, I would like to cite some examples.

Number one, married parents with one child: instead of

receiving $242 every two weeks, they are receiving $174. This amount is to cover

winter clothing for three people, utilities and groceries.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: They have been informed that the

department is being `easy' on them until after Christmas, at which time another

$55 will be taken from their cheque until March 15. What a dismal winter this

family has to look forward to.

Number two is a married couple with the father being the

student. They have one child and are receiving $162 twice monthly as opposed to

$241 they normally received. This represents a loss of $158 a month for a family

already living below the poverty line before the claw-back. They will not be

reinstated to their regular amount until February. Incidentally, this student

was told in the beginning that his claw-back amount was $880; however, then it

was raised to $1,100.

Number three is a single mother with one three-year-old

child. Her regular amount twice monthly was $360. She is now cut to $123 twice

monthly, for a total of $246. The problem here is that her rent is $263, leaving

her a deficit every month of $17. Her only other income is $100 family allowance

and an occasional part-time job which gives her about $80 a month.

This other one is a classic. A student called me this

morning. She returned to school in September, at which time she received a

student loan to last her for a sixteen-week course prior to Christmas and her

ten-week work term after Christmas. She immediately went to Human Resources and

tried to return $880 for the sixteen weeks and $550 for the ten-week portion.

They told her she only owed $880. She insisted they take the additional $550.

They refused. She then went on and spent the money to pay bills, et cetera. She

received a call from a department official a few days ago, `Pay the $550 or have

your social assistance cut off.'

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in reply to a similar petition, the

minister strongly encouraged members, when they are aware of individual

situations where people are in extreme hardship, that they make those cases

known to the department. I would like it recorded here and now that each of the

cases mentioned yesterday and again today have been referred to the department -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS S. OSBORNE: - and that my office has been working

tirelessly for a solution.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member -

MS S. OSBORNE: To date there has been nothing forthcoming

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

MS S. OSBORNE: By leave. Thank you.

To date there has been nothing forthcoming from the

department.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take her seat.

It is now Wednesday 3:00 p.m. and it is Private Members Day,

so I would assume that we will move to the Private Members Resolution now. I do

not know who is on the Order Paper for today.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, before we move to that, I

consulted with the Opposition House Leader on motion no. 3 and I think I am

going to get leave to move first reading of motion no. 3 before we move to

Orders of the Day. I think we have leave for that.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, confirming that we have

an agreement with the Government House Leader to do first reading today and it

is premised in the dialogue that I have had with him that the debate would not

begin probably until Monday, when we have had sufficient time to review it.

MR. SPEAKER: We now have leave to call motion no. 3,

first reading.

Motion, the Hon. the Minister of Education to introduce a

Bill entitled, "An Act To Revise The Law Respecting The Operation Of Schools In

The Province," carried. (Bill No. 41).

On motion, Bill No. 41 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present the resolution which I presented to

the House a week or so ago. I just want to read it into the record, Mr. Speaker,

for those who are listening, that are not here in the House today.

WHEREAS many people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador rely

on air travel; and

WHEREAS airline fares are exorbitant and continuing to rise

dramatically driving air travel out of reach to the ordinary citizen. High

It creates another financial challenge for post-secondary students and has a

direct negative impact on tourism growth potential;

The resolution goes on to say, Mr. Speaker:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House recommend that

of the airline industry with particular focus on large geographic, sparsely

population region of our country, such as Newfoundland and Labrador and

recommend public policy that seeks to reduce the financial burden being placed

on our flying public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the cost of air travel has risen, I

believe, dramatically. In fact, an airline ticket to Wabush return to St.

John's, costs if you are not fortunate enough to receive a seat sale, it costs

you $1,335.15.

MR. J. BYRNE: How much?

MR. CANNING: Thirteen hundred and thirty-five dollars and

fifteen cents.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, a family of four could pay up to, not

withstanding any seat sales that they maybe able to get, may pay up to $5,340.60

to travel from Wabush to St. John's, return.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are seat sales and we know there are

seat sales, there are different strategies, different marketing strategies

depending on what time of the year it is by the airline industry, but you cannot

depend on those kinds of things, you can only depend on the counter price, you

hope to negotiate some kind of a seat sale agreement for the flying public when

they go up to the cash register. Well, Mr. Speaker, if they do not get one, that

is what they pay.

The reality is that the airline industry is important to my

riding and it is important to this Province. Our connection from Labrador West

to the rest of the Province is primarily through air travel. Yes, we are

building a Trans Labrador Highway and all that good stuff, but the reality is,

today if someone needs to travel to the Island portion of our Province to visit

family or friends, to go and get a check-up at the hospital, primarily they are

going to use air travel. Our students use air travel primarily back and forth to

Memorial University.

Mr. Speaker, we all the time hear about seat sales and the

value of seat sales to the travelling public, but I want to pay particular

notice to seat sales as it applies to students in university. I had heard about

one particular airline that serves my district that was going to have seat sales

during December and perhaps into January. I had written that airline and said:

For the benefit of students, could you allow students to take advantage of those

seat sale tickets for the Christmas season? They blacked out that Christmas

season, saying that students can go on student stand-by.

Anybody knows, if you are travelling to Wabush you can't

depend on student stand-by. You may never get home for Christmas. So any

student, any parent wanting those students to come home, has to pay whatever

price the market is charging to ensure that the student gets home to enjoy

Christmas with family and friends in their home town, in Wabush or Labrador

City.

They rejected my request to allow students to engage this

particular seat sale through the Christmas sale. I wasn't asking it for

everybody. I was asking it for student travel, which is very important. The cost

of post-secondary education is extensive enough now that adding this extra

burden to them is indeed a very troubling circumstance.

