November

29, 1995

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 65

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

Oral Questions

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

Extern.

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

My question was for the Premier, but he is not here, so I

will direct it to the deputy Premier.

MR. ROBERTS: There is no, deputy Premier.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, the Minister of Justice, the

Government House Leader. On November 24, the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation announced drastic increases to the interprovincial ferry rates

and, in particular, to the Bell Island ferry service. Will you, in place of the

Premier today, confirm that this is a change in government policy relating to

the ferry system being treated as an extension to the provincial road system and

indeed that the government is now breaking a commitment to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador living on all our islands?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not in St.

John's so he won't be here in the House today. I will make an initial response.

I will certainly make no such confirmation as the hon. gentleman invites me to

make because his statement is not correct. What I will say, Mr. Speaker, is that

we have to respond to the realities and I will go further and say that if our

predecessors in office had responded to realities, the realities would not be

nearly as grim as faces today.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible) when you were in government.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, the Member

for Burin - Placentia West, has many problems, not the least of them which is

the fact that he tends to open his mouth and close his mind.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come back - the hon. the Member for

St. John's East Extern asked a serious question and I am quite prepared, indeed

anxious, to try to deal with the question on its merits. The fact remains, we

have to deal with the realities and these include changes from time to time in

the rates which we charge for public services. Now, my friend, the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, who at present is on the CBC Open Line Show,

is the one most intimately aware of the information and I will defer to him on

details, but let me say to my hon. friend, the Member for St. John's East

Extern, that we will have to deal with realities. We shall do so with fairness

and with balance, bearing in mind there can't be any free lunch in this

Province. We, as a Province, the whole Province, all of us together, have to pay

our way, Sir.

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

Extern, on a supplementary.

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

I will say that the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation would not confirm a change in policy yesterday, but the Premier

did, across the House, confirm that it was a change in government policy.

My second question to the Minister of Justice: This new

policy directly affects the people living on Bell Island. In particular,

students are now paying one dollar a day. We will see rates go to $4.50 per day,

$22.50 per week and approximately $100. per month. This new policy also affects

tourism and jobs. Due to these drastic increases, will the Government House

Leader, direct the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to review

these new rates as they relate to Bell Island?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of

Justice won't direct any minister to do anything. What I will say is that the

concerns which my hon. friend, the Member for St. John's East Extern voices have

been raised long before this, by my friend and colleague, the Member for Mount

Scio - Bell Island, and these issues are being addressed.

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

Extern, on a supplementary.

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

I would like to correct the Minister of Justice. I brought

this up in the House of Assembly on Monday, long before the Member for Mount

Scio - Bell Island became involved.

Anyway, I will ask the Minister of Justice: Many of this

government's policies since 1989 have been an attack on rural Newfoundland. This

new policy relating to the increase in ferry rates will be very hard on all

livyers on all islands in Newfoundland and Labrador. Isn't this policy just

another form of forced resettlement?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is

no. It is not an instance of resettlement forced or otherwise. What we are

confronted with, is a situation where we must pay our own way and if people in

one part of the Province are being asked to subsidize people in another part of

the Province, which is a principle we endorsed, a principle we apply throughout

the government service, then it must be done on a rational, fair and balanced

basis.

The hon. gentleman, the Member for St. John's East Extern

appears to be taking the position that any change anywhere is unacceptable in

itself. I suggest, instead, Sir, the proper role for the government of this

Province is to look in a proper way to consider the balance between resources

and needs and try to strike the appropriate balance between them.

I would say to him further, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador are fully aware of this and support this approach and

indeed have endorsed it time and time again.

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

MS VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Minister of Finance and the

staffing to relieve or fill in for public servants who are on leave.

