November

18, 1992

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 66

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement here

in response to a situation that arose before I had the pleasure of returning to

the House.

Last May, on the 27th. and 28th., the Member for Grand Bank

asked the Premier a series of questions, here in the House, about events

connected with the Canada Bay Seafoods Limited crab plant in Roddickton, in the

Strait of Belle Isle District. The plant, as hon. members will recall, had been

destroyed by a fire in April, 1990. The honourable gentleman suggested - in so

many words - and I have reviewed Hansard very carefully, that grave

improprieties surrounded the investigation of the fire, and the disposition of

the insurance proceeds. The hon. gentleman will acknowledge he made no specific

charges, but cast a very wide net of suspicion.

The Premier agreed readily to ask the RCMP to make an

investigation of these charges. He did so at once, by means of a letter to Chief

Superintendent Butt, Commanding Officer of the RCMP in this Province, dated 28

May.

An investigation was subsequently conducted by members of the

RCMP, and specifically by members of the Commercial Crime

Section under the

direction of Inspector S.G.V. Bloxom. That investigation was concluded late in

July. Superintendent P.B. Cameron, the Officer in Charge of the Criminal

Operations Branch in Newfoundland and Labrador, subsequently reported the

results of the investigation to my officials.

Superintendent Cameron has informed my officials that, and

this is a quotation, Sir: "This matter has been completely and thoroughly

investigated, and no evidence of criminal misconduct or wrongdoing has been

identified. Given the results of the case, there is no further action the RCMP

can take, and I - that is Inspector Cameron speaking - now consider this

investigation to be concluded." That is the end of the quotation.

The matter, then, has come to an end. It has been

investigated by the RCMP, who found nothing to support charges. They've not

recommended any further action of any sort, but I cannot leave the matter there,

Sir, I must take issue with the manner in which the Member for Grand Bank

brought forward these allegations.

I have been informed by my officials that those who made the

allegations, and I use the plural, that those who made the allegations provided

no evidence to substantiate their claims. The charges were based solely upon

gossip and innuendo. I have no knowledge of the motives that fuelled those, and

again I use the plural, Mr. Speaker, fuelled those who spread this gossip with

innuendo and so I shall not speculate about it.

Now I acknowledge readily, Mr. Speaker, that one cannot

conclude that there is no evidence of wrongdoing until an investigation has been

completed. But it must be acknowledged with equal readiness that it is

irresponsible to make charges and raise suspicions without some glimmer of fact

to found them. It must be said too-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite

apparently do not want to hear a statement on the administration of justice. I

would ask, Sir -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: - I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: This is (inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I would ask, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Hon. members will know that one of the operating principles

of the House, for its dignity and respect, is to show respect for each other and

to show courtesy. When an hon. member is speaking, the hon. member must be heard

in silence, and a member is not supposed to interrupt or interfere with a member

other than at appropriate times and by the methods the Chair has indicated.

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition

says it is despicable. I agree. It is despicable to make charges in this House

with no foundation. Now, Sir, if I may carry on.

It must be said too, that raising such matters in the first

instance in the House of Assembly, with the inevitable attendant publicity does

nothing to advance the cause of ensuring that suggestions or suspicions of

criminal conduct -

MR. TOBIN: No wonder (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: I will pick up where I left off, Sir.

It must be said too, Mr. Speaker, that raising such matters

in the first instance in the House of Assembly, with the inevitable attendant

publicity does nothing to advance the cause of ensuring that suggestions or

suspicions of criminal conduct are investigated by the police and the equally

compelling public policy imperative of ensuring that charges are laid where

evidence so warrants.

I do not criticize the Member for Grand Bank because I accept

that he acted in good faith. But I would say to all members of the House, Mr.

Speaker, that it would better advance the proper administration of justice if

any of us who believes that he or she has evidence of a possible criminal

offence would first raise those concerns directly with the responsible police

authority. That would remove any doubt that the Member was motivated by anything

other than a concern for the public interest, as opposed to a desire to try to

embarrass the Government of the day. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and through

you all Members and the public, that any matter brought to the police will be

investigated in an appropriate and proper fashion, and that the appropriate and

proper action will be taken.

Thank you, Sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

matter came to the public forefront approximately two years ago, but it really

got to the boiling point a year ago when the Minister of Fisheries announced

after question that the Roddickton crab plant would not re-open. This thing had

festered for two years in the Town of Roddickton and surrounding communities,

the suspicion of the crab plant that had burned to the ground. The insurance had

been collected and there were suspicions as to where the insurance money went.

Everything that I brought to the floor of this Legislature came from residents

of the community of Roddickton. It didn't come from me as a member of this House

or from other members, it came from me. There was a government department that

had been contacted for investigation because there were allegations that cheques

had been signed in some other part of the Province with a principal of the

company who owned the crab plant.

The member representing the Town of Roddickton, the now

Minister of Education, knew all about this for a long period of time. As a

matter of fact, it was his signature that was signed upon the lease that was

entered into by the Town of Roddickton when he was then mayor. There are a lot

of festering situations pertaining to the Roddickton crab plant. I brought this

matter to the floor of this Legislature because the people of Roddickton wanted

it brought here, I say to the Minister of Justice, who wants to return once

again to 60's politics of intimidation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Once I consider a matter to be serious

enough to bring to the floor of this Legislature, I will bring them here every

day, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, of course, the crux of it all comes,

Mr. Speaker, when he says on the second page: 'The matter, then, has come to an

end', but then, in the next paragraph, went on to say: 'I cannot leave the

matter there, however.' No, he couldn't. Because he was weaned on 'sixties and

Smallwood's politics and he couldn't leave it there, Mr. Speaker, that's the

problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: Now, Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of

innuendo, rumour and gossip, as the minister has alluded to. Why was it all put

to bed? Why isn't it still festering in Roddickton today? Because I brought it

to the floor of this Legislature. That is why it is not festering. That is why

it has been put to bed. It could have still been going on if I had not done

that, I say to the Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: So I have cleared up the gossip and the

innuendo and all the other rumours that were going around Roddickton, if I did

nothing else, I say to the Minister of Justice, and I will continue to do it,

whether he thinks it is right or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the

Premier. Unfortunately, he is not here. They are financial questions. The

Minister of Finance is not here, so I will have to ask the questions, I guess,

of the Acting Minister of Finance, who, I presume, is the Minister of Health -

I'm not sure. I would like to ask the question and we will have to wait and see.

The Minister of Finance announced in the House last week that

he intends to bring down a mini-Budget - sometime in the next week or so, I

think, we expect it - to deal with the projected deficit, the $160 million or

$155 million deficit. Without asking for specific details, can the acting

minister tell us what the general approach of that Budget will be? Will it be

continuing on the same course as they have for the last three-and-a-half years,

which is tax and cut? More specifically, perhaps he could educate his own

colleagues, as well as us, and tell us what process will be used to debate this

mini-Budget next week? Will there be a provision to allow for a full-scale

debate, as you would on a budget? What exactly is the plan? Is there going to be

an opportunity for debate, or what?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can say this, that

whatever is brought in by the Minister of Finance will be a responsible budget.

As to the procedures, they will be announced in due course by the House Leader.

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

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary question to the House Leader.

Could the House Leader tell us what process will be used for debating the

mini-Budget?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the

procedures we shall follow will be appropriate ones, designed to ensure that the

public are informed, and to ensure that the House is given the opportunity to

pass on the proposals, unlike the proposals to fund the Sprung proposal, which

were never, ever brought to this House by the Administration of which the hon.

gentleman was such a prominent part.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: They took $20 million, $30 million or $40

million of the public money and not only spent it with dubious legal authority -

MR. SIMMS: What a lie!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition

is accusing me of telling a lie, then let him do it in the proper parliamentary

fashion, man-fashion, instead of skulking around as the hon. gentleman does.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

I remind hon. members that Question Period is not a period

for debate and I ask the hon. the Minister of Justice and the Government House

Leader to get on with answering the question.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, if the hon.

gentleman opposite wants to make a charge, let him do it in a parliamentary

fashion instead of skulking around as he does.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what I was saying is that, unlike the

Administration of which the hon. gentleman was such a prominent ornament, the

late lamented Peckford Administration and the even later and less lamented

Rideout Administration, this Administration will bring our financial measures to

the House in an appropriate fashion and will seek the approval of the House. The

hon. gentleman should stay tuned. I would say to him, as his grandmother may

have said to him: Possess his soul in patience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I can assure that hon. member

that if he is going to continue to act as such a fool as he has been acting in

the last few days, he won't be getting many more questions from this side

anyway.

Let me ask the Acting Minister of Finance: Can the Acting

Minister of Finance tell the House what plan the Premier or the government or

you or the Minister of Finance plans to use in this mini-budget to try to turn

around the economic fortunes that people in the secretariat of the Cabinet now

say are damning. They say that the investment is going to decline in this

Province by over $200 million, they say that unemployment insurance is up by 50

per cent, and social assistance payments are up by 50 per cent. This is no joke

even though the Government House Leader may want to treat it that way. This is

serious.

Can the acting minister tell us: How does the government

intend to deal with this serious situation and help turn investment around and

create jobs in this Province? Can he tell us that?

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

sorry! The hon. the Minister of Health.

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty hard to

keep track of what is going on, particularly when we are mesmerized by the

utterances of the Leader of the Opposition who is totally confused now as a

result of his exchange with our House Leader.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in due time all things will be

revealed. When the Minister of Finance presents his mini-budget, if that is his

plan, then it will be revealed and then you will see the light.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the minister a supplementary. It is not surprising we

are not getting any answers because their are no plans, obviously, and that is

why he can't give an answer.

Despite the fact that we know now, as a result of the

minister's statement a few days ago, that personal income tax is down by $47

million, despite the fact that the government has increased personal income tax

in their three-and-a-half years in office, by six per cent come next January, I

believe it is - so we now know about the $47 million drop in personal income tax

- can the minister tell us how much the retail sales tax is down, how much is

the payroll tax down and are the estimated revenues of liquor and cigarettes and

lotteries up? Can he tell us that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the two or three months that I have been in

the new portfolio I have not been fully aware of all the details of the

Department of Finance. So I will take this question under advisement and advise

the member accordingly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Trying to get answers to any questions out of

this government is like pulling hens' teeth.