I recognize too that the cost of air travel is not all driven

by the airline industry. It is a function, I believe, of deregulation. My view

is that when they decided to have deregulation of the airline industry it

probably met well the needs of the high-volume corridors between, say, Montreal

and Toronto, or Toronto and Vancouver. It probably did that very well, because

it allowed competition to move in and push prices downward. In the north

particularly, in my riding, it seems to me that deregulation has not worked the

way it was intended to.

The reality also is that Transport Canada has been charging

higher fees to airport users. It has in fact - and there are published reports

about the kinds of revenues that it is earning from the airline industry, which

is passed on to the customer, to the flying public, and this continues. The fact

is also that Transport Canada is passing along airports to local commissions in

local communities. We don't know what impact that will have on the flying

public. The flying public I represent see a higher price; more pay out for less

service.

I want to say something. The airlines that serve Labrador

West, particularly Air Labrador and Air Nova, do a good job with the type of

aircraft they have. I would suggest the loss of jet service to Wabush has been a

significant loss to the people I serve, and I would like to see a jet put back

on that route. The reality is too that people who fly to Labrador West to engage

in the caribou hunt, for instance, pay fairly hefty prices to get there. We need

to ensure a public strategy, a public policy, in this country that provides for

competition, but it also provides a standard whereby airlines are able to offer

effective, sound, good prices to their customers. Currently the airline industry

that I see charges an awful lot. Perhaps it will argue that it has to because of

the costs of the industry in and of itself. That is a good argument.

What I would ask - and I hope that members of the House agree

review this whole public policy for the airline industry in Canada, and review

it in a way that seeks to reduce cost. Because we have tried deregulation for

quite a while. Deregulation is in and of itself a good, sound policy. We may

need to make adjustments to ensure that people who live in northern Canada or

live in Newfoundland and Labrador, or provinces where you have a huge geography,

sparsely populated, we may have to change policy here and there to ensure that

airlines can operate in a safe and efficient manner and charge the least amount

for their tickets to the travelling public. This is a very important issue to

the people of Labrador West. This is a very important issue to the people of

this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CANNING: I couldn't hear the Government House Leader.

Perhaps he would like to make some comments when he stands and gives us his

great speech, Mr. Speaker. I'm told that he is a star pupil and a star graduate

from Dale Carnegie, and I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from other members of this

hon. House as to how and what the implications are of what I think are very high

travel costs in this Province and how we can work together to design a public

policy that seeks to ask the support of the House of Commons to look at

designing new policy that tries, to the extent they can, to reduce the cost to

the travelling public. So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this debate and I

would ask again, all members, to support this very worthwhile resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to make a few comments here on the resolution

submitted by the Member for Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, travel costs in Labrador are high. I can allude

to it, I took a trip down there at $1,372. Maybe I got overcharged but I had to

stop over at Goose Bay and it is expensive, very expensive. In fact, there is a

history to that. It was back in 1970, hon. Earl W. Winsor, a Liberal, made an

announcement in the House here that Eastern Provincial at the time, were giving

100 per cent fare for the head of a family; first dependent, 75 per cent;

children 12 - 21, 50 per cent; 2 - 11, one-third of the fare and children under

2, free. This was right back in 1970 and of course hon. Hank Murphy was Minister

of Labrador Affairs and announced back in 1972 that there was going to be an

extension of the benefits to residents of coastal Labrador which we feel we

should have been included when the air service was inaugurated earlier. That was

back at that point.

We all knew then that, with the change of government in 1989

and in 1990, the former Liberal government here, under Premier Wells, eliminated

that. The former member who represented Labrador West as well had a statement to

that affect, I say to the current member, as the result of changes. Even for

sports trips there were numerous changes. That is who did you in, your own party

you are sitting with now are the ones who did you in.

The Premier lived in Labrador - and now you are looking to

somebody else. The documents are here for proof. All the documentation goes back

for twenty-seven years of history here. It is all here. Now he is up there

jumping up and down and wondering - but I support making Labrador accessible.

You can travel to Florida, spend two days there and come back and spend less

money than just the air fare to Labrador.

MR. FITZGERALD: It was Clyde Wells who chopped the

subsidies.

MR. SULLIVAN: My colleague here from Signal Hill - Quidi

Vidi said he went to Vancouver and back cheaper, a couple of hundred dollars

cheaper. It is an exorbitant rate, I must say, it is high. When we get into

areas where the competition is not there you pay through the nose to go off the

main track and you fly here to Toronto cheap. The people in Labrador are

incurring high costs of transportation and high costs also of other goods that

have to be shipped in there because of the distance. That is why I have been a

strong believer in the Trans Labrador Highway as a strong priority to it - now

it would help. It is not going to solve all the problems of getting there but it

people from the island portion of the Province, as well as people from Labrador

to take a vehicle down and visit. Many of them have families here on the island.

Most of them have families and relatives here on the island portion of the

Province. That is why I did not think the Premier should have sold us short and

didn't get any money to do a strip of highway between Goose Bay and Cartwright.

There is no money in the pot.

The Premier was quoted on April 3 - I have the news

clippings. I have his statement, his quotes of what he stated. One hundred and

ninety million to do from Labrador West to Goose Bay so we can open it up to

Quebec businesses and support Quebec businesses at the expense of Newfoundland

businesses and that's fine to do that. The people need it from Labrador West to

be able to drive back and forth to Happy Valley - Goose Bay. It is needed -

especially, all the more important today with the development down in Northern

Labrador with the mining discoveries there and the other potential discoveries

that we are hearing about in the news from day to day but to leave a gap worth

hundreds of millions, to sell us short and throw away the last bit of leverage

he has to negotiate and have a

section not completed is driving up the cost even

further because when there is a road access, when there are alternatives to get

from Goose Bay to Labrador West, that is when the rates will have to come down

to be competitive or people will not use it. They will use their ground

transportation in the process.