Has Treasury Board recently issued a directive to any

department or branch of the government putting a halt to calling back workers on

a part-time casual basis to fill in for or relieve full-time employees who are

off on leave, and if such a directive has been issued, why?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board secretariat issued

a directive to all government departments and agencies within the last several

weeks, a directive not to fill any positions whatsoever in the public service

without the consent of Treasury Board.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: The minister, perhaps, misunderstood my

question so I will rephrase it. Has the minister, or has Treasury Board,

directed departments, or any department of the government, not to call back

workers on a part-time casual basis to relieve permanent public servants who are

on leave?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: No, we have not issued a directive in that

form. I do not know how departments may be interpreting it, but to my knowledge

the only directive we have issued relative to the issue the hon. member seems to

be raising, is that we have told departments not to fill any positions. We have

an absolute hiring freeze on until we determine what we have to do to find this

$60 million. Whether or not departments may be interpreting that so that they

cannot recall relief staff if someone is sick, if that is what the hon. member

is suggesting, I do not know. I am not aware of that. Our intention was that

there be no hiring to permanent or temporary positions until we have the whole

issue resolved as to what, if any, steps government has to take to reduce the

expenditures to bring the Budget in line with the balance.

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

supplementary.

MS VERGE: In the absence of the Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation I will ask my next question once again to the

President of Treasury Board. Would the President of Treasury Board find out and

report to the House about recent practices of the Department of Works, Services

and Transportation involving paying full-time employees time and a half for

overtime instead of bringing in workers from the callback lists? I ask the

minister to investigate particularly recent instances of Works, Services and

Transportation paying full-time security guards time and a half at over $18.00

an hour when call in workers were available at about $11.00 an hour, and would

he look at other branches of government to see if similar practices are

occurring and indicate just how much more money has been laid out because of

this smoke and mirrors directive?

I might add that people affected are being told that this

practice has come about because of a directive from Treasury Board.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just say to

the hon. member, I don't know when my colleague will be back in the House. I

think the practices of each department are best answered by the ministers

concerned.

However, having said that I can tell her that the thrust of

Treasury Board and most departmental management that I've seen is in the

opposite direction. What we've been doing is attempting to reduce overtime. That

goes back quite some time. For instance, when I was Minister of Justice before

my colleague, the current Minister of Justice, took over back in 1991 we for

example hired an additional number of security people down at the Penitentiary

to avoid the labour call back in that particular area. We feel that the use of

casual and part-time employees in fact reduced the overtime burden.

Also, for instance, at the Constabulary and the Sheriff's

Office at that time, and my colleague has continued in that vein, we hired

people to do specific tasks such as secretarial work and security work so that

police officers could be free to do their regular duties, which are deemed to be

more necessary.

So if anything, the thrust of government is not to diminish

the number of call back and casual workers, but to suggest to departments that

if necessary, rather than use overtime, they have sufficient people on call back

to diminish the need for overtime. But certainly I will confer with my colleague

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who is not here today and

certainly we will provide the information. I will certainly provide the

information or my colleague will.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the past

couple of weeks I've asked questions to the Minister of Social Services relating

to youth corrections in this Province. While the minister stands in her place

each day and answers that everything is under review, she then returns the next

day with a carefully worded bureaucratic answer to the previous day's questions.

On Monday November 27 I asked the minister, and Hansard will

show, for conformation of a suspension of an administrator at the youth care

centre. I did not say the administrator, I said an administrator. Small words

with huge differences. The bureaucratic answer that the minister read called my

questions irresponsible misinformation, and lambasted me for causing the

administrator of Whitbourne embarrassment. I call the minister's answer verbal

trickery. She can use those words to discredit me, but I assure this House and

the public -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. MANNING: I assure this House and the public that my

information is not only responsible but it is correct. I will now ask the

minister the same question I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: I will now ask the minister the same

question I asked her on Monday, and I ask her to come clean with the facts this

time. Has there been -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MANNING: Has there been an administrator who was

responsible for youth corrections in this Province suspended with pay or

terminated recently by her department?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is one administrator, and that administrator is

currently employed at the Whitbourne Youth Centre and has not been dismissed.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West to withdraw

that comment.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the minister is

not true. There is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat. I definitely heard

the hon. member make an unparliamentary comment, and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I stated a fact that is

unparliamentary I withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

MR. TOBIN: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is not amused by this kind of

behaviour at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes on a

supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I once again say to the

minister, I did not say Whitbourne. I asked the minister: Was there an

administrator who was responsible for youth corrections in this Province

suspended with pay or terminated recently by her department? I ask the minister

once again: Was there an administrator? And I ask the minister: Was there a

valid reason for this suspension or termination? The minister knows full well

what I am talking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a sheet here, and it lists all the positions for the

employment at the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Centre, and that includes the

remand centre here at St. John's. There is one administrator for the whole

operation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes on a

supplementary.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, the definition of administrator

is a person having administrative or managerial authority in an organization. I

ask the minister once again, and I ask the minister in all sincerity: Has there

been a suspension or a termination of an administrator who is involved in youth

corrections in this Province who fits the description of management or

administrator in your department?