Let me ask the minister this: Does he know the answer to this

question? He should, because it is an extremely critical question. About three

weeks ago, on October 22, the Minister of Finance announced that government was

selecting consultants for fourteen capital works projects. He will remember that

statement, just leading to a lot of speculation about an election, he might

recall. Last week, on November 12, three weeks later, the Minister of Finance

announced an immediate freeze on consultants for all government departments. Can

the minister tell us now: Does that freeze include those consultants selected to

do the design work on those fourteen capital projects announced by him a week or

so before?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I raised the same question with my colleague and

he assured me that his plans were that he would not include those consultants. I

would prefer to check and see if that is still his position.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Does the Minister of Public Works know the

answer to that question?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the statement said that there would be a freeze

on the hiring of consultants for current account expenditures. It is my

understanding that that freeze does not include the hiring of consultants for

the fourteen projects or so that were recently announced.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not going to get too many answers from the acting

Minister of Finance.

Let me ask the Minister of Development, Mr. Speaker: He is

aware of the recent economic quarterly review which provides information to us,

which says: the capital investment in the Province is projected to decline by 6

per cent next year, nearly $200 million. Can the minister tell us what, if

anything, he has planned to turn that particular trend around and to attract

investment into this Province? Will there be anything in the mini-budget to

address that particular problem?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, being a former

Finance Minister, ought to know that we can't share - prior to any economic

statement or mini-budget that the Minister of Finance chooses to make in the

House of Assembly - what would be in that.

He is quite right when he refers to that report, there

hopefully will be measures in there to reverse that trend. We are seeking

investment all the time. It is very, very difficult. This is a very difficult

time for the Province, it is a difficult time for the government. He ought to

know that one of our chief problems, of course, is dealing with the immense debt

that we have been saddled with. This little Province owes $5.5 billion. We pay

nearly $550 million in interest every year, as we begin to determine how we are

going to deal with revenues and expenditures.

He raises a good point. It is something that we are

discussing and debating in Cabinet and we hope that there will be some measures

in there to send a positive signal to the business and investment community.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for that. The minister will know, also,

that as expenditures have been cut, so revenues have decreased as well. Mr.

Speaker, what will the minister propose to do? I realize he can't tell us what

is in the budget. Surely the minister, who has been in that portfolio for

three-and-a-half years now knows what a fuss that will be. He knows that turning

the economy around is not something that is going to happen overnight. We see,

in the great strategic economic plan, the government's long-term proposal.

Is the minister advocating to his colleagues some immediate

short-term proposals? Some cut in taxes, for example, to stimulate investment

and investor confidence in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the question the hon.

member asks is one that puts me in a position that if I answer, he is up on his

feet saying: There - there is a budget leak.

Of course I put forward some proposals with respect to the

business community and how we can stimulate economic activity. Of course I have

done that, but we have to look at the bigger, broader picture. We have a very,

very difficult time ahead of us in the next few weeks, dealing with the problems

of the current account deficit, that have mushroomed, because of nobody's fault

in this Assembly, and indeed nobody's fault in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we are going to put forward some positive

suggestions. We hope they will be contained in the mini budget. Indeed, he

refers to the strategic economic plan, and rightfully so. He points out that

this is the long-term strategy of the government. That is not a magic wand plan,

and it is not something we put forward to say to the people of the Province that

this is going to heal the economy overnight. It is not. That is the long-term

plan, but collectively and together we are trying to come up with some solutions

that will offer some short-term stimulus to the economy.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, we all welcome the long-term

plan. What we are asking now is: What is the short-term plan? We may not be here

for the long term if there is not a short-term plan to turn the economy around

quickly.

Let me ask the minister this: What is he specifically going

to do? This has nothing to do with the budget. What is he specifically going to

do to restore investor confidence in the economy? We have all seen it, and we

have seen it particularly in the last week, since the minister made his

announcement of the growing deficit. Basically the economy is frozen for the

next couple of weeks until the mini budget comes down. Does the minister have a

plan - a specific plan - to restore investor confidence in this Province, to

give business people and individuals a little hope and a little light at the end

of the tunnel?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member thinks that

somehow we can add hot water to something instant, and stir it and create all

kinds of economic - if he thinks there is an instant solution, surely he is in a

dream world. He is not in the real world.

This is not a problem just belonging to Newfoundland. We do

not have a monopoly on what is happening to the country's economy, or indeed the

world economy. His colleagues in Ottawa: what are they going to do to stimulate

the economic performance of this nation? What are they going to do? We have been

hit, as he has seen in this statement, by time after time, year after year,

cutbacks on transfer payments. That falls into the laps of the provinces. We

have to deal with that, and we have to deal with it in a sensible way that the

member himself rightly pointed out. It is a very marginal line that we are

walking, which will require drastic medicine, to use his own phrase, because the

bond markets are watching, and because we need to borrow next year, just to

maintain the status quo as we know it now.

It is not an easy answer, and his questions are difficult.

They cannot be answered in thirty seconds in the House of Assembly. We are doing

some creative thinking about this. We are putting these thoughts together for

the Minister of Finance, and we hope to come out with some positive signals, not

only dealing with the current account problem, but sending a positive and

correct and good signal to the business community.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

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

the Minister of Health.

In a press release yesterday afternoon, the Captain Jackman

Hospital in Labrador City, Wabush, said it had been told to cut more than

$100,000 from its budget for the remainder of the fiscal year, which is only

four months. The minister has obviously sent out orders to all hospital and

nursing home boards about that. How much in total have these boards been told to

cut from their budget for the next four months?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the total here,

but it is 1 per cent of salary budget and 3 per cent of operating. Each hospital

and nursing home and department of government and related agency was given the

assigned amount, the 1 per cent and the 3 per cent, and asked to report back to

government on the implications of this. They're going to report back I think by

Friday, and then we're going to get over it. But in answer to his question, I

would have to just check out the total amount. He himself could check it out

pretty easily by looking at the Budget figures of last year and calculating 1

per cent of salaries and 3 per cent. I just don't happen to have it here with me

now.

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

Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: I would say to the minister: percentages I'm

not interested in. I'm sure the people are not interested in percentages. We are

interested in the actual amounts that hospitals and nursing homes are going to

be cut. I'm hoping that the minister will have that information available to us

today before the House closes.

Let me ask him, Mr. Speaker: The government has pared

hospital and nursing home budgets to the bone in previous budgets. Does the

minister seriously believe that these hospitals and health care boards can make

all of these cuts without any cuts in services to the sick and the elderly of

the Province? Does he seriously believe that?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, as I say we have written all

the people with the targets and they're to report back on the implications. When

we receive back the implications, and we're having discussions with the various

hospitals and nursing homes on that matter, we will then be able to properly

assess the affects of the necessary budgetary adjustments. So I think it's

premature to try to answer that question. I can assure people though that

uppermost in the minds of this government is the appropriate care for people in

hospitals.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, that's what everyone is

interested in, appropriate care, but are the cancer clinics in Corner Brook,

Grand Falls and Burin, where the services of specialists have been suspended for

the first time in twenty-one years, is that an example of appropriate care that

people are going to get in the hospitals around this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised that

question three or four days ago -

MR. DOYLE: No.

DR. KITCHEN: -or his Leader over there. He frightened a

great number of people in this Province in a very irresponsible way. The

director of the institute had to take him on on television and say that he was

just stirring up trouble and tormenting the people of this Province. Now, since

this has already been answered and since we've made sufficient statements in the

House on that, I don't know why the hon. member doesn't consult Hansard and stop

trying to stir the pot unnecessarily and frighten people when there's no need of

it. I'm tired of the fearmongering from the Opposition. It's very much like the

Member for Grand Bank, stirring up trouble in Roddickton when there was no

trouble.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) short and curlies, boy, short and

curlies, that's all we remember.

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

Main.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Your Valium didn't kick in yet today, did

it?

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Minister of

Health that the Leader of the Opposition might have been stirring up trouble,

but he was right. He was right. The minister can't deny that, he was right.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this. The new

hospitals for St. Lawrence, Burgeo and Port Saunders, which were started by the

government when they first came to office, and which now are nearing completion,

how will hospital boards in the Province be able to run these new facilities if

the minister is making these types of cuts that he says he's making? Are these

new facilities indeed going to open, or are they going to be delayed?

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

DR. KITCHEN: More fearmongering, Mr. Speaker. The Leader

of the Opposition was wrong. He said these outlying clinics were closed. They

have not closed! They were not closed. All we said was that the people who were

visiting from the cancer clinic, these physicians, would not visit unless it was

absolutely necessary, and that's what's happening. It's not good to say things

are closed when they're not closed, and there's no point for the critic over

there to say that they were closed when they're not. You must speak the truth!

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

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

the Minister of Social Services. Will the Minister of Social Services table in

this House the reports of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister of

Social Services table in this House the reports of caseload analysis done by his

Department which were requested in the House last Friday? In particular, those

caseload analysis reports of the child protection units and the child welfare

division? Is he in a position to do so today, or is still trying to find ways of

presenting the figures so as to disguise the reality of the inadequate child

protection staff and child welfare staff in his department?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House when asked

the question by the hon. member on Friday, that I would table those statistics

and outline for the House the caseloads over the past few years in the various

divisions of my department. I wanted to make sure that those caseloads were

brought up to and including the current figures and that is presently being

prepared and I will present those figures in detail, to the House either

tomorrow or Friday.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well

that the caseload reports that have been done in the last several weeks are the

reports that I am looking for, not some trumped up statistics that will not tell

the truth. Can the minister tell this House how many child abuse cases are gone

uninvestigated, how many children who need the protection are being neglected

because of staff shortages in his department? Tell us that.

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, firstly let me say that I do

not intend to present any trumped up figures, as he would call them. The figures

that will be presented to the House will be accurate figures reflecting the

caseloads in divisions of my department over the last several years as was

requested. Included in those figures will be child care statistics for the same

period of years as the other divisions, so that will be included in the

statistics presented to the House.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the minister

appears not to be intending to table the reports. The reports are what we need

because that shows the inadequacies of the present staffing levels. Will the

minister also table in this House, the report of the Child Welfare League of

America that was requested by his department? Has that been presented to his

department yet by the Child Welfare League of America, and if it has, will he

present it in this House and if it has not, will he commit himself to presenting

it in this House and tabling it on the floor of this House?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check whether or

not the report of the Child Care League of America is complete. I have seen

reports that they have completed, but whether their work is finalized I would

have to check with the appropriate division to find that out, Mr. Speaker, but I

will do that and if their work is completed, I see no reason why the details of

their recommendations could not be made available.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education if instructions

have been given to school boards, community colleges and the University to

reduce expenditures for the balance of this fiscal year.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say specifically that

they have or have not, however I would suggest that over the next little while

the schools will indeed be asked to come to grips with the expenses problems in

view of the fiscal statement, which my colleague, the Minister of Finance will

bring down in the next week or so.