Of course we support it. Of course we endorse it there. I

think the resolution's specific wording here states, "...recommend that

review..." Yes, and I would add: And the appropriate agents of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador take appropriate action. Pass it off on your federal

cousins. Take your share of the responsibility in this Province here. Take your

share.

The federal government did not come far enough on roads. They

should contribute more, I agree, but also there is a strong priority here to

complete that link in Labrador. You should be calling upon your counterparts and

questioning why the Premier had to sell us out on this process, and why he took

$150 million to $200 million too short, not enough, fell short to complete the

job, and he took over responsibility for a ferry service with ferries that are

not adapted to the type of service we are getting. The boats are not designed to

provide the service that is needed on those runs. In fact, some of them are

monstrosities completely unrelated to moving the traffic and freight and so on

in the volumes that are... Some of them are not designed for that purpose. We

could have a white elephant out there now, and the costs of operating these are

expensive.

We needed more money to relieve the federal government of a

responsibility it has to the people in the northern parts of this Province. It

was relieved of them in the South Coast of the Province, and White Bay, I think,

came with the South Coast one at the time. Now here we are moving out of there,

moving the ferry service back on the shoulders of this Province, and the

Province has a huge responsibility, I might add.

Just the subsidy alone on that ferry service that this

Province will pay to Marine Atlantic this year for carrying that over from the

time they took it over for this operation is a $12 million subsidy, and the

costs are much, much higher when you factor in the revenue that they obtained

from that operation.

That is a major operation there, a major responsibility, and

it is good to see a separate Labrador transportation initiative go into that pot

if we are going to take away the ferry service there. We are going to reduce it,

and hopefully eliminate it if we could. We need that pot of money to be

designated for Labrador. It is the right approach on it, but we also have to

address responsibilities, I say to the member, with his own government here, not

just deflect it. This government has a role and responsibility to people in

live up to that full responsibility when we signed the agreement back, I think,

on April 3 of this year. On April 3 of this year we signed an agreement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure they didn't sign it on April

MR. SULLIVAN: No, it was on my birthday, April 3. That is

why they signed it then, April 3. It is too bad we fell a couple of hundred

million dollars short. I am sure that bothers the Member for Labrador West now.

Certainly he should be pressing... The questions he should be asking are,

granted, to the federal government too, but he should be asking his very own

Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No. You didn't do math in school, I say to

the member? Ninety-eight minus forty-nine is forty-nine, okay?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is the new math (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The new math, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I know. I keep looking younger every

month.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, I don't. No, I did when I was ten and I

had to keep doing it. I would say the Member for Bellevue does.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you. Now I will get back to the legal

beagle.

I will not move an amendment. I don't think we will move an

amendment to call upon the provincial government to... I won't beat around the

bush with that, but I will say to the Member for Labrador West that he should

press on his own government, his own Premier, and the minister representing

Labrador, the job that he aspires to hold some time in the future, the job at

which he is working very hard trying to impress the Premier. He didn't do too

well. In a few areas he got in his bad books, but he is trying. You can't blame

him for trying. The new members for Labrador try. The former Member for Eagle

River tried too hard. He got too close to the Premier. He alienated the people

in his district. I see the same thing happening now. The Member for Labrador

West is tripping over the coat tail of the Premier, stepping on his toes. When

he backs up, the Premier has to say, `Excuse me'. When he turns to the right, he

bumps in and says, `Excuse me'. You have to keep your distance, I say. When he

puts out his hand, be there to put something in it, yes, but don't get in his

way because it will never get you into Cabinet. There is nothing worse than

trying too hard. Only one thing worse than trying too hard is not trying at all.

That is the only thing that is worse, I will say to the Member for Labrador

West. You have to keep that in mind.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Well boy, who was it said that?

Shakespeare? Is that Shakespeare? Familiarity breeds contempt. Who said that?

Milton, was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation. Did you hear what the former Member for Placentia said to the

Member for Eagle River his first time up in the House? Nick Careen, the Member

for Placentia, stood his first time. Usually you get the courtesy your first

time up to be able to finish what you are saying. The Member for Eagle River who

sat for three years when I was in here in the same seat in the back, all the way

back for three years, his biggest regret was getting into that parliamentary

assistant to the Premier job.

He interrupted the Member for Placentia in his first speech.

The Member for Placentia stopped and he said: I hear the Member for Eagle River

got his toes chopped off so he could stand closer to the backside of the

Premier. He didn't interrupt him for a while after. He didn't interrupt him for

some time after. If you could depend on a member to come up with a quote, the

former Member for Placentia, he had all of them, I tell you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Placentia was given his

first opportunity to get on his feet in the House. The Member for Eagle River,

the guy who got too close to the Premier - we saw the results after -

interrupted him in the middle of his speech. Here was his first time, and we

didn't know how Nick was going to react. He just stopped and said: I hear the

Member for Eagle River got his toes chopped off so he could stand closer to the

backside of the Premier.

That set him back. `Danny the Lip' then went into - his

illness, verbal overflow of usage of words, went into remission then for about a

month until he had the nerve again. He always came up with one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, he was sharp as a bowling ball, he

said on another occasion. Yes, that is another one. He also had a good account

of that man, Mr. Lloyd. Mr. Lloyd had a son, he was called Clyde, so he said

Clyde Lloyd was his son. He entertained the House one day with that for a few

minutes.

Anyway, we will get back to the issue here. I agree with the

efforts of the resolution. It would be nice to have the provincial government

added in but you wouldn't be allowed to do that, and we wouldn't carry an

amendment to that effect. We wouldn't want to do that. I would ask: Where were

you a year ago in November when I stood here in the House and said to the

Premier and the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation at the time, who

is now the Minister of Human Resources and Employment: Don't sell us out on a

pile of money on the Labrador service? That isn't enough to do the job.