Mr. Speaker, the minister is fully aware that there has been

a suspension, and I ask the minister to come clean with the facts today.

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say to the hon. member that I will not discuss any

terminations or any suspensions of employment in this House. These are

individual cases. It is a matter between the employer and the employee and I

will not discuss them in the House.

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

Mary's -The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I sat here yesterday and

listened to the minister more or less say that my information was

misinformation. I guess this comes to light today that I was not wrong after

all. I ask the minister, as party to this, at the Whitbourne Youth Centre there

are four facility operation managers, one of these managers has been away from

regular duties for the past two or three months carrying out an internal

investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and other allegations. Can

the minister confirm that this investigation is now complete and that she has

been presented with a report on the situation?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, any matters of suspension or termination of

employment, with my department, will not be discussed in the House of Assembly

by me, if there are cases that do come out and there are suspensions throughout

government and termination of employment throughout government at any given

time. If there are any given cases that go before the court then that becomes

public knowledge but as for me getting up in the House of Assembly and

discussing matters of confidentiality, I refuse to do that. I am absolutely

surprised, only last week I was accused of leaking confidential information to a

fax machine and now I am being asked to disclose confidential information

regarding an employee/employer relationship.

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

for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I too was surprised yesterday when the minister got up in the

House of Assembly and basically said that the questions I was asking were

misinformation. I say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I say in all sincerity, I am

not asking for details, I am asking the minister to confirm, I am just asking

her to confirm that there has been a suspension or a termination of an

administrator. I am not asking her for details I am asking her for a

confirmation of a suspension or a termination. I will ask the minister once

again, will she tell the House that there has been a suspension or a

termination?

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

MS YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly suggest

that the member from the opposite side have his hearing checked because I have

answered his question at least three or four times today.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question I guess

goes to the Government House Leader in the absence of the Premier.

As he may be aware, air traffic control across the nation is

about to be privatised. In about two weeks the federal government will

completely privatise all air traffic control services. Let me ask the Government

House Leader, has the government spoken either with the Prime Minister's office,

the Prime Minister or Newfoundland's representative in the federal Cabinet to

discuss the impact of such privatization on this Province, specifically in

Gander?

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

MR. ROBERTS: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is `yes'.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me ask the Government House Leader this

question, then: Can he disclose today, or will he confirm, that the

privatization initiative that is being undertaken by the Department of

Transportation federally will have a negative impact on the Town of Gander, and

we could see possible jobs eliminated or moved to other parts of the nation as a

result of such privatization. Can the minister confirm that, and if he can, can

he also, when he stands, elaborate on what the discussions with the federal

government, either the federal minister, Mr. Tobin, or with the Prime Minister's

office have been.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm what the

federal government are doing or not doing. They make their own announcements,

and they assume responsibility for their decisions.

We have, in a number of ways, expressed concern - the hon.

gentleman's second question I could answer simply with a `yes', because all he

asked was could I, and then he went on for a long time describing what I could

or could not do, but let me say that we have expressed - the Premier has

expressed in correspondence with the Prime Minister, and I have, in

correspondence with the Minister of National Defence and meetings with the

Minister of Transport, expressed - on behalf of the government, very real

Now what I am not prepared to do, for obvious and appropriate

reasons, is get into a public discussion of where we are going, but we have

expressed very real concerns, not just with the proposals with respect to the

privatization of some aspects of air transport services, including navigation

about changes, some of which are, in fact, under way now in the means by which

they deliver and provide transportation services to this Province, very real and

continuing concerns, Sir.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the problem with this

provincial government is that they are not willing to discuss publicly any issue

that negatively affects this Province and the loss of jobs therein.