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

supplementary.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister tell this House what he expects to save in

salary and operating budgets over the next four months? Could he give us a total

amount of how much he expects to save in salary and other budget amounts?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is new to the

House, but surely he does not want me to read out the Budget Speech today. Mr.

Speaker, that would certainly be a breach of protocol. The hon. Minister of

Finance will be up against me, I would be flicked out of Cabinet and the whole

media would be crying - press leak. I am not going to give the mini budget or

whatever it is until my colleague does it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance issued a statement with a $155

million shortfall. $33 million of that is attributable to federal sources, when

you consider the increase in EPF, and $122 million is a direct result of this

government's inability to be able to properly forecast the provincial income tax

and other revenues, and their inability to control expenditures to an additional

$28 million, and if this minister does not know what the cuts are going to be,

he is either incompetent or he is withholding information from this House -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member should come to the question please.

MR. SULLIVAN: - so where does the minister expect school

boards, different colleges and the University to find funds? Are there areas

that they can trim the fat and if there are, would he please tell this House

where they expect to have these cuts?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member has not

recognized is that there are several factors which are contributing to the

problems that this administration is having.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is not

recognizing is there are several factors which are contributing to the problems

that this administration is having - the recession which is certainly North

American-wide if not worldwide. Mr. Speaker, that is having an impact on us, but

most importantly, Mr. Speaker, is seventeen years of mismanagement of this

economy. That is the real problem; $550 million a year in interest because a

bunch of people acted like drunken sailors on a spending spree. That is one of

our problems: total mismanagement. Fortunately the people of this Province had

the good sense a few years ago to turf them out, because had we not been here,

Mr. Speaker, God only knows the mess we would be in right now. Thank God, I say,

for Clyde Wells and this administration, which came in the nick of time and

saved this Province from going into total bankruptcy. Their approach was to get

up and say it is the 1930's all over again and walk away from it, Mr. Speaker.

Our approach it to be a responsible government, a responsible administration,

and to deal with the problem, Mr. Speaker, not run and hide beneath some

mulberry bush.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think they took a

step in the right direction when they fired the Minister of Finance, with a

budget of $155 million shortfall forecasted almost $29 million and this

government's $122 million. The question is it is obvious there are going to be

cuts, will he confirm that they are considering, among other measures,

legislation to strip the 2 per cent savings clause and severance pay for the

teachers collective agreement? Will he confirm that to this House?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I will not pre-judge what the

hon. Minister of Finance is going to say in this House in the not to distant

future. However I will reiterate what the Premier has already said, that over

the next few weeks we will be looking at every single possible way that we can

make some savings to deal with this emergency that has been inflicted upon us,

as the result of many reasons, the most important reason of all, Mr. Speaker,

the seventeen years of mismanagement that the previous administration inflicted

on this Province.

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

Extern.

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

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. The minister will be aware

that approximately this time last year we did have a storm and we had terrific

tie-ups of traffic up to six hours, a great number of accidents, and indeed, Mr.

Speaker, some minor injuries. Does the minister have any contingency plans to

put in place this year -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - so the same type of thing cannot happen

this year now - the year we are into now?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in the

House yesterday, the department has a plan in place for the winter, and the

winter status of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation for this

time of year is the same as it was this time last year, is the same as it was

the year before that, and is essentially the same plan and mode of operation

that has been in place for the last six or seven years.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition would like to create the

impression in the public mind that government restraint is in some way

jeopardizing the travelling public. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I

have compiled the figures for snow and ice control, both the budgeted amount and

the actual expenditure, and Mr. Speaker, these figures are compiled from 1985-86

to 1992-93, and the figures clearly indicate both the budgeted figures and the

expenditure figures that more is being expended on snow and ice control by this

administration than the previous administration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table the

information that this allegation that there are cutbacks is clearly refuted

because the dollar expenditures are greater than what the previous

administration spent on snow and ice control. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

That is a real commitment. That is not words, that is money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he is getting a bit lengthy

with his answer, so I would ask him to finish rather quickly, please.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, the plan for this time of year is

to have the foreman assess the road conditions generally between 4:30 and 5:00

a.m. every day. If, in the foreman's opinion, equipment needs to start work at

5:00 a.m. or at any time, he can issue the instructions to have that equipment

start work. He can have it at 5:00 a.m., he can have it at 6:00 a.m., he can

have it at 8:00 a.m. This system that we have in place depends on the judgement

of the foremen, and we have competent, capable foremen around this Province

exercising their best judgement to protect the travelling public. In these three

particular cases the foreman exercised his judgement and dispatched the

equipment when he felt it was necessary for the equipment to be dispatched.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, some questions were raised by the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition with respect to the three accidents which occurred on

November 16, and I undertook to provide the information in relation to those

questions.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in Question Period, I do have the

summary of expenditures, which I would like to table, for snow and ice control,

which clearly indicates that there has been no restraint in this particular

area.

I indicated that I would check on the status of the

department - as winter status this year versus the winter status last year. The

status of the department for this period of time, this year, is the same as it

was last year, is the same as it was the year before, and is essentially the

same as the policies that have been put in place for the last six or seven

years. Right now, the system is, that the foremen the department have are

dispersed throughout the Province. They assess the road conditions and if, in

the foreman's opinion, it is necessary to bring men and equipment on to clear

the roads, they have the authority to do that, and the budgetary - that is their

absolute discretion. The foreman makes the judgement.

In this particular case, in the three particular cases, the

accidents all occurred, I believe, between 2:15 p.m. and 3:15 p.m. Full crews,

it is my understanding, and foremen were in at 8:00 a.m. The foreman, in his

judgement, if he wanted to dispatch the equipment at any time between 5:00 a.m.

and when the accidents occurred, he could dispatch the equipment. He exercised

his judgement, and the equipment was dispatched.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that with respect

to the accident which occurred on the West Coast, the accident occurred at 3:15

p.m. and the flyer left Wild Cove at 11:30 a.m. and returned to the depot at

2:15 p.m.; was dispatched at 3:15 p.m. and returned to the depot at 5:30 p.m.;

was dispatched at 6:00 p.m. and returned to the depot at 8:30 p.m. So the

equipment was available, and it was operating; and in all cases where these

accidents occurred, the foreman has the authority to monitor the situation and

dispatch the equipment. I believe the foremen are competent and capable of

making that determination, and they have the authority to do so.

In these three particular instances, as in the case when

there is a fatality, the decisions of the foremen will be reviewed by the

executive of the department.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West, on a point of order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that the

minister intentionally misled this House, but in terms of the information that

he gave, relative to the question that was asked, all he did was confirm

indirectly that the winter shift was not on; the only person on was the foreman,

and the winter shift had not been put in place. There was nobody working except

the foreman! That is what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. member, under the guise

of a point of order, made a clarification.

What is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation -

MR. GOVER: Answers to Questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. minister had answered the

question.

MR. GOVER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, let me further advise the hon. member

the he has taken up considerable time. In this period, Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given, we operate under the same system as we do under

Question Period, and members should remember that and try to make their answers

as precise and as concise as possible, and not get into a speech-making

situation, particularly since the Opposition has no opportunity for reply.

Honourable members should keep that in mind, and please remember the rules.

I will allow the hon. member to finish in a very short while.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get this

straight. The member sat down after he gave the answer to the question that was

asked. I rose on a point of order, and before I was finished making my point of

order - and I duly respect your ruling and your decision, and I will accept it -

you ruled that there was no point of order. I rose on that after the hon.

minister took his seat, after answering the questions. I am now asking under

what heading is he being recognized?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair can only operate on the - what

shall I say? - the goodwill of members. The Chair also thought the member was

finished. He was certainly seated when the hon. member stood on a point of

order, but the member said the minister stood again, and the Chair just asked

why he was standing. He said he didn't have the question answered. I can only

assume that he misunderstood the situation. I will give the minister just a

minute to explain what happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

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

MR. GOVER: I just wish to clarify, Mr. Speaker, the

situation with respect to winter status. The winter status at this time of year

involves the foreman being on duty at 5:00 a.m. The foreman has to make this

determination. Call-back of crews and the leasing of tender and tendering of

equipment -

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

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

The hon. the Member for St. John's East Extern, on a point of

order.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation is misleading the House intentionally but

what he is saying is not the truth. There is no one at the White Hills.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The House Leader can protest all he likes.

The point remains, the House has to be told the truth and the minister is not

telling the truth. There is no one at the White Hills after 4:30 in the

afternoon. I have it here, Mr. Speaker: 'The winter shift will commence the

middle of December, or earlier, if required.' I am asking him - and I asked him

earlier today: Will that shift go on tonight? Because tonight we get the storm!

Tell the House the truth - and the shift will be from 4:30 to 1:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the -

MR. PARSONS: Get up and tell the truth, don't camouflage

it. What he is saying, Mr. Speaker, is not true.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: To that point of order. I won't engage the

hon. gentleman in debate. I will say that what he did was improper because he is

trying to raise a debate under a point of order. I will say that if he didn't

know what he was doing was improper, it could only be because he neither heard

nor heeded Your Honour's ruling a moment or so ago. Because the gentleman - and

I use the term in the parliamentary sense, of course - from Burin - Placentia

West used exactly the same tactic.

All that is going to do, Mr. Speaker, is perpetuate a

situation where the rules of the House are being flaunted. It is incumbent on us

all to have at least a glimmer of them, I say to my friend from St. John's East

Extern. That is all I claim to have but at least I have a glimmer.

When Your Honour makes a ruling those concerned - and the

hon. gentleman from St. John's East Extern was simply raising a point of order,

I say, Mr. Speaker, and this is out of order, for him to use a point of order to

try to engage in debate. He has the same right to engage in debate as everybody

else. What he is attempting to do is get the floor when he is not entitled to

it, Sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. I say to hon. members on both

sides of the House, I mentioned earlier that the House operates on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I mentioned earlier that the House works on dignity and

respect. We can only believe what a member says. The assumption is that when a

member says something, then that is actually correct.

I have allowed the hon. the minister plenty of time and I am

going to move on to further business.

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

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

Transportation, on a point of order.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member accused me of

being a liar. If he hadn't jumped up, but allowed me to finish, he would have

gotten the answer to his question!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: This matter is dragging on. The Member for

St. John's East Extern wanted the truth to be told in this Legislature, which is

incumbent upon all members. I want, in finishing, to say to the minister that

there have been a lot of research and phone calls gone around this Province in

the last twenty-four hours, Mr. Speaker. What the Member for St. John's East

Extern has said is not only true about the White Hills, but it is true about

other depots all around this Province.