It was estimated $1 billion of paved road. They stood here on

November 19 last year and said a paved road in Labrador in ten years. Now they

are going to get a gravel road that leaves half of Labrador out. We are going to

isolate it in the middle so that you can't even get across it. That is a far

cry.

There was a reason for that, I say to the Member for Labrador

West. That is a week before they announced the smelter-refinery going to

Argentia. First we had a gravel, then we had a paved highway. We had

announcements on a - there was (inaudible) Lab West. We had announcement after

announcement. You see the paper and ministerial statements this year. Last year

for that week leading up to the smelter and refinery we got bowled over with

announcements on Labrador. Three ministers in a row one day in the House stood,

I think it was November 19 if anyone wanted to check it, and gave the good news

to the people, to sort of cushion them for the blow that was to follow when they

were told the smelter and refinery would be going there.

Get with it. Get to your own colleagues. Get them pushing

your own Premier who tells us he has influence federally when he wants to tell

us that, and who has none when we are looking for things. When we are looking

for extra jobs for the Province, when we are looking for income for employment,

EI, he has nothing to do with it. When we are seeing $20 billion building up

(inaudible) find he has nothing to do with that. Job cuts, unemployment, he has

nothing to do with that. He has nothing to do with the cuts to health care and

post-secondary education.

When there is something up there to jump up on that federal

scene, he is so closely associated, well, then, you would not know but he made

the Prime Minister do it. And then, he stayed so far away from issues that are

crucifying people here in our Province, the ordinary, working man and woman in

this Province and the people who are depending on vital services.

So, get up there, go after the Federal Government, I agree

with it, but go after your own government too, do not let them off the hook. Do

like the Member for Torngat Mountains, see what he did. He has schools being

built down there everywhere. There is a school everywhere you turn. That is what

I call an effective member. If you have to catch the Premier by the throat now

and then to get it done, I suppose it needs to be done. So I say, the Member for

Lab West, if he had the conviction and clout of the Member for Torngat

Mountains, they would be a lot happier down there in Labrador West than they are

in Torngat Mountains, I can assure you.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have no pluck at all.

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and all those applauding over there,

they know I am right, they are all agreeing with me. The Member for Labrador

West aspires to be the minister. Well, as long as the member from down in the

Happy Valley - Goose Bay, area is there, we can forget about the Member for

Labrador West. And by the way, the Member for Labrador West will be taken care

of the next time, just like the Member for Eagle River.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture

and Recreation.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, in response to the motion for

today, I would like to make a few comments from the tourism perspective. I think

that this is an extremely important discussion that we are having here today if

the tourism industry in this Province is, in fact, going to thrive.

We have seen this year that we have reached our targets; we

had more than 20 per cent increase in tourism numbers and we want those numbers

to grow even more. Twenty per cent in our Province is approximately 60,000. We

would like to have hundreds of thousands of extra tourists coming in here but,

of course, in order for us to have hundreds of thousands of tourists visit our

Province; it will mean we need lower airfares. Lower airfares and stable or

lower ferry rates are going to be extremely important in this Province.

We rely on air travel in this Province like no other

province. Prince Edward Island now has a fixed link. It will become more and

more important, if we are to be competitive in the tourism marketplace, that we

have reasonable air fares, and it is very important to Newfoundland from several

perspectives. Part of our Province is an Island, as I have just pointed out, and

it will be important. We only have two ways to get here: by boat or by plane.

Labrador does not yet have adequate road connections. We hope, in the next

decade, they will but, in the meantime, I think air travel in Labrador will

continue to be a challenge for all of us, and in particular, the pricing.

Of course, our large geographic area certainly is a factor

here. We have a very big Province; we have good road connections but we have

many, many communities. It is going to be really important for us to be able to

have adequate air transportation to continue amongst the airports and between

the provinces of Canada. We have low volumes in this Province because of the

fact that we still have a low population, so already the airlines have been

challenged and have in some ways dealt with this problem. They now travel with

planes that are suited to the size of the travelling public; but from a tourism

perspective, our hospitality industry we have proven this year, can compete and

does compete, but it is once the tourist arrives in our Province; the getting

here is still the big challenge. And we have proven in our hospitality industry,

we are known - especially after this year - that the prices of our

accommodations, the prices of food in our restaurants, of all of our services,

are very competitive both within Canada and internationally. Our big problem,

and it was clearly identified this year, is with the pricing factor in

particular for our airlines and for our ferry services.

We know and we have heard from many people in the British

Isles and especially as it relates to the importance of our Cabot 500

celebrations this year, that many more people, tourists, would have come from

the British Isles, if we had in fact, had lower air fares available.

The Leader of the Opposition says that he supports a decrease

in air fare to Labrador and I, too, support that, but it will be important that

we need decreases in airline fares all over the Province - into the Province and

within the Province. It is extremely vital to the future of tourism in our

Province.

It is very interesting that I have just received a document

this week from the Tourism Industry Association of Canada and it is entitled,

`Air Travel Must Be Competitive If Tourism Is To Fly' and I think that all

of us recognize that, but now it is time for us to try, as a Province, and to

partner with other provinces to make sure that we have the appropriate

regulation within our country for this to happen. The government must not stand

in the way of low costs and flexible air fare options for travel within and to

Canada, if we are to grow our tourism industry.

The Tourism Industry Association recognizes this and they are

now responding to some proposed amendments to the International Charter Air

Regulations. It is extremely important that we note what is happening here. If

we further regulate the costs of low-cost and charter airlines and deny them

access to this country and to this Province, we will be the big losers. It is

really important that we all recognize this, that both

schedule and charter

services bring hundreds of thousands of overseas visitors to Canada every year.