Can the minister confirm that once privatization takes place

with a company called Nav Canada, that all air traffic controllers presently now

employed in Gander stand to either lose their positions or have to relocate to

possibly Moncton, New Brunswick. There are, I think, some 250 air traffic

controllers in Gander right now. Can the minister confirm that?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the hon.

gentleman, when he reads the Hansard transcription of that he will find that it

is a mishmash of questions, and really I cannot answer them in any intelligible

way.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the hon.

gentleman from Kilbride is the one who is asking the questions, and I say to my

friend from Ferryland, if he wants to ask a question he should try to catch the

Speaker's eye and then ask it and we will try to answer it.

If my hon. friend from Kilbride wishes to rephrase the

questions and put them coherently, or one or two at a time, I will try to answer

them, but if he reads Hansard, or anybody else who reads Hansard, will find out

that what he has is a mishmash, and it is impossible to answer a mishmash with

anything other than a mashmish, and I am not prepared to do that.

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

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me stoop down to the

minister's level for a moment and ask him a simple question so that he can

simply understand it. Will 250 jobs disappear in the Town of Gander as a result

of privatization of air traffic control services, yes or no? Does the minister

understand that?

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman must have

been watching too much Perry Mason on television, when he goes on with this,

`answer yes or no'.

I have no knowledge whether 250 jobs will disappear or not. I

do not know whether there are 250 jobs there now. What I know is that the

changes in the way in which they -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from

Kilbride -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: The usual relationship between the hon.

gentleman from Kilbride and boots is when he puts his shoe in his mouth. He has

asked his question; let me make the answer.

very real changes. We are concerned about those changes, and we are making

representations in an effort to ensure that the changes are as acceptable as can

be, and that they cause the greatest good to this Province, and not any harm.

Whether we are successful or not remains to be seen.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, whether we are successful or

not remains to be seen. If the hon. gentleman's ill humour and ill temper

continue to get the better of him, then I say come and try again with another

question and we will try to answer that too.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and

Treasury Board.

A recent

article in The Evening Telegram , Sunday,

November 26, I am sure the minister read the article, his picture has

accompanied it. The picture is on the second page and, Mr. Speaker, I will quote

from that article, it says, and I quote: All nickel royalties will be dropped

right back to the provincial budget and royalties from the estimated $30 billion

ore deposit would more than make up a $200 million annual shortfall.

Can the minister confirm that these figures are correct?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of

this. I didn't see the article. If the hon. member could pass it over I will

have a look; it is certainly not a quote from me.

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

MR. A. SNOW: It was on two pages, page 15 had your

picture, the figures were on page 16.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Well, it is the same story. I thought the

minister would have wanted to get the figures rather than be carried away with

the picture, there is more to it, he should look at the figures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. member is on a supplementary and he should get to

his question.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Page to take

this.

The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board didn't get the

question; maybe the Minister of Natural Resources could answer the question

please.

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

DR. GIBBONS: I would have to look at the paper too, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member appears to

be referring to is not a quote, it is a comment and of course, the initial thing

in reading newspapers is to see what is in quotation marks and what's not. It

looks like the fourth last paragraph is a comment or part of the

article by the

reporter talking about the Voisey's Bay's nickel deposit and its potential

royalties to the Province, and he deals with the fact that some of it may not

come out of the equalization for the Province and I think the point was in this

that we would lose less in equalization from that than we would in oil and gas

revenues. That's not something that I quoted or said, and the issue of

equalization is such that it varies, but I understand now, having looked at

this, what the hon. member is referring to. Why the question was directed to me

and what the hon. member's concern is, I don't understand but I will certainly

address any concerns that I can.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: I did not say that the minister made those

remarks. I said I quoted from the newspaper that the figures were in the

newspaper and I asked the minister to confirm. Undoubtedly what is happening in

this Province today, the Province undoubtedly has some sort of idea or at least

they should have some sort of an idea in their budgetary process that's ongoing

of how much revenue will be accruing from this ore deposit annually to this

Province. That's the question, how much, is it $200 million?