I find it quite interesting that the minister, in his answer,

didn't give the details on the accident on the Baie Verte Peninsula, where a

death occurred and then the ambulance went off the road trying to get to the

accident site.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: Why didn't the minister talk about that

situation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has ruled that there is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Member's Day,

of course. Motion 6, in the name of my friend from Eagle River.

Private Members' Day

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today,

I am very happy to introduce the resolution and call upon members of the House

of Assembly to deal with an issue that is very important to the people of

Labrador. Today it is important for all of the people of the Province to speak

through their members in the House of Assembly on this very important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

If the hon. the Member for Eagle River would permit a brief

interruption. The Chair apologizes for having to do this, but we have a group of

students here. I should have introduced them before, and if we don't do it they

will be gone. I thank the hon. member. So, on behalf of hon. members, I would

like to extend a warm welcome today to twenty-four Level II students from E.J.

Pratt Central High School, Brownsdale in the District of Trinity - Bay de Verde.

They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Jesse Bown, Mr. Richard Knapman and

their bus driver, Mr. Murray Hudson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was indicating, Mr Speaker, today is a very important

day for the people of Labrador. We are going to be debating an issue that is

central to the minds of all Labradorians. It is very important to the people

from one end of Labrador to the other, to have the issue of the Trans-Labrador

Highway discussed and debated. Of course, it is very important to have the

wishes of the people expressed in this hon. House of Assembly.

I would enlist, Mr. Speaker, from the outset, the support of

all hon. members for this particular resolution, because of a number of things.

Certainly one of the most important things is that we have in the making today a

national highway system, a national transportation policy. We also, Mr. Speaker,

have an opportunity through our Premier, who is going to be meeting with the

Prime Minister shortly, to be able to express to the Prime Minister the wishes

of the people of this Province respecting the Trans-Labrador Highway.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the

resolution and, in the fifteen or so minutes that I have to open, I would like

to talk about the present situation in Labrador, for the knowledge and benefit

of all hon. members, to give them a good understanding of what exactly is

happening in Labrador today, as it relates to transportation. I will also, Mr.

Speaker, elaborate on the justification for this particular project. I will

certainly be talking about the benefits that will accrue to this Province and,

indeed, all of Atlantic Canada, by the completion of this particular highway.

Mr. Speaker, I will also be talking about the Roads for Rail

Agreement. I would be remiss if I didn't indicate to this hon. House the details

of the Roads for Rail Agreement and how that has impacted upon the people of

Labrador. Also, Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate I will certainly be

talking about the routing of the highway, some of the ways it should be

approached from a Labradorian's point of view.

Mr. Speaker, I will move on and read in the resolution:

WHEREAS a National Highway Policy is currently in the process

of development; and

WHEREAS the national system as presently defined does not

include the Trans-Labrador Highway; and

WHEREAS any funding under the policy must be incremental to

the Roads for Rail Agreement; and

WHEREAS the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway is

essential for the economic development of Labrador and greatly beneficial to all

of the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly call upon the

Federal Government to support the inclusion of the Trans-Labrador Highway into

the National Highway System; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Federal Government provide

sufficient funds in the National Highway policy to complete the Trans-Labrador

Highway.

Mr. Speaker, that is the resolution that we have the

privilege to debate here today. As I said earlier, I would take this opportunity

to ask all hon. members of this House to give their support today to this very

important initiative, Mr. Speaker. I would like, for all hon. members' sake, to

just review the present situation in Labrador as it relates to transportation.

We all know that not everybody has the privilege of visiting and living and

being familiar with the issues in Labrador and, indeed, even being in Labrador,

Mr. Speaker. I know that all hon. members would like to, but certainly they are

not able to, go into Labrador and be able to understand the issues there, as

they would like to. So I would like to review the present situation in Labrador,

Mr. Speaker, as it relates to transportation.

Labrador, as everybody knows in this Province, is three times

the size of the Island. Labrador is an immense territory, it covers a

significant part of Canada. Probably 90 per cent of it, Mr. Speaker, is still

untouched, is still virgin territory as it relates to development.

The people of Labrador are centered in four different

regions. We have the Labrador West area of Labrador City - Wabush where the iron

ore mines are; we have Churchill Falls and Happy Valley - Goose Bay and that

area, then along the coast on the one side of Hamilton Inlet we have the people

from Cartwright to L'Anse-au-Clair and on the other side of Hamilton Inlet we

have from Rigolet to Nain.

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous territory to have so many

people dispersed that people just cannot understand the kind of challenges that

are there for the people of Labrador as it relates to the transportation aspect

of it, for all of the people of Labrador, excluding the people of Labrador West,

because the people of Labrador West in the last number of years have been able

to access the outside world by virtue of the connection being made in through

Quebec, and now we have a twelve-month service, a twelve-month road link to the

people of Labrador West by virtue of that particular connection.

But apart from that particular area of Labrador, we have the

other 75 per cent of the population of Labrador totally isolated from the rest

of the world for a significant period of time. We have the people of Happy

Valley - Goose Bay, who are certainly without any kind of transportation other

than air transportation for seven months a year. I mean, people do not

understand and cannot comprehend that here we have people who cannot get out to

the outside world unless they incur tremendous costs and those costs are not

able to be borne by the majority of the people in Labrador.

When you consider that it is cheaper to fly from Gander to

London, England; it is cheaper, Mr. Speaker, to fly from Gander to London,

England than it is to fly from St. John's to Cartwright. When you consider that

kind of cost, then certainly the people in central Labrador cannot even think

about moving outside of their area, of their home for seven months a year; from

now, the 20th of November until at least the middle of June, we will not see a

vessel, we will not see any kind of outside transportation into Happy Valley

-Goose Bay. People do not understand, I don't think, what that means and what it

is like to live in that kind of a situation and that kind of situation is not

unknown to other parts of Labrador.

From Rigolet to Nain, we have the people there isolated for

at least five months a year. From now until at least June, or at least in a

month from now until June we have the people from Rigolet North who are totally

isolated and as I said, the cost is insurmountable for the vast majority of

these residents. Then on the other side of the Hamilton Inlet where you go from

Cartwright to L'Anse- au-Clair - well, I guess to be perfectly fair in the

assessment of transportation, there are even two sections there, from Cartwright

to Mary's Harbour. That is an area where there is no road presently and it is an

area where the only means of transportation, again for six months of the year,

is air transportation.

In the Labrador Straits, we do have the virtue of a highway,

some ninety miles of paved highway connecting the seven communities from

L'Anse-au-Clair to Red Bay, and of course there is ninety miles of paved highway

on the other side of the Quebec border, so we have about 180 miles of paved

highway in that particular area for the people to use, but at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, after the 1st of January there is no access to the Island, there is no

access to Quebec, there is no access to the outside world for anybody in a

vehicle. They have to put up with the fact that the ferry will discontinue at

that time, and certainly there will not be any access to the outside world until

at least the middle of May of every year. So about five months and a half or so

every year even the people of this area are totally isolated.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the context upon which we approach

this issue today. The people of Labrador have always been fair people. The

people of Labrador have always expressed their willingness to participate in

this Province and to contribute to this Province in a very meaningful way. We

have always welcomed our friends and our neighbours from the Island of

Newfoundland who went down there to fish in the early years and certainly

continue to do so today. We have always welcomed our friends from the Island

parts of this Province to Labrador West when we started the iron ore mines. We

have members in the hon. House of Assembly who are not native to Labrador, who

represent Labrador, and certainly they have been embraced as great Labradorians

who have the best interest of Labrador at heart.

So, Mr. Speaker, what we have here today is a good, honest,

fair-minded people who are coming to this hon. House through this resolution

asking the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to endorse a program, to endorse

a policy that will see the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway, because,

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely essential that this highway be done for the people

of Labrador. But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, it is not only for the people

of Labrador that this needs to be done. It has to be done for the people on the

Island of the Province. It has to be done for the benefit of the people in

Atlantic Canada and Quebec, Mr. Speaker. It has to be done for all of the people

in Eastern Canada because it is an opportunity that cannot be neglected any

longer.

We are asking, Mr. Speaker, to have the Marine Atlantic

system assessed. We are asking the people to look at what is happening with that

transportation system, Mr. Speaker, to see if, indeed, we are getting our best

bang for our buck, and I would suggest that we are not. I would suggest that

today we are losing as a net loss every year some $20 million to $25 million a

year just going down the drain, just being poured endlessly. Scarce, precious

dollars being poured endlessly down the drain for three and a half to four

months of service to Labrador, to coastal Labrador, to Goose Bay every year

through Marine Atlantic.

Only a couple of years ago, Mr. Speaker, the first boat

didn't get into Nain until the last of August, and then they were gone again the

twelfth of November. So here you have September and October - less than three

months of service for $20-some million - $25 million. Twenty-five million

dollars, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of money these days to be paying for anything,

but to be paying for a service like the transportation policy dictates today, to

be paying for a service that is only serving the people for three and a half to

four months a year is absolutely disgraceful. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that

we have to cast a very critical eye on the service that Marine Atlantic is

providing and see if we cannot find a better way to be able to spend that money,

if we can't find a way to redirect those resources so that the people of

Labrador can be given not a three and a half month service, not a three and a

half month delivery of their goods and services, but a twelve month service.

That is the kind of thing that we are asking that should be taken seriously, Mr.

Speaker. And I would submit that it has to happen for a number of reasons.

Apart from the reasons that I have outlined, the fact that we

do have the $20-some million there right now that is being wasted year after

year, Mr. Speaker, I also think that the economy and the transportation system

as we have it now, through the virtues of this government in the last couple of

months, we have now indicated that we are going to set the history of Labrador.

We are going to start the history of Labrador and the transportation going in

the right direction by seeing the road from Goose Bay to Churchill Falls and

into Labrador City, kept open this year. That is a milestone that this

government should be proud of, and I know the people of Labrador are very

thankful of the kind of contribution that this government has made to the

Trans-Labrador Highway.

What we have to keep in mind is that now that this particular

road is going to be open, now that we are going to see continuous traffic go

from Labrador City to Goose Bay, by virtue of the tractor trailer, we are going

to see 60 per cent of Marine Atlantic's demand disappear. The people of Happy

Valley - Goose Bay are not going to use the coastal boat service when they can

have their goods and services delivered to them by truck from Labrador West and

from Quebec. They will not do it.