It is worth $12 billion to this country's economy. In 1996, total tourism

spending neared $42 billion and employed almost 500,000 Canadians.

So, if we are, in Newfoundland and Labrador, to receive our

fair share of the tourism spending dollar, it will be extremely important for us

to lobby for and to ensure that in the future we have low-cost air fares, or

lower-cost air fares, at least, both into our Province and within our Province.

We recognize that we have a huge geography here to deal with and we are not

going to be able to compete unless we have these problems dealt with.

So, I support the member who brought this motion forward

today and I hope that it will be the beginning of the Federal Government and the

airlines and the whole tourism industry, recognizing, if we are to proceed with

one of the bright lights of the economy in this Province, that we are to do

something about the air fares in this Province.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my colleague, the Member

for Labrador West, on this particular motion. And, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you

firsthand, although I am not from Labrador, I spent some six years in Labrador

City - Wabush. I know the area very well - I still have family who live there.

Mr. Speaker, all of these things that were mentioned earlier,

believe me, I can relate to them firsthand. I can relate to the business

problems they have in Labrador West and so on, of having people - potential

clients and so on - come in to look at things in the area. I can relate to the

sports groups, I say to the Member for Labrador West. I coached different teams

in Labrador City, Labrador City Collegiate and in Wabush.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: No, I did not teach there, but I did coach

there. And what a lot of trouble we had - I know the member will understand this

- in fund-raising and trying to get kids interested in taking

part in sports

programs, to go out to the Island portion. I, myself, participated on sports

teams that had to fund-raise in forty below temperatures and to go on beer

bottle drives and so on, to raise enough money just to take

part in a sporting

event.

Now, I know Mr. Speaker, on the Island portion of the

Province, we do the same thing because I have done it here also, but not to the

extent the people in Labrador have to do, not near the extent, Mr. Speaker,

because the price of flying to Labrador City - Wabush is outrageous. Believe me,

there are times I would like to go visit my family up there. I still have a

sister who lives in Wabush. Mr. Speaker, it is just so outrageous. I can grab a

flight to Florida, on a seat sale, cheaper than I can go to Labrador City. It is

incredible what some of these prices are, but it has affected the business

community, it has affected, of course, the students that the member talked about

earlier. I talked to students at the airport just a few days ago, who said, for

Christmas they are going to go on stand-by. Do you realize that those students

there standing in that airport, getting up to the eleventh hour of Christmas,

parents home waiting for them, and here they are going to have their son or

daughter who they are waiting to see at home, stuck in St. John's over

Christmas. That is quite possible, Mr. Speaker, and especially as you get closer

to those last days.

Of course, the problem with the students is that they are up

to the eleventh hour because of exam schedules and so on. They are going to be

stuck in the airport in St. John's because here they are; they think the great

solution to this problem is student stand-by for the students going back to

Labrador West and Goose Bay and so on.

It is just so unfair, and it is long overdue, I say to the

Member for Labrador West. The recognition of the contribution of the economy of

Labrador West and all of Labrador to this Province should be a part of the

consideration for this. Over the years, I can tell you, many times over, many

people in Labrador West have been saying to me - and I am referring to Labrador

West a lot because it is where I lived and I can relate to it more. I know the

Member for Torngat Mountains has his reasons for the - and the Member for

Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair and so on. I am just relating to it from my

perspective, having a little bit of experience of being in Labrador West. I am

sure that a lot of the circumstances relate to the same as those of the Members

for Torngat Mountains and Cartwright - L'Anse au Clair.

I guess the bottom line, and what they are all on the same

premise about, is the fact that Labrador has a hard enough time connecting with

the Island portion of the Province, and trying to feel united with the Island

portion of the Province. They should have better access, and something

reasonable. I talk to people in Labrador. They say they do not want the great

seat sales; they just want something that is reasonable.

We are gone to an extreme now. In Newfoundland I have seen

prices as low as $500 and $600 return to Florida at times, and I have seen seat

sales at $600 return to Vancouver. But, Mr. Speaker, try to take a flight up to

Labrador City on short notice if you have business, and what a detriment it is

to business in the Province in Labrador West.

When a business client who may be - and people who do

business know this. Technology and letter-writing and so on, that is all great,

but when you want to seal a deal you have to do that face to face. If your

product is in Labrador West or in the Goose Bay area or the Torngat area or

wherever it is, and you want that client to come and do business with you, you

want a face-to-face.

If that client is going to call up LeGrow's Travel or whoever

it might be and ask for a price, they want to fly to Labrador tomorrow, they are

going to be set back pretty quick when they see what the price is. Believe me,

there are a lot of people on the Island portion of this Province who do not

realize what the cost is to Labrador. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this -

the people in Labrador know it. They know it quite well. Every day it hits them

in the face when they have to go out on business, when they have to go out for

medical reasons, for people who are here in the Health Sciences in St. John's,

and so on.

Another plug, and I will just finish on this, just to make a

few comments today in support, the young people, the young people especially in

sports. You might think it is a small thing, but that social interaction with

the sports groups in Labrador and the Island

part is very important. It gives

the people in Labrador City - I remember we had them come visit Baie Verte on a

basketball tournament one time. That whole socializing aspect of not the sport

itself, but kids getting together from Labrador and the Island portion, is very

important in the development of the child.

You talk about this Province, as a whole, and I guess the

aura of how you feel about Labrador and the Island portion. This is a step in

the right direction to bring them closer together so that they communicate more

often and more readily when they want to do that. People in Labrador, having

contributed to the economy of this Province so much for years, feel that the

connection, besides the technology of fax and e-mail and all of that we have

today, it is not like sitting face to face to talk to somebody, whether it be

for sports, business, medical reasons or whatever.

I stand in full support today of my colleague, the Member for

Labrador West, and all the members from the Labrador area, in that we bring

forward this motion and do what we can to support that motion here in this

House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by my

colleague, the Member for Labrador West, regarding the high cost of air fare.