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

What the hon. member is asking to do is to speculate about a

lot of things. One is the amount of ore that is going to be produced and

processed there each year. The second thing is, what the world nickel price will

be, copper price and I believe there is cobalt there as well. What it will yield

on the world market and that price is very considerable even over the last

decade. Thirdly, he is asking us to estimate the speed at which that will be

produced. Considering the difficulty of forecasting over a six month or a

one-year period, I don't think we can project out to the year 2001, 2002 when

the mine may be up for production what the revenues to the Province will be.

Suffice it to say however, that it is a tremendous discovery

and we expect that there will be some level of substantial royalties. What they

are at this stage, I think it is too preliminary to say and predict, given those

variables.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that

the Minister responsible for Municipal and Provincial Affairs will expect

municipalities to know five years in advance what their revenues and

expenditures are going to be, yet people of this Province are told that we are

in dire financial straits with a $60 million deficit, and the Minister of

Finance says he doesn't know how much revenue is going to be accruing from the

greatest mineral deposit in this Province in our history.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TOBIN: I hope the same applies to the answers.

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

Treasury Board.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I don't find it strange at all.

The variable difference is that municipalities, to my knowledge, don't operate

mines, they operate services, and we can project with some certainty where we

expect those services to be and what the level of revenues will be. On something

like this, and I point out to the hon. member, if he can tell me with exactitude

what exactly the world nickel price will be, copper prices, and the price for

cobalt, then we can apply a regime, too, and probably tell him what the

royalties will be.

We can't tell him, however, what the Federal Government may

have as equalization concerns at that time. All I can tell him is that

by-and-large, any revenues to the Province result in a lessening of our

equalizations, and it largely depends on the category. Mining is at a lesser

figure than oil royalties and is a very variable thing. If he can tell with

absolute certainty what they will be, then I will tell him, based on the current

fiscal arrangements, what they will be. I can't guarantee that they will be the

same in the year 2000, let alone the year 2020.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Menihek, on a supplementary.

MR. A. SNOW: My supplementary question will be to the

Minister of Natural Resources, who has a difference of opinion with the Minister

of Finance and Treasury Board. The Minister of Natural Resources suggests that

the mineral royalties from Voisey's Bay will not affect equalization payments,

as the Minister of Finance suggests, so we all know now why there is a problem

with the finances of this Province.

The people of this Province know that we are on the threshold

of a tremendous mineral development in Voisey's Bay and we are also on the

threshold of an oil development in Hibernia. Now, can the minister confirm that

a Social Policy Committee of Cabinet leaders, and leaders from the Steel Workers

Union, recently met and discussed the possibility of establishing a resource

depletion fund, and is the government going to proceed with such a fund?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Social Policy

Committee and I did not participate in any such meeting. My colleague to the

left said he was in such a meeting and they did make such a recommendation to

the committee. I know nothing further about it.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Natural Resources. There was some commentary in the media a few days

ago with regard to the same project we are discussing, Voisey's Bay, some

commentary from a representative of Inco which holds a considerable interest in

the Voisey's Bay property. That particular company seemed to give an indication

that we could mine this particular ore body and at least for some `interim

period' ship the unprocessed ore overseas or to elsewhere in Canada.

I am wondering if the Minister of Natural Resources would

confirm that as a realistic possibility?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I tell the hon. member to stay

tuned. Inco knows, the world knows, and the people know, that we have taken a

position on this, and this is going to be done in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

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

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

My point of order is pertaining to the behaviour and

activities of the Minister of Social Services yesterday and today. Yesterday,

the minister responded to my colleague, the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes

when he asked the question: was an administrator - `an', A - N, not the

administrator, an administrator, one of many, one of a number - under suspension

without pay or with pay or terminated or whatever. The minister, of course, made

light of that. For the record of the House, Mr. Speaker, and for the minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - an administrator is a person having

administrative or managerial authority in an organization, and a manager is a

person having administrative or managerial authority in an organization - that

is the definition of both.

What happened yesterday and again today is the minister is

too slick by half and misled this House and accused the member of making false

statements and putting out embarrassing information to this House and the

Province, which one member of the media, by the way, picked up and carried. The

minister knows full well that she knew what the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes was talking about, and she cannot be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to mislead

this House. She doesn't have to answer the question, she can sit in her place

and not rise, but she cannot mislead this House. I submit to Your Honour that

that is a legitimate point of order.