I submit that in five year's time there will be no need to

have a vessel going into Happy Valley - Goose Bay with freight, because the

demand will not be there for that freight to be delivered. It will be brought in

by transport truck into Happy Valley - Goose Bay, as it is being done today.

So we are going to be presented with a very, very difficult

situation, and one that has to be looked at very seriously. We are going to be

presented with a situation where we have not $25 million that is going to be

demanded out of the public purse, but it will obviously have to increase once

you lose 60 per cent of your revenue, and you still have to service that vast

territory from Mary's Harbour, Red Bay area down to Nain. That will still have

to be done. That 1,500 miles or so of coastline, the people will still have to

be serviced. That will still have to continue. Those operating expenses will

still have to be there, so we are going to have ever-increasing demands on the

public purse of this country to support this particular aspect of

transportation. I would submit that we are going to have to seriously look at

this, because I think there has to be a better way to use these precious dollars

than they are being used right now.

Of course, it takes no genius to calculate and conclude that

over the last twenty years some $500 million has been spent on the Marine

Atlantic service to see that that particular aspect of the service is put into

Labrador under the Terms of Union. I would submit that we would be dishonest; we

will be certainly abdicating our responsibility as legislators if we look to the

future of this Province in the next twenty years and see that we are going to

see another $400 million or $500 million spent on this service while the people

of Labrador still do not have a proper highway to service their needs.

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very serious issue, and one

that has to be approached in a very responsible fashion, but I also submit that

it has to be done very soon. We cannot allow the continuous expenditure of this

nature without some kind of plan, and without some kind of process in place

where we will be able to see progress on the Trans-Labrador Highway at the same

time as we are seeing the goods and services delivered to the coastal

communities in Happy Valley - Goose Bay by water.

I would point that out for hon. members, and in the twenty

minutes that I will have to conclude, later on this afternoon, I will go through

what I believe are the very important and salient matters to be raised as far as

the economics of this project is concerned, because I want no allusions to be

left there after today - that we are not looking for a handout. Labradorians are

not asking for a handout. We are not asking that people be given money to

produce a highway that will not be paid for, every dollar of it, Mr. Speaker.

We're not asking that. We want to make sure that we are not looking for

something to serve as a social program. We are looking for something that will

be based on good, sound, hard economic facts.

I want to in the last twenty minutes illustrate our case on

the basis of these matters. That we are able to prove beyond a doubt, and I am

confident that the present study being done by the comprehensive Labrador

agreement will conclude - I'm very optimistic that that study will conclude -

that the rationale for the Trans-Labrador Highway is based on sound economic

facts. That we will see accrue to this Province, accrue to this country, the

kind of economic return that of course must be there in order to approach a

project of this magnitude when we're dealing with so many precious dollars of

the taxpayers' money.

I look forward to hearing the other hon. members of this

House today expound upon this resolution. Certainly I would hope that they can

give their support to it, and I would certainly be listening to any of the

arguments that they may put up, for or against the particular resolution. I hope

that we can come out of here this afternoon with an unanimous point of view to

the effect that this resolution should carry, and that it should be carried out

of this House into the office of the Prime Minister when the Premier meets with

him in the very near future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great

pleasure and it is a privilege to be able to rise in my place and say to the

hon. Member for Eagle River that his comments for the first twenty minutes I

have no fault with. I can see where this road was called the 'Freedom Road,'

because it certainly freed a lot of people to escape from that isolation that

they were in for the longest time.

I remember myself when I worked at Goose Bay it was isolation

plus. You were there and there was no way out. I'm sure that perhaps that road

would certainly be a benefit to the entire area, Churchill Falls, and go right

on to Montreal if you wanted to. Certainly the road would be advantageous to a

great number of people.

When I worked in Goose Bay, Labrador, the only people who had

cars for any advantage to themselves was the military. They used theirs up and

down the runway, for policing or whatever. Then when Happy Valley came on-stream

civilians used cars, buses and whatever, because many of the people went out

there to live. But that was it. North West River was a demarcation line. If

there ever was isolation, that was isolation.

It's a very important issue and I can see where the hon.

member is coming from. The Premier I think is due to go away next week, and

there are monies I believe to be made available, new monies. Not monies from the

Roads for Rails but some new monies to come from the federal coffers. But this

is where I differ from the hon. member.

I'm sure that no matter if monies are made available by the

federal government that I'm sure it's not going to be 100 per cent costed by the

federal people. It'll be cost-shared in one way or the other. We have now $70

million, or close to it - $68.2 million - already allocated by the federal

government to do the Outer Ring road, under the Roads for Rail Agreement and -

one second now.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible) the railway, anyway.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Member for Port de

Grave always has an interjection, whether you are right or wrong, it doesn't

matter, just for the sake of yakking, and the hon. Member for Pleasantville, as

well. Mr. Speaker, if someone will come to me, I will have a copy made of this.

It says: The hon. gentleman who brought this before the House will fight plan

for $100 million Outer Ring Road money. So, as I stand here this evening and

talk about the monies allocated to the Outer Ring Road, yes, I am addressing

what that hon. member addressed in the media.

I am certainly not going to say that Labrador should not get

that highway. I am certain you will never get me on my feet here to say anything

like it. I think perhaps if there is new money available,then they should get

part of it, at least. But, Mr. Speaker, that hon. member has publicly stated

that the money allocated to the Outer Ring Road should be spent on the Labrador

Highway, and I think that is an incredible idea for any common sense,

right-thinking hon. member to come up with, to take money - What has he against

the people of St. John's and its environs? I mean, all I can hear from him is

lashing out at the people in this area. I want to make it quite clear to this

House, Mr. Speaker, that I stand here and I am being truthful in saying that

that Outer Ring Road is a must. It is a necessity. It is a necessity to relieve

the situation that is occurring every day on Prince Phillip Parkway, on Columbus

Drive.

I want to point out to the hon. member - he talks about Red

Bay and I agree that Red Bay, too, is isolated on that coast, but they do have

half-decent roads within those communities. But to facilitate Red Bay, you are

talking about 3,000 people and those 3,000 people do have a right but the point

remains that if this highway were built to Red Bay, an extension of the highway,

then who would maintain it? I mean, the government doesn't have the money now to

maintain what we have. You heard the minister today talking about shifts on

duty. There are no shifts on; there is no money, apparently, to pay the workers,

and now the hon. gentleman talks about extending the highway.

Mr. Speaker, if we like it or lump it - and I hope that the

hon. member is listening - whether we like it or lump it, this is where

one-third of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador live, or approximately

one-third, on the Northeast Avalon, and I want to remind the hon. the Member for

Bellvue - I don't think he is in the House and I don't like to say anything -

yes, he is. The hon. the Member for Bellevue clapped today when someone

mentioned the Outer Ring Road, but many of his constituents commute to St.

John's and use the roads here, and are now into tie-ups on Kenmount Road and

Prince Philip Parkway and Columbus Drive. His constituents, members of the

communities he represents, have to come in and utilize the hospitals, the

Janeway hospital, the Health Sciences. Perhaps his children are attending

university or one of the trades colleges, all in that particular area; or

perhaps he has a flight to catch at Torbay airport and he has to cross the same

bottleneck of traffic. I mean, that is not necessary. Whether we like it or not,

one-third - I remind the hon. the Member for Carbonear, so do his people

commute, a great number of them, to St. John's. And I, today - he will receive a

letter. And I ask for his support and the other people's support - where the

residents commute to St. John's and will be using this new artery.

We can think what we like. We lost the railway, and I think,

rightly so. When we lost the railway, there was only one way to get cargo or

people out of this Province without using the roads - tractor trailer or

whatever - it was through Torbay airport, and that is part and parcel of it. We

don't have any other access now and this road would relieve the situation of

heavy traffic, commercial traffic, vehicular traffic across Columbus Drive,

across the Prince Philip Parkway, leaving it free for other people, the students

attending university, people in emergency situations who want to get to the

Health Sciences Complex, when it is a matter of life or death, people who want

to bring their children or their grandchildren to the Janeway. That is what we

are talking about.

We are not talking about building a grand road around St.

John's because it is St. John's. What is wrong with St. John's? It is the hub of

Newfoundland; it is where the commerce starts and you can believe that if you

like. I know every member here is not representing St. John's districts, but the

point remains, it is St. John's. And what I see with a great number of hon.

members in this House is an anti-St. John's attitude. It is almost like the

Baymen - St. John's days.

I have no objection to the hon. member rising in his place

and presenting that resolution, none whatsoever, but I do have reservations, and

I do have complaints when that hon. gentleman rises in his place; and he will do

it in his last twenty minutes - he didn't fool me. Platitudes was all he

presented. He didn't even mention the cost of the road, he didn't mention the

building of the road, he didn't mention anything. He is going to do it in his

last twenty minutes, and I suggest to the House that he will also say that the

$68.2 million that was allocated to the Outer Ring Road will be much better

spent in Labrador.

I say to the Minister of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: There are too many names to it, Mr. Speaker.

It is Development, Technology -

MR. SPEAKER: Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. PARSONS: I am sorry - Industry, Technology and

Development. It is confusing.

Now, I know that hon. gentleman is quite capable of

performance in each one of those categories, but it is a tongue twister.

Anyway, the minister can rise in his place when I am

finished.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology, on a point of order.

MR. FUREY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you took care of part

of my point of order by explaining to the hon. member that it is Industry, Trade

and Technology - IT&T - IT and T.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, would the hon.

gentleman tell us whether he and his party will be supporting this resolution?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to respond to that.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will certainly

respond.

You see, on this side of the House, we don't have a god who

sits over all, who will get up here and tell you when to rise, when to sit down,

when to answer a question. That is not the way this side of the House operates.

I will get up here and say what I think, and the rest of the members are free to

get up and say what they think; and this evening when the count is taken you

will see who are the pros and who are the cons.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend from Harbour Grace,

where there are a great number of people - you go on the Trans-Canada in the

morning and you will find a great number of people, his constituents, and I am

sure, that hon. gentleman sees the need for the Outer Ring Road. He can see - he

knows. Every member here - and I say to the hon. the Member for Port de Grave

that he will agree with it - the need is there for it.

No matter who in Newfoundland prospers, be it St. John's

people, be it Labradorians - as I said before, I worked in Labrador. No problem.