A little over a month ago I attended the aboriginal mining

conference. We called the airlines and we booked a seat sale. I flew from St.

John's to Vancouver on a seat sale for $1,054. Mr. Speaker, for me to travel

into my district, to leave St. John's and travel to Nain with the cheapest seat

sale possible, is $1,177.61. Mr. Speaker, as I travel throughout my riding, to

travel in my own riding, to leave Goose Bay and travel to Nain, to Davis Inlet,

to Hopedale, to Postville, to Makkovik and on to Rigolet, Mr. Speaker, $661.25.

Mr. Speaker, for a riding that has the highest cost of living in the Province,

the highest cost of fuel then this certainly puts the residents in my riding at

a big setback.

Mr. Speaker, some of the members and particularly the Member

for Baie Verte mentioned the part of young people travelling. When I lived in

Goose Bay I was involved with the Minor Hockey Association for eighteen years.

When we travelled to the provincial tournaments it was not really a question of

who won the tournament but it gave the young people in Labrador a chance to get

out and see what the rest of the Province was like. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, because of the high cost of travel the schools in the riding of Torngat

Mountains have their regional sports meet and the winner goes on - denying the

young people in our schools a chance to travel to the Province to compete, to

represent their community but most important of all to get to know what the

other communities of this Province are really like.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, some of these children will go all the

way to high school and never know what a McDonald's or a Tim Horton's look like

and that is because of the high cost of air travel that we face. Mr. Speaker,

when we see ads in the papers where you can travel to Florida and England and

different parts of the world for less than the cost that it takes to travel

within our own Province. I think that is a very serious situation.

I compliment the Member for Labrador West for the resolution

he brought forward. I fully support it and I think I have made my thoughts known

on this, Mr. Speaker. I don't usually speak too long because I think if you go

on then you end up saying things that you don't know what you are talking about.

So I fully support the Member for Labrador West in his resolution put forward

and I certainly look for better results.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As was indicated by the Member for Baie Verte and by the

Leader of the official Opposition, we on this side are supporting this

particular resolution. I just wanted to tell hon. members, particularly the

Member for Labrador West, a little bit of the history and it was alluded to by

my colleague the Member for Ferryland in his comments. If you go back to the

history - and when I was doing some research on this I got back as far as 1970.

On May 11, 1970 the then Minister of Labrador Affairs, the hon. Earl Winsor,

made a statement in the House. At that time the Liberal government, of which he

was a member of Cabinet, brought in a subsidy program for travel in Labrador. It

was designed primarily to encourage travel to and from Labrador and he indicated

that this would be primarily in association with Eastern Provincial Airways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: He was Minister of Labrador Affairs and he

was the Member for Fogo or Twillingate area.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, no, the hon. Captain Earl Winsor was

Minister of Labrador Affairs in 1970. I say to my colleague, the Member for

Labrador West, that that policy became effective on May 14, 1970. Now all

throughout the '70s and the '80s there was a policy in effect by all governments

and it stayed into effect by the PC government. In fact, the hon. Hank Murphy,

who was Minister of Labrador Affairs in the early days of the Moores Government,

extended the program. The PCs extended the program to have the air travel

subsidy to residents of coastal Labrador. That was when in cases of where

Labrador Airways was just coming on at that time and the PCs in the early '70s

extended the program not only to apply to Eastern Provincial Airways where they

were having flights going to Labrador but also to extend to Labrador Airways in

coastal communities. That stayed on until the Liberal government got elected in

1989. Then in 1989, in the Budget that came down in March or thereabouts of

1990, the Government of Clyde Wells in its cost-cutting measures, decided they

would chop out, they would cut, decrease, the subsidies that were payable to the

people who were travelling to and from Labrador.

In fact, in the House of Assembly on May 18, 1990, there were

statements made to that effect, and there was shock expressed when the

government had announced in the Budget that they were going to make considerable

slashes to the air passenger subsidy program for Labrador. So when the Liberals

came into power in 1989, and they started to chop budgets, one of the first

places they looked was to chop budgets for travel to and from Labrador.

Therefore, at that particular time, there were going to be severe cuts to sports

and cultural groups from 75 per cent to 50 per cent, and the subsidy went from

50 per cent to 25 per cent for adults travelling there.

The first thing Clyde Wells did when he got into power was

say: How can we cut this Budget? One of the first places he looked was the

amount of subsidy paid to the people of Labrador, both adults and sports groups,

cultural groups, in their travelling back and forth.

I say to the hon. member that one of the things missing in

his motion, even though I support the motion, is that he is directing it to the

federal government. I wonder why he did not include some message here for the

provincial government, because it was the Liberal government, of which many of

the Cabinet ministers are still in their places, these very same people

occupying, in some cases the same ministries, who, in 1990, were saying: Slash

the travel subsidy to Labrador. Cut it out. Cut it down from 75 per cent subsidy

for sports groups. Chop it down.

There was a big hue and cry, I say to all hon. members. The

people of Labrador got up in arms. I have letters here, correspondence, signed

by the then Member for Labrador West, Alex Snow, and I have letters here signed

by the then Member for Torngat Mountains, Garfield Warren. It came before the

House. They had petitions. They had lots of presentations saying: Here is what

we would like to have put in place. Get this subsidy restored.

They indicated at the time that they were getting a lot of

pressure from their people because this was deemed to be a slap in the face to

the people of Labrador.

So I say to the hon. member who represents Labrador West, his

direction here in his Private Member's Motion is misdirected. Yes, it should be

directed to the federal government, but it should also be directed to the very

people in this Cabinet who sit there today who, in 1990, were `slash, slash,

slash'. They were cutting everything out.