The minister knew what the member was talking about and she

should have at least had the decency to recognize that, but she didn't. I submit

to Your Honour that a minister can't be allowed to exhibit such behaviour in

this House and do this and then cause embarrassment to another member. That is

the point of order I submit to Your Honour. The minister must be taken to task

for it.

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

point of order.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, to that point of order. The

hon. gentleman makes a most serious charge and it is regrettable that he has no

evidence to support it. I suggest, furthermore, the Hansard makes it clear that

his charge is completely without foundation.

On Monday of this week - it is at page 2203 in the Hansard -

the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes asked as his final supplementary: "I ask

the minister, when she is reviewing, would she also find out and confirm to the

House that there is an administrator at the Youth Care Centre who has been

suspended with pay? I would like to ask the minister, can she confirm this now

and explain the circumstances that surround the suspension of that person at

this time?"

The hon. the minister: "Thank you, Mr. Speaker." Then the

minister was interrupted. The next recording is Mr. Speaker recognized the hon.

the Member for Waterford - Kenmount who asked another question.

Now, that is what Hansard -

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the Member for

Ferryland might allow me to make my remarks without his attempting - I really

don't need his help. When I see where he is and where the rest of us are, I

assure him, I don't need his help.

Mr. Speaker, let me then come to yesterday's Hansard. When we

come to the point -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ROBERTS: When we came to the point yesterday in the

House - and I am reading from page 2242 of yesterday's Hansard - when we came to

the point where Your Honour called the order that says Answers to Questions for

which Notice has been Given, the minister rose and said: "Yesterday, the Member

for St. Mary's - The Capes asked me to confirm that the administrator of the

Youth Centre had been suspended...."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that is what she answered. She

went on to say -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, she went on to make it very

clear, and this is what she said - I'm reading the Hansard: "While I do not

usually confirm or refute suspensions publicly, today, at the request of the

administrator of the Youth Centre at Whitbourne, I will make an exception. The

administrator has not been, and is not currently suspended by this department.

Today he is performing his regular duties at the centre. In light of the

embarrassment this irresponsible misinformation has caused the individual, I

would again invite the member to visit the youth centre, to interview staff and

residents, and to develop a better understanding of the whole operation."

Now, Mr. Speaker, it appears to be the case that hon. members

opposite feel the minister did not answer the question. That is a matter for

them to judge. Whether she did or not, Mr. Speaker, is a matter for debate and

there is an appropriate way to do it. What is clear is the minister did not

mislead the House intentionally or accidentally. Her answer is perfectly clear.

If there is any confusion in it, it is the inept questioning of the gentleman

from St. Mary's - The Capes but the minister, Mr. Speaker, did not mislead this

House. Her answer is clear and I suggest there has been no evidence suggested

that it is anything other then the complete truth. Thank you, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised by the Opposition House

Leader under advisement and I will rule later.

MR. ROBERTS: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman from

Burin - Placentia West stands up and says I know that `she' referring to the

minister, misled the House. Now he is accusing both of us of telling untruths. I

would ask Your Honour to ask him once again to withdraw the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair did not hear any comment that was made by the hon.

member but I am sure if the hon. member made a comment that is unparliamentary

he will withdraw. The Chair did not hear the comments made by the hon. member

and I would assume -

Order, please!

The Chair did not hear the hon. member make any comment. I am

sure that if the hon. member made an unparliamentary comment he will withdraw

it.

Order, please!

Petitions

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and

speak to a petition sent to me and signed by residents of my district. The

prayer of the petition says that; we the undersigned residents of the district

of Menihek; and

WHEREAS because of budgetary restraint, new school busing

proposals are unrealistic and dangerous; and

WHEREAS extreme climatic conditions and local conditions

force students to use school buses;

THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the government

allocate necessary funding to permit the continuing operation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Menihek. I would

ask hon. members to my left if they could let the hon. member be heard.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue with

the prayer of the petition.

THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the government

allocate necessary funding to permit the continuing operation of a safe and

reliable school busing program in Labrador West.