I don't know all about it, but I know something about it. And I have no problem

with those people being facilitated in the best way possible through the means

available to them. What I am saying is, the hon. the Member for Eagle River is

here for one reason only. He is the Member for Eagle River. That is all he

addresses. He doesn't address the concerns of any other constituency in this

Province - not another one - only Labrador. His biggest beef, Mr. Speaker, is in

connection with Labrador, and I say, fine with me, but we are all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We spent thousands and thousands of dollars going around this

Province, trying to get Newfoundland and Labrador as the name of the Province. I

hope that when that hon. gentleman rises in his place for the last twenty

minutes, he will say, 'I am sorry for all the things I have said and done to the

people of St. John's and its environs.' He will say, I really didn't mean it -

that they should get the monies that were allocated to them. They should get

that money.' And I know he will agree with me.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the people outside St. John's,

the outlying areas, and I am sure that all those hon. gentlemen - and I call

them hon. gentlemen because -

AN HON. MEMBER: Baymen.

MR. PARSONS: No, I was called a Bayman at one time, so

that doesn't really stimulate me. It doesn't rub off on me, either.

Mr. Speaker, now I am going to the people on the opposite

side of this House. I have good friends over there, men and women whom I

respect. I am asking those people today - the hon. Minister of Environment and

Lands, whom I see over there, the Minister of Social Services, the Minister of

Mines and Energy, the Minister of Tourism - I am asking them, where do they

stand on this issue? I have written you all letters. There is no doubt about it,

you will all get them today. We mailed them this morning. I have written you all

letters. Now, I am asking you today in the House, are you going to stand up for

the people that you represent? That is the issue here now because this is going

to be a divided issue: Take the money from St. John's and spend it in Labrador.

I say, if you can get new money, spend it in Labrador. I am asking the Member

for St. John's South, where do you stand on the issue? Do you think the money

should be taken from the Outer Ring Road and spent on the road in Labrador?

MR. MURPHY: Who said that?

MR. PARSONS: That is what -

MR. MURPHY: The member just said the Premier (inaudible)

you had better watch out they don't boycott (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Yes, he did. Take away the $100 million, he

said, and spend it in Labrador. That is his point. I know there are none of us

naive enough not to realize what is happening here today. The Premier is going

to see the Prime Minister. He can't pick up the phone and call him because he

will get a busy tone, and rightly so - for what he has done, rightly so. But,

Mr. Speaker, he is going up now to try to see him. But I want to ask hon.

members - I am asking again for each and every one of you to stand in your

places and say that you are against your constituents or you are for your

constituents. Stand on your feet and say it. I say to the Minister of Tourism,

certainly, he doesn't want that money taken from St. John's and its environs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Pippy Park.

MR. PARSONS: It has nothing to do with Pippy Park,

nothing whatsoever. If that is what the Minister of Tourism is hiding behind,

then I have no reason to even put questions to you.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave - I

mean, I don't mind him. I don't mind him at all, Mr. Speaker. If I wanted a

legal adviser I would be over speaking to him, but apart from that, Mr. Speaker,

I have no reason to address his comments at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you vote in the 1949 referendum?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, how did you vote in 1949?

MR. PARSONS: I voted with the rest of the people around

the St. John's area. And I am still part and parcel of them; and I will still

stand up for my constituents, and you will never hear me saying: What about

Pippy Park and the few left wingers? That is what you are talking about. Do you

know what you are talking about? - one-half per cent. The only one who could

truthfully stand in his place today and say that what I am saying is wrong is

perhaps the hon. the Member for St. John's East. He would possibly say that I am

wrong. He would possibly say that a great number of his constituents are against

the Outer Ring Road because of Pippy Park, because I think that is where most of

them live, in that particular area. That is about a half of one per cent. But I

want the hon. the Member for St. John's South, who is very, very vocal, to tell

his people, to tell all the people of St. John's and its environs to whom he is

responsible - I want the rest of the ministers, every single one; and the hon.

the Minister of Justice, he is a St. John's person. Sure, he represents a

district of Labrador, the whole district, but he is from St. John's. Is he to

defy the St. John's people? I again ask the Minister of Environment -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Let me say this to the hon. the Member for

Eagle River - I have only three minutes left and I want to say something to the

hon. Member for Eagle River; let me tell him something - he is always getting up

and shooting off at the feds. He is shooting himself in the foot in trying to

shoot the feds down.

In 1985, with amendments, there were two basic components of

ERDA: improvements to the coastal road from Red Bay to Blanc Sablon, $11.4

million; Trans-Labrador Highway, $45.2 million. Now let me say to the member -

I'm not sure if he's aware of it or not - but the $9 million that went to

improve the bridges on the Trans-Labrador Highway was taken from the Torbay

by-pass road. We all knew it and agreed with it. I was asked about it. That's

where the $9 million came from, from the Torbay by-pass road. We agreed to let

it go to help the people in Labrador. We all did. I was one of the people who

was asked about it. We let it go. Now he gets up and almost vilifies the people

in this area.

AN HON. MEMBER: You weren't in government.

MR. PARSONS: Government what? What are you talking about,

in government? This is all federal funding, boy. Now I want to say to the

members opposite, if they were to spend - economic times are rough - there is

$70 million to be spent, federal funding. What percentage of that will end up in

the provincial coffers? I'd say anywhere from 50 per cent to 75 per cent. It's

labour intensive. The road has to go there.

I'd say to the hon. Member for Eagle River, I support your

motion for new monies. Where I cannot support you is when you get on with this

type of blarney when you say the money should be taken from the Outer Ring road

and placed on the Trans-Labrador Highway. For this, I will never sit down and

listen to that hon. member. I ask again, for the members from the St. John's

region, I ask the members of the St. John's region: are they going to sit idly

by and -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: He is an hon. member. I've always said it.

But I'm asking all of them, each and every one of them - the Member for

Pleasantville - where's his stand on this? Is he going to allow this money to

slip away from the people who have a justification, a realisation, that it is to

come, for a better network of roads.

MR. NOEL: (Inaudible)!

MR. PARSONS: The only thing that the hon. Member for

Pleasantville knows about is Triple-E. I've told him before, in shoes more than

Senate.

MR. NOEL: Why don't you read the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It might be the appropriate time to remind the hon. member

that his time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, by leave?

In closing, the hon. member does have some good points. If

the money is available there is a need for that road. I was there too when the

boats were coming in. It was hard lines, to say the least. With ice and

whatever, navigation was almost impossible. I say to the hon. member, when he

does get in his place for the last twenty minutes, I will agree with him for

getting new monies from Ottawa to help with that Trans-Labrador Highway. There's

no doubt in my mind that I can agree with that. I support him on that.

On the other side of the coin, I hope that he forgets these

other foolish, nonsensical remarks that he is making as it pertains to the other

monies that are now made available for the Outer Ring road, to help the people

of St. John's. Not alone for St. John's, but the entire northeast area, the

northeast Avalon.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Minister of Justice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I launch into

the burden of the few brief words I want to say, let me say two things in

response to the speech just made by the hon. gentleman for St. John's East

Extern. I'll come back to one of these points later. This resolution does not

call for the transfer of highways funds presently allocated to one part of the

Province to be used to fund the Trans-Labrador Highway. That reflects the policy

of the Ministry, the policy of the government.

He shows me a cutting from the newspaper. I haven't seen it.

I don't really care what's in it. Whoever made those remarks, assuming they're

correctly reported, made them, and that's fine by me. But whoever made those

remarks was not expressing the view of the Ministry. The only people who are

bound to the Ministry are the fifteen of us who at the present time are members

of the Ministry.

My friends who are supporting us, but who are not yet members

of the Ministry, are at liberty to say as they wish, as are the hon. gentlemen

opposite; but those of us who have taken the oath of the Ministry, as Ministers

of the Crown, are under a different type of discipline and a different type of

approach.

I will not quote for the hon. gentleman a song that he knows

well about 'a fisherboy who was leaving for to go to the Labrador.' He knows the

song, and I leave the thought with him. I have the words to the song, if he is

interested, and in case he does not remember. This was the original

anti-confederate anthem - not the 1869 one - this was the 1948 one. 'A fisherboy

was leaving for to go to the Labrador.'

The point I want to make on that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) plenty of fish.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes there was, and if the Government of

Canada had run the fishery properly there would still be plenty of fish, but

that is another story.

The point I want to make is that too often, and I say this as

somebody who was born in the Newfoundland part of this Province, and over thirty

years has travelled around a fair bit of the Island and of Labrador, and now has

been sent by the people of part of Labrador to speak for them here in this

House.

The key thing in that song is not simply saying: Don't vote

Confederation. The hon. gentleman has already acknowledged that he was singing

that at the top of his lungs back in forty-eight and forty-nine. Fortunately

nobody listened to him then, as nobody does today, but he is used to that.

The point I want to make is that even in those days too many

people in this Province simply saw Labrador as a place to which we went. We from

the Island went and brought back things, and that is one of the great problems

of our time. This resolution is intended to try to address that, and redress it.

My friend wants to say something.

MR. PARSONS: As regards the referendum in 1948, I want to

remind hon. gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, that we won the first vote.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my memories of the referendum

are few and far between. I was eight years old at the time. What I will say to

him is: We, the people, won the second vote and won Confederation. There cannot

be a Newfoundlander or a Labradorian alive today, possessed of his or her

senses, who would not say that the right vote was a vote for Confederation. I

respect the people who voted against it. They have the right to be wrong, but

they were wrong, and history has so proven.

I want to come back to the resolution, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

I realize in the House sometimes that speaking to the point is not something

that all of us do, and I guess I am guilty, as are most members from time to

time, of straying from the point. Let me come back to the point of this

resolution.

In my view this motion, the resolution moved so very ably by

my friend from Eagle River - the other half of the present Liberal caucus from

Labrador, who will be one of four after the election, from Labrador, on this

side of the House - this motion demands and deserves the support of every member

of this House.

I am glad that the hon. gentleman opposite, the first to

speak for the members who sit to Your Honour's right, said he intends to support

it. I hope his colleagues do too. I understand all of us on this side of the

House will also vote in favour of the resolution. I shall vote for it with much

pleasure and with great enthusiasm, and I am calling on my friends on this side

to vote for it, and as I have said, I believe they will.

I do not need to repeat the case put so very well by my

friend from Eagle River, but there was much wisdom in what he said, and I would

commend his remarks to the House.