It is embarrassing to me, and it should be to the member, to

have to stand here today and remind my colleague across the way that the enemy,

the people who did the slashing, are the very same people, in many cases, who

now sit in the front benches of this government. Therefore, he should be saying

to his Cabinet colleagues - or to his Cabinet, not to his colleagues because he

is not in Cabinet, he is still in the back benches. Maybe if you would be a

little more aggressive and stood up and said: Unless you are going to do

something for Labrador, I am going to speak out aggressively, I am going to be a

thorn in your side unless you can move me up here and into the Cabinet where I

can have some real impact, be part of the decision-making process...

You have to sometimes rattle the cage a little bit, I say to

the Member for Labrador West. You are too passive. You are even afraid, in a

Private Member's Motion, to say anything critical about your own government.

Therefore, how do you expect to get forward to the front benches? You had better

learn to be a little bit critical. Ask the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

about the techniques of doing that, because he was a real master at it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: At being an agitator in the back benches.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to my friend from Labrador that one

of the things that I noted that was said in the House of Assembly in 1990, a

statement that was made by Alex Snow, he said: This decision - meaning the

decision to cut the subsidies to the people of Labrador - will obviously

increase the feeling of alienation between residents of Labrador and the Island

by making it more difficult for Labradorians to travel to the Island. He said:

It is a divisive and ill-thought-out way of saving money, and I again call upon

the government to reverse their callous decision. That was Alec Snow in debate

here in this House of Assembly in 1990, in fact, on May 18th of 1990, therefore

the concept that Labrador people should be treated more fairly in terms of

subsidy for their travel was initially brought in by Captain Earl Windsor in the

Smallwood Government of the day, 1970, and it was supported aggressively

throughout the 70s and 80s by the PC Administration, but in 1990, the Clyde

Wells Government said, that they were going to chop it out and -

AN HON. MEMBER: Chop out what?

MR. H. HODDER: - they were going to substantially reduce

it, and I should say to the Government House Leader and to the Member for

Labrador West that it is a case of where the Premier of the day, when he was

questioned on this policy, said that he could do nothing for Labrador because it

would be unfair to the residents of St. Anthony. You know, he did not realize

that St. Anthony is connected by roadway and that it is hard to drive across the

Straits, and that the road that was supposed to be built, started way back then,

are only being talked about now.

MR. E. BYRNE: Harvey, it is my understanding that the

former Premier felt that he could walk across it.

MR. H. HODDER: Well, it was okay for the former Premier

because he did not have any difficulty he could walk, but for the rest of us

mortals, we had to rely on conventional transportation. For Premier Clyde Wells,

I mean, no trouble at all, because when he got to St. Anthony, he just

pitter-patted across the Straits but for the crowd who was going to follow him,

they were in mortal danger but he was in no danger, I can tell you that, because

he said, in his statements in 1990, he said that it would be unfair to people of

St. Anthony and did not show much knowledge of the geography of Newfoundland.

So I say to my colleague from Labrador West that, I have

bundles of paper here that traces the whole thing, all the way to statements by

the Hon. Melvin Woodward when he was Minister of Labrador Affairs and all the

statements are there but the difficulty that we have on this side is: Why in

your plea with the federal government, you fail to say to the provincial

government: Let us review the policy of our provincial government; let us look

at the way that we can encourage people of Labrador to be able to be full

participants in Newfoundland and Labrador government, let us encourage our young

athletes to be able to move and travel freely with an appropriate cost?

But you know, we believe that the cost of getting young

people out of Labrador should be no more than it would be if there were a fixed

link between, shall we say the area around Red Bay or across to the Great

Northern Peninsula. We should be looking at a greater degree of fairness and I

say to my colleague, that the PCs built on the policy that was initiated by

Captain Earl Windsor, unfortunately, when the Liberals got into power, they

slashed it, they clawed it back, they grabbled at it, they balanced the Budget

on the people of Labrador and it is no wonder today, that the alienation in

Labrador as Garfield Warren said in his statement, as Alec Snow said in his

statement, the alienation that they predicted is still there today and I say to

my colleague, we would like to tell you that you should be talking to the

Premier of this Province who has lived in Labrador, he knows the circumstances

of it, do not look to the federal government for all the help but look at home.

Look right inside your own Liberal caucus, talk to your own Liberal caucus, they

potentially have solutions however, in this kind of debate here, it is not

acceptable for you to criticize your own Liberal group, you have to bang at

somebody else, blame it on Ottawa but look right at home.

The enemy my friend, is you and yours, therefore look for the

enemy, he is on that side of the House, he is not on this side of the House, he

is right over there, look for the solution, it can be found but do not look to

Ottawa, look right at home.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

and Lands.

MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First I will thank my

hon. colleague for bringing this resolution forward. I do believe it is a

necessary thing that we need to do, certainly to have the whole air

transportation issue reviewed anyway at the minimum. I would say that I know the

intent of the resolution is basically to pertain to the Labrador area, but it

certainly could apply right across the country, because there are a lot of areas

in the country where air travel is very expensive.

We who travel back and forth from Labrador to St. John's on a

regular basis have an understanding of the expense that the ordinary person has

to go through. In a lot of ways, people have to wait till the summertime to be

able to go out, because the only way they can travel is either by boat or take

the road. The air travel has just become too expensive and very prohibitive to

the budgets of the ordinary working person.

If you look at the map you can tell that if you fly from St.

John's to Toronto you are probably flying four times the distance that you are

from Goose Bay or Lab City to St. John's, yet you pay four times the cost to fly

from Wabush or Happy Valley-Goose Bay to St. John's than you do to fly from St.

John's to Toronto. Some would tell us that is the price we have to pay for

living in a rural area in the northern part of Canada. I think there are checks

and balances that can be used to minimize the impacts on people who choose to

live in the northern parts of the country.