Mr. Speaker, people on the other side of the House might

think this is a very unimportant issue. They may not be concerned about it but I

would ask them to refrain from interjecting or trying to disrupt what I am

saying because the people in Labrador West are very concerned about the safety

of their children. It is paramount to them, Mr. Speaker, that this government

would and should allocate the necessary funding to operate a safe and reliable

busing system for their children. In doing so, they must be able to maintain the

type of bus service that they have become accustomed to over the last

twenty-five to thirty years, Mr. Speaker. A busing system that they designed

around their own parameters because they knew the local conditions. They did not

sit in St. John's and decide that busing can be safe in Labrador City when they

do not recognize the local conditions, the local climate. They were living in

Labrador City and Wabush. They designed it, they paid for it and they delivered

it.

Now this government adopts a policy, sitting in St. John's,

that does not fit our local climatic conditions and the local geography. They

have done a study to outline a busing system that will deliver triple busing

which means that kids will be off to school in the mornings when it is dark. It

means, because again of our winter conditions, it is unsafe for these young

children to be out that early in the morning when it is dark - with snow banks,

because of the accumulated snowfall, it will be ten to twelve feet high in

Labrador City and Wabush. The snow that fell in Labrador City for the last week

will be on the ground up until May.

Mr. Speaker, the people who are living there recognize that.

It is unfortunate that the people who are sitting in Cabinet, the Minister of

Education and Training who is responsible for it, doesn't consider the safety of

the children of the people in Labrador West. It is a sad fact that this

government doesn't recognize these children's safety and it will not allocate

the necessary funding that is necessary to deliver this very important service

to the people of Western Labrador.

The minister yesterday referred to this petition as being

nonsense when I brought it up. Now the people who have these children going to

school in these unsafe conditions don't think it is nonsense. The fact that it

is triple runs in busing means that there will be no lunchtime busing. There is

only one school out of six, I believe it is, or five, in Labrador City and

Wabush that has the necessary lunchroom facilities. What about the capital

expenditure there that is necessary for these kids to eat in a safe environment?

Or are they expected to go out and sit on the lawn or in the snow bank and eat

their lunches? Is that what the minister expects?

Mr. Speaker, the people in Wabush have been informed that

they will not be able to make use of the busing for their children to attend the

school that is delivering the French immersion program in Western Labrador. Why?

Because this minister says that it is nonsense that they should have that type

of busing service. He says that they should have to walk to Labrador City to get

in a French immersion program, or provide some other type of busing, some other

type of transportation.

The system that was designed by, paid for, built by the

people of Western Labrador was in place for twenty-five years. It was a good

service. But because of the changes that this minister wants to make and has

urged his counterparts in the Cabinet to do it is going to make the condition

unsafe. It is going to lower the quality of education in Western Labrador and

the people of Western Labrador are not going to put up with it. They are going

to be sending me petitions day after day. They are going to be talking to other

Cabinet ministers to convince them the evil ways that they are going, and that

they have to change their ways and allocate the necessary funding that is

necessary to maintain this service in Labrador West. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's day,

of course, and the motion to be debated is the one that stands as Motion No. 5

in the name of my friend the Member for Gander.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. VEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed an honour

and a privilege for me to rise today for the first time and address this House,

and to do so as the representative of Gander is not only an honour and a

privilege but a rather humbling experience as well. For I don't believe there

can possibly be a more important office in one's life than to be elected to

represent your friends and neighbours in this hon. House.

I want to sincerely thank the residents in my district for

expressing their confidence in me -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible), because you won't be there

long.

MR. VEY: I suggest to the Member for Kilbride that I will

be there as long as the people want me. I will get back to you later on, I say

to the Member for Kilbride.

Mr. Speaker, I'm new to this House, as most hon. members

know, and in fact I'm new to government of any kind. I don't have any great

lineage of government experience except perhaps for my great-grandmother who I

understand was a sister of Sir John Puddester, if that is the correct name. I

believe it was. That is an interesting thing. I've been told as well that the

first premier of this Province is also related to the Vey's. I haven't been able

to determine that, but as soon as I do I will be certain to inform the House of

that fact.