I want to go on, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to make several other

points that I think add to the case in favour of this resolution, and my friend

from Menihek, I understand, is to follow me. I suspect that he will endorse much

of what I am to say, just as he would endorse much of what my friend from Eagle

River said, because on this issue there ought to be no partisanship. This ought

to be one that commands the support of every member of the House because it

commands the support, in my judgement, of every person who lives in Labrador,

from the Black Rocks at the border to Nain, or from Cape Harrison on the

Atlantic Coast right over to Western Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I am sorry?

AN HON. MEMBER: I will not be following you. I will speak

after you.

MR. ROBERTS: Then I am grateful, because I would rather

have the hon. gentleman where I could see him than behind me. I have to say

that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should not come to a battle

of wits half-armed, I say to him.

Now let me carry on with my point. I only have twenty minutes

and I want to use them to speak to the resolution.

The first point I want to make is that this project, to build

the Trans-Labrador Highway, and let it be clearly understood, the Trans-Labrador

Highway runs from the Straits to Happy Valley - Goose Bay and from Happy Valley

- Goose Bay to Churchill and from Churchill to Western Labrador into Labrador

City and Wabush and then west from there a few kilometres to the border with the

neighbouring Province of Quebec.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great national

project. In my view, it is one that is worthy of being compared with and in

every way comparable with the building of the CPR, one of the great programs

that brought this country together, introduced and brought to reality by a Tory,

Sir John A. MacDonald, a great Tory, a great Prime Minister and a great

Canadian.

You could compare it to the St. Lawrence Seaway, another

great national project which happened to be brought to fruition by a great

Canadian, a great Liberal, a great friend of this Province, The Rt. Hon. Louis

St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. Laurent?

MR. ROBERTS: - yes, Louis St. Laurent. It is to be

compared to the proposal to build the Trans-Canada Highway and until it is

built, until the Trans-Labrador Highway is built, the Trans-Canada Highway will

not be complete. To me, Mr. Speaker, the Trans-Labrador Highway is more than

asphalt and gravel and road signs and whatever goes to make up a highway; it is

a great national project, it is the stuff of which dreams are made. In my view,

Mr. Speaker, it is a project which merits the support of the Government of

Canada and that is what this resolution -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues are finished

I will carry on. May I have their leave to carry on?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: It is a project that merits the support of

that merits the support both in itself but also because it will mark the

completion of the highway across this Canada, the Trans-Canada Highway. I want

to make the point secondly, Mr. Speaker, that this is not simply a Labrador

project. As worthwhile and as valuable as that may be, I do not seek support for

the Trans-Labrador Highway simply as one of the four members who sits in this

House for a Labrador constituency. I seek it because it is the right thing for

Newfoundland and Labrador - to build that road and build it soon, to build it

now. It is a project that will benefit every single Newfoundlander, every single

Labradorian, every single Canadian.

First of all, Sir, it will complete the loop. Travel within

the Province, tie together the two parts of this Province, the two geographic

parts of this Province, enable people to move around and it will do for the

Labrador portion and for the Province as a whole, what the Trans-Canada Highway

did for this Island. We finished the drive in '65, thanks to Mr. Pearson, and

the Island of Newfoundland, that part of our Province, has never been the same.

We finished the drive in '65 - we built the highway down the Burin Peninsula,

the highway down the Northern Peninsula, changed lives for the better and

dramatically. There is nothing we can do that will more improve life in this

Province, Mr. Speaker, than to complete that highway, no single project left. It

will end Labrador's historic isolation. My friend for Eagle River spoke to that.

We forget that not so many years ago, just a few brief years

since I first came into this House, isolation was a fact of life for large parts

of this Province; large numbers of our people. People in the Humber Valley

district were isolated until the road was built in the mid-60s, to connect them

up with a railroad across the Island and then down into Sop's Arm and the bottom

of the White Bay area. All over this Island we fought the battle against

isolation. We can't stop until we fight and win the battle in Labrador.

The benefits to tourism - I doubt if my friend from St.

Barbe, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Furey) will be

speaking in the debate, because a very limited number can speak on a private

member's motion, given that we only take one day. But he can speak of the

pre-Walsh tourism program; and then, my friend from Mount Scio - Bell Island

(Mr. Walsh) will come along - like having had a John the Baptist go before, my

friend from Mount Scio will come along and talk about the present tourism

program.

Think, also, Mr. Speaker, what it will do for the commerce of

this Province. I heard a comment this morning at a meeting I attended -it wasn't

mine and I won't name the author. It is not the thought I had, but it is a very,

very striking fact, that completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway will reduce by

25 per cent the distance between Ottawa and Montreal and St. John's. To leave

Ottawa and Montreal and go down the North Shore, up to Fairmont and into Western

Labrador, down to Happy Valley - Goose Bay, down to the Straits, across the

Straits onto the Northern Peninsula Highway, down to Deer Lake, across the

Trans-Canada to St. John's will be 25 per cent less than the present route by

which one drives. Think what that could mean to the commercial, social,

industrial and economic development of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, let me make three other quick points, if I may.

First, to come back to the one that my friend from St. John's East Extern (Mr.

Parsons) raised, in a way. One of the most commendable features of this

resolution, in my judgement, is that it doesn't look to taking money from one

part of the Province and spending it in another. Reallocating money is not part

of this. That is no way to build a province, Mr. Speaker, and this government

have not done that, and will not do it. The Outer Ring Road either is justified

or it isn't justified on its own. Those who speak for it have to make the case;

those who speak against it are going to make their case. And we should then look

at it in a rational way, as to the need for the whole Province and is this where

the need should go.

I will speak where I should in the Cabinet, when the Cabinet

take a decision, assuming I am part of the Cabinet, and I will speak for, or in

support of the Cabinet on it. But that is the way to measure it, not taking from

one to give to the other. There has been too much of that in this Province over

the years, too much trying to set community against community or area against

area. And it should not be done - it will destroy the fabric of this Province.

Next, Mr. Speaker, as the resolution says, this money should

be given as an increment, incremental to the Roads for Rail deal. Now, I am not

here to talk about the Roads for Rail agreement - there will be another time. I

hope we can debate it. I will say simply that, in my judgement, the Roads for

Rail agreement is the most infamous sell-out since Judas collected his thirty

pieces of silver. It is a shameful, shameful deal, and the men and the woman who

supported it will have to answer to the people of this Province for selling out

one of our most vital interests, not even for a mess of pottage - more like a

pot o' mess-age.

Mr. Speaker, the only good thing about the deal is that it

provides for incremental funding. The fourth recital to the agreement, signed by

the Honourable A. Brian Peckford and the Honourable Ron Dawe, sainted names from

our glorious past - the fourth recital says, 'Whereas both parties to this

and Labrador - 'Whereas both parties to this agreement have agreed that the

funding provided by the agreement is incremental to any other funds the Province

will be entitled to under any other national or regional programs which may be

undertaken by the federal government during the term of this agreement.' That is

as clear as can be. Of course, the present Tory Government in Ottawa are trying

to say that any money we get under the national Highways program must be set

against the Roads for Rail program. But fortunately, we are fighting and we are

going to win this one.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has made

the case eloquently and effectively; others will. The Premier will raise it with

the Prime Minister when he sees him in Ottawa on Monday. The agreement calls for

it, this resolution calls for it and, in my view, the House should support it.

Because what the present Prime Minister and John Crosbie - nothing happens

federally in Newfoundland and Labrador without Mr. Crosbie's imprimatur -

nothing. Not a fish may swim without John Crosbie's stamp on its brow, if only a

fish had a brow. We have a Brow in St. John's but we don't have a brow on a

fish. But if a fish had a brow, John Crosbie would want to browbeat it.

The point I make, Mr. Speaker, is that the present proposal

harmfully discriminate against this Province. But the agreement is there and we

will stand by the agreement. We will make it tick. This resolution calls for

that, too.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say as well, just simply to remind

hon. gentlemen - no doubt they have all been reading the Strategic Economic

Plan, daily, nightly, every morning, every noon, every lunch hour. I simply make

the point that the government in the plan are committed to the Trans-Labrador

Highway. On page 18 - I am reading from the text. In some places we stand when

we read from the text: 'Underlying these economic plans will be the Province's

strong commitment to complete the Trans-Labrador Highway through a co-operative

effort with the federal government, as well as completing appropriate secondary

roads and winter trails. The government are fully committed, Mr. Speaker, to the

Trans-Labrador Highway.

Let me simply say that the case, in my view, for this

resolution, is compelling. I haven't heard any arguments advanced against it

from the other side. Indeed, the hon. gentleman from St. John's East Extern,

when he finally got to the point in one of these speeches, no part of which

became him so much as the leaving of it, if I may paraphrase Charles Dickens -

you know, it was the best of times and the worst of times. We've had the worst,

now here comes the best.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution is compelling. I would hope all

hon. members will support it. Certainly, those of us on this side will. And I

have no doubt that my friend from Eagle River will ask to divide the House so

that we can place on record, for the benefit of the people of Labrador, the

benefit of the people of Newfoundland, and the benefit of the people of all of

Canada, exactly where members stand on this resolution, which is an historic

one, quite rightly, and quite properly, moved by my friend from Eagle River. We

should all commend him, Sir, and I am going to vote for his resolution. Thank

you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have

the opportunity to rise in my place and speak on this resolution. I have spoken

several times on this particular issue in this House, whether in presentation of

petitions, wanting to accelerate the rate of construction of the Trans-Labrador

Highway, or in a petition in support of more maintenance being done on the

Trans-Labrador Highway, as we now see it being constructed in Labrador - it is

presently being used in Labrador.

First of all, I would want to commend the hon. the Member for

Eagle River for bringing this motion forward. I want to tell him and the House

that I fully support the resolution. I want to commend him for his speaking. As

I said to him behind the curtain after he spoke in the initial twenty minutes of

this debate, it is the best I have ever heard him speak in the House of

Assembly. I commend him for that. He stuck to the issue and spoke very

eloquently and with feeling, also with a lot of sincerity and truth in what he

was saying, and a lot of understanding.

I support the Trans-Labrador Highway construction also - and

the highway being commonly referred to as the Trans-Labrador Highway. Some

people like to call it the Labrador portion of the Trans-Canada Highway system,

other people refer to it as the 'Freedom Road.' Whatever you want to call it, I

support that particular project. I, too, see it as a Canadian, a national

project, equal to that of the construction of the railroad, the CPR, the famous

construction of the railroad that we had at the birth of this country. I think

it is a project equivalent to that, in opening up a portion of this great

country of Canada, that's probably one of the last frontiers to open, Mr.

Speaker.