This resolution certainly draws attention to the fact that

over the past number of years we were supposed to see improved air service at an

economic cost. They tell us that economically we should still be able to use

these airlines and the service has improved. I will tell you, in the 1970s, even

back in the 1960s when the 737s started to fly out of Labrador, we could at that

time, at a reasonable rate, take our families and go on vacation through flying

on the airlines.

Today the majority of ordinary working people, who are not

supplied with travel expenses through corporations or governments, have to wait

till summertime to take the boat to get out to any other part of the country.

That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we get the highway

network set up so that we can make it economical. Because we certainly have an

understanding that air fares probably will not decrease unless we put a lot of

pressure on the transport commission, the federal government through whatever

means we have to do. I think this resolution certainly speaks to that effort.

Once we approve it, pass it through the House -and I will be supporting it, as I

hope most members will -, that we will then be able to take the initiative to

really hammer away at the federal system which is the government that certainly

identifies what rates will be charged.

I know that through deregulation it is going to be a very

difficult situation, but I think we still have to certainly take the initiative

to go after the regulators or the deregulators or the operators of these

airlines, and certainly try to bring some sense to the fact that people living

in the north should be, in some way, dealt with similar to the way that people

are dealt with in the urban areas and the more built-up areas, or the areas that

we have certainly built the infrastructure that allows people to travel easily

throughout different parts of the country.

In conclusion, I will be supporting the Member for Labrador

West. I think it is a very good resolution. I will sit now and allow the Member

for Labrador West to conclude debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Penney): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. CANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate all the comments from the members who spoke on

this particular issue.

This is an important issue, but I want to deal with a couple

of comments that were made with respect to transportation initiatives in

Labrador, whether government has provided opportunity to Labrador throughout the

last two years, or not.

The reality is, Mr. Speaker, I did not focus on this

particular resolution just as a Labrador issue. I focused on it - if members

will read, it talks about the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I did not

want to be specific. I did speak specifically to my riding because those are the

people that I represent in this House, but this House is a House of public

debate. What we want to try to do is change Federal Government policy with

respect to how the airline industry has been deregulated or regulated, and

whether or not we ought to have some kind of public utility forum to review the

rates that are charged to passengers who travel within our Province, to our

Province, from our Province, and anywhere else for that matter.

Is it just not a Labrador issue, it is an issue that has

particular differences as it applies to Labrador and there are particular needs.

But with respect to the subsidy - this government brought back the food subsidy,

for food to be transported through airlines throughout Labrador.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the speakers spoke about the

Trans-Labrador Highway, how a minister stood in this House and said that a road

would be paved. Mr. Speaker, what happened was, we had a public discussion, we

went around and met the public in Labrador, talked to them about what they

to try to negotiate a paved highway - that was what we called our vision, that

is what we tried to do. It is no different from a labour negotiation: you go to

your people and ask: What you want to try to achieve from your employer? That is

what the minister did; in fact, Mr. Speaker, when we concluded the agreement, I

recall on that night, that we had a conference call with every single mayor in

Labrador, as well as, the ministers responsible and the Premier, and not one

said that we ought to turn down this deal, they were excited about this.

This is an important initiative and an important beginning,

it is not the end. It is not the last dollars we will need to fulfil the

transportation infrastructure of Labrador, that is true, but it is an important

beginning. What would hon. members have recommended that we do, leave that money

on the table, not have that work undertaken in the last couple of years or try

to do what we can and achieve what we can with the dollars we have, while moving

forward to try to get the funds available to do the link from Churchill to

Cartwright. Mr. Speaker, we have not closed the door in terms of how we are

going to construct the Trans-Labrador Highway, we are moving that file ahead.

Mr. Speaker, on this particular issue, I appreciate the

comments in support of this resolution. It has wide public policy implications,

not only to this Province, but to other provinces and the Territories in

Northern Canada, that I am sure face the same kind of problems and difficulties

and challenges for their students, those who need medical travel, those who

travel for the purpose of recreation and business and other reasons.

Mr. Speaker, the airline industry will tell you there are all

kinds of fares that they can offer, all kinds of benefits that you can get if

you book early or book differently, you know, there are all kinds of sales that

they will have. The reality is, though, that those sales are very, very limited,

they are limited to a very small number of seats in those aircraft, and the

reality is, it is usually off the peak travelling times.

I want to say to members that if the House supports this

bill, I intend to pass this on to the House in Ottawa and have them debate it,

because I think, it is worthy of a national debate. This is a national issue. It

is just not a Labrador issue, it is just not a Newfoundland and Labrador issue,

it in fact is a national issue, and I want to express my great appreciation for

those who spoke on this very important national issue.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs' support of this particular issue and all those others within

the House. I would like to close debate on this, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the resolution, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those opposed, `nay'.

On motion, resolution carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Let the record show that the motion was

carried unanimously.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House adjourn

until tomorrow at 2:00 p.m., and in case the hon. member opposite wants to know,

I do not know what is on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. the Minister of Justice repeat the comments he

just made?

MR. DECKER: I moved adjournment, and the answer to the

question the hon. member is going to ask is: I do not know.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the question I was going to

ask the hon. Minister of Justice was: Are you attending our Christmas party?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: To which I would be surprised if the

answer would be: I do not know. The Minister of Justice does not know very much

these days.

Mr. Speaker, I just say to the hon. minister that later on in

the afternoon, we are having a little get-together in our caucus room and we

would appreciate it if members might drop by and share some of the Christmas

cheer and the camaraderie that we all share here in the House.

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

MR. DECKER: The answer to that question is: Yes, I will

be attending; my colleagues will be attending. It is always a pleasure to be

able to drink a little bit of soft drink from the Tories. It is always great to

get to that party and we are looking forward to it.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow,

Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.