The speaker who spoke previous to me also compared it to the

St. Lawrence Seaway. It's that important to Canada, I believe, at this

particular time; it's also that important to this Province, and indeed to

Labrador. It's not just a Labrador project. It's a provincial project and should

be considered as such. I've always argued that it should be considered as such.

The highway that's there now should be considered as a provincial highway and

not be treated like somebody's driveway, as the present Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation treats it.

When that road was completed, when the major obstacle to the

completion of that highway last year was the infamous Ossok Bridge, the people

of Goose Bay shouldn't have had to worry about whether or not the road was going

to be maintained this year. The people in Gander don't worry if they can drive

to Grand Falls every winter. For some reason it's expected that the people of

Goose Bay should have to tolerate that they're only going to spend $400,000 on

winter maintenance of the road from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Churchill Falls.

Now they say all these grandiose supporting ideas of - when I

say they, the previous speaker, the Member who represents Naskaupi, spoke about

how this is a national project. Yet he doesn't even consider it important enough

today to ask his colleague to treat it the same as the Trans-Canada Highway

system on the island portion of the Province. The people in Fairmont, Quebec are

given equal treatment to the people in Chicoutimi. They're treated the same. The

highway that was - where people in Fairmont could drive down to Baie-Comeau and

on to Quebec City and Montreal, the road that connects them to the national

highway network has been maintained by the Quebec government since the road has

been completed six or seven years ago. But this government, through this

incompetent Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, saw fit to only

provide $400,000 for winter maintenance of that highway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I didn't interject when the

previous speakers spoke. I would ask for a similar type of treatment when I'm

speaking. If the hon. members on the other side would like to get up and speak

they can speak after I speak. Please allow me to continue.

I am going to support this motion because I believe in it.

I'm not paying lip service to it as I feel some people on the other side are

doing. If you fully believe in a transportation system across the Labrador

portion of this Province you should be maintaining the roads the same as you

maintain them on the island portion of the Province. There shouldn't be a

question: we're only going to keep it open for two weeks out of a month, in

January. The road is built, it's passable in June, July, August, September and

October. It should be passable in January, February and March. It shouldn't be

treated the way it's being treated today. Don't pay lip service to this project.

I support this motion with the intent of completing the

Trans-Labrador Highway, not with the intent of just creating another opportunity

to have a squabble with John Crosbie and Brian Mulroney in Ottawa. That's not

what I'm interested in. What I want to see is the completion of the

Trans-Labrador Highway that connects to the Canadian highway grid in Baie-Comeau

- which is presently where it hooks up - right down to Red Bay, and on down to

Blanc-Sablon.

I think at first we should be looking at how that road was

begun, and just a little history of the development of the highway as we see it

today. The highway as we see it today was built - and I want to talk about the

highway that goes from Baie-Comeau right up to Labrador City and Wabush, and

right down to Happy Valley - Goose Bay. In the early 'sixties, with the hydro

development in northern Quebec, they decided to build a road to develop the

Manicouagan hydro development in northern Quebec. That highway was about 225

kilometres long and it was for that construction of the Manicouagan Hydro

development, and also I think they drove the highway a bit further along then to

about using the dam as part of a bridge and for building more dykes, they put

the road in about another fifty or sixty kilometres, Mr. Speaker.

At the initial opening of Gagnon in 1959-1960, you could

drive from Gagnon down to Port-Cashier on what was commonly referred to as the

rail bed or the rail right-of-way, but at further development of another ten or

fifteen years of development of the mining in Gagnon, the mining company in

Gagnon developed a new mine site in a place called Fire Lake which is about 125

kilometres and they had mined out the ore deposit, not necessarily mined out,

but it became too expensive to mine so they had moved their mining operations

into Fire Lake and they commuted their work force. Gagnon became a bedroom

community and they commuted their work force back and forth to work from Fire

Lake to Gagnon.

A strike in 1978 and the start of a further development by

similar owners in Mount Wright saw people on strike actually borrow the mining

company's equipment. The mining company provided the equipment with fuel being

provided by the mining company, and they built a highway about seventy-five

kilometres long with strictly volunteer help; strikers who were on strike, Mr.

Speaker, that is how that road was completed, so around 1979-1980, we could

drive - I say we, the people of Western Labrador could drive year-round from

Labrador City and Wabush down to Gagnon.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years later, we could then drive all

the way to Baie-Comeau when they completed the hook-up between just north of

(inaudible) up to Gagnon, and I am very pleased to say that I was one of the

very first people to drive over that highway when it was opened. This, Mr.

Speaker, was good for Western Labrador, it opened up Western Labrador. We have

seen the opportunity to diversify our economy and it has indeed helped to

diversify our economy in Western Labrador, which I believe that it can, if

properly approached, help to open up new mining opportunities, undoubtedly new

exploratory opportunities for people because it was an area - Labrador is much

too vast, as the hon. Member for Eagle River talked about, it is so vast that it

becomes very, very expensive for mining companies to come in and do exploratory

work because they have to use helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft,

whereas if we

had the highway they could drive and it would be a lot cheaper for them to do

exploration work and more drilling. So it can help diversify in that manner and

also of course, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to diversify our economy through

tourism development projects.

We have been saying for several years that there is an

opportunity for tourism to be developed in Western Labrador, if indeed this

Province could see fit to do it. It is unfortunate that the present

administration did not proceed with the construction of a tourist centre in

Western Labrador because it is now a gateway for tourists coming into the

Province; it is now a new gateway to the Province. The former minister

responsible for tourism had made commitments to the area and to the people of

this Province and to the people of Western Labrador, that there would be a

tourist chalet there, but the present administration, the present minister has

not seen fit to announce the construction of this and I would hope that they

would do it so the people of Western Labrador can see it as being a benefit,

because we see more people coming in through that route to this Province, real

tourists who will be coming in that way rather than through other routes where

they presently have chalets.

Again, I want to say that I do not disagree with the hon. the

Government House Leader when he suggests that we should not be taking something

away from one region of this Province to place in another. We should put things

in an area of the Province on its own merits - and I am not suggesting that we

do not need a tourist chalet in the Placentia region or in Port aux Basques. I

am suggesting that what we do need is a tourist chalet and information centre

constructed in Western Labrador because it is needed in Western Labrador. It is

a gateway to this Province, and it should be recognized as such.

Mr. Speaker, this administration should recognize the

contribution that Western Labrador makes to the Province in general. Speaking of

being fair to the people of this Province, as the hon. Government House Leader

suggested, we should not be taking away from one region to put to another

region. Of course I cannot let it pass that this administration's equality in

the education system was to remove student assistants from Western Labrador

because they wanted to make it equal to the Island portion of the Province.

Now that was a method of bringing that equality to the people

of Western Labrador. We do not want you to shut down your tourist chalets; we do

not want you to tear up your pavement on the Island portion of the Province to

give us equality. We want you to build a highway in Labrador, and we want you to

open up a tourist chalet in Western Labrador because it truly is a gateway for

tourists coming into this Province.

I think about 85 per cent of the consumer freight that comes

into Western Labrador now comes on tractor trailers, being trucked all the way.

Previous to the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway as we know it today,

from Labrador City and Wabush to Baie-Comeau, 100 per cent of it, or 99.9 per

cent of it, came in in tractor trailers, but by using the railroad through

Sept-Iles. Presently 85 per cent, almost 90 per cent is my understanding, is

coming in strictly on tractor trailer, rubber tire all the way, and we see this

as a tremendous benefit. It has improved the delivery of goods and services. The

mining company has seen a benefit from it, in the fact that they can see that

they do not have to inventory as long.

As you all know, the mining industry in the world is going

through a lot of problems today, and we compete in a global economy. By making

it cheaper, more cost-effective for the mining industry to operate, because they

do not have to provide the amount of warehousing, so they do not have an

inventory cost, they do not have downtime, the same amount of downtime on

delivery of parts when they have breakdowns in the mining equipment, so they see

it as being something that can help the mining industry.

Of course, it also gives the opportunity for people who live

in the area, they found that not only is it an improvement in the quality of

grocery products that are being delivered to the area; it has also made it

cheaper. So it has indeed lowered the cost of living for individuals living in

Labrador, and made it more competitive. It has allowed the mining companies to

be more competitive in the global economy. It has allowed our mining companies

to become more competitive, to compete against the Brazilians or the Swedes in

the global economy in iron ore production.

I would suspect that it would also allow people in Happy

Valley - Goose Bay in the industry, who could locate, may locate and will locate

in Central Labrador if the road is maintained year-round, it would allow them to

be more competitive; would lower the inventory cost to people who have to

inventory products for six to seven months, I understand, in Happy Valley -

Goose Bay, it will not be necessary. If this government had seen the light, so

to speak, if this government had been doing its proper job today, they would not

have to have the huge inventories over this winter in Happy Valley - Goose Bay,

because they would be able to bring the freight in as we do in Western Labrador.

The Province of Quebec allows the road to be open - my

understanding is that the most it has been closed in any winter since it has

been opened is about a total of three weeks over the whole year. That is a total

of three weeks shutdown. Two or three days, I believe, in the month of January.

Usually most of the shutdowns are in late February or early March because of

extreme high snowfalls.

So, Mr. Speaker, this government could improve it today. They

could improve the cost of living today in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, by keeping

the road open year-round, the same as the Province of Quebec maintains the road

from Fire Lake to Mount Wright, a very similar type constructed road to the road

from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Churchill Falls, albeit a shorter road - I am

talking about seventy-five kilometers versus 300 kilometers - with the added

benefits that the opportunity could be provided to the entrepreneurs and to the

people living in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, by having that road open year-round,

without the idea that we are going to have the road open only until we get our

$400,000 used up. Don't treat the people of Labrador any differently than you

treat the people on the Island portion of the Province.

The people in Gander don't have to worry whether or not the

snow is going to be removed or if they will be able to travel on the highway

from Gander to Grand Falls. It is taken for granted that the government will

live up to its responsibility and maintain the highway from Grand Falls to

Gander year-round. The people in Bonavista don't worry about whether or not the

road is going to be maintained year-round. They take it for granted. It is an

assumed fact. But the people in Happy Valley - Goose Bay do have to worry

whether or not the highway is going to be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I do support the motion that the

Trans-Labrador Highway should be included in the national highway system. We, in

Labrador, should be treated as other people in this Province and other people in

this country. Mr. Speaker, when the Premier and the hon. minister meet with

their colleagues in Ottawa, I wish them all the best. I support it. I have made

my feelings known to the Prime Minister on different occasions. I have made them

known to the hon. John Crosbie, I have made them known to the provincial

minister, I h