As I said, I don't bring any great lineage in government but

I'm certainly willing to learn, and to carry out my duties to the best of my

ability. I hope and pray that I carry them out in an effective manner for the

benefit not only of my district but the Province as a whole.

Gander district has always been and continues to be proud

contributors to the Newfoundland economy. Our airport, our military base, our

air traffic control centre, our forestry, our Gander River, and more recently

mining. Like other areas of the Province we have been employed in these sectors

and industries for many years and we hope to continue to do so. We are very

proud of our goal to maintain and build on these services, and we want to even

make a larger contribution to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, we have been very fortunate indeed; however, we

have been recently very concerned about the level of cutbacks and potential

cutbacks and downsizing in our town, our airport, our military base and, as the

hon. Member for Kilbride just recently mentioned, our air traffic control

centre. What we must do is remind the federal government that our airport and

its related services are protected under the Terms of Union with this country,

and we are not prepared to accept any downsizing, any offloading, or anything

else that causes our airport and its services to be severely affected.

The military base has been a strategic military base for over

fifty years, and there is no doubt that the Second World War probably could not

have been won without the pivotal role played by Gander, and this was again

demonstrated during the recent Persian Gulf war when our airport was as busy as

any time in recent memory. The military base at Gander should be strengthened,

expanded and modernized to recognize and demonstrate the strategic military

importance of CFB Gander, and to allow this Province's fair share of military

spending.

Mr. Speaker, the international airport and its related

activities, including, of course, the air control centre, are the economic

backbone of my district, contributing some $70 million annually into the

economy, and that is new money; that is not recycled money. We are very proud of

that fact, and therefore we are justifiably concerned, and I would say even

alarmed, when it appears that anything negative could happen, is about to

happen, or has happened, to this vital economic generator.

Mr. Speaker, the downgrading of the airport's importance and

its status would have a similar effect on Gander, on the area, and we cannot

forget the area. The District of Gander, and particularly the Town of Gander,

provides employment for in excess of 1,700 people who live in the outlying

regions, and that carries with it an added responsibility as well, and if

anything were to negatively and adversely affect those resources it would have

the same effect as if you removed the whole provincial government bureaucracy

out of the City of St. John's. That is the kind of effect it would have on my

district, and we are not prepared to allow that to happen without strong

resistance from our residents.

Mr. Speaker, Gander district recognizes that we live in an

age of technological change, of government restraints and changing demographics,

and that we cannot rest on our past accomplishments and expect everything will

work out fine to our satisfaction. The residents of my district have always

strived to be in the forefront of change, and we realize all too well that we

must take advantage of our opportunities, diversify our economy, develop our

resources, and plan for our future, and we have been doing that. We also fully

endorse this government's Strategic Economic Plan, and we fully endorse as well

the economic zones.

Mr. Speaker, Gander district, like most areas of the

Province, have to assess where they are in this modern age. We have to assess

our resources more carefully. We have to look at our strengths and weaknesses,

and we have to plan for our future, and we must do this, for the most part, by

ourselves. Gone is the day when we can expect governments of any stripe to pull

us up by the bootstraps and keep us going.

Mr. Speaker, we are determined that while there are certainly

other parts of this great nation, and even in this great Province, that perhaps

have more opportunities for economic development than we do, we are certainly

not without our own opportunities, and we are seizing the moment. We are

managing the Gander River for the first time in a professional way. We are

developing trade links with places like Mexico and Cuba, and even recently we

are making inroads into the European market. We are looking at our airport as a

place for freight forwarding. We are looking at national and international

tourism, so we haven't been sitting on our laurels and doing nothing, Mr.

Speaker. However, the District of Gander has been hit pretty hard economically

in the past ten or twelve years, starting perhaps in 1983 with the relocation of

EPA, 400 jobs. Air Canada - while perhaps not significant in the number of jobs

that were lost, certainly significant in the fact that the other airports within

this Province have gained international traffic on a regularly scheduled

international carrier. The privatization of Terra Nova Tel has resulted in

tremendous income loss and job loss to my community. These are just to name a

few. And now we are faced with the downgrading - not the closure, but the

downgrading and relocation of our military base. Of course, we have also been

hit, and the business community has been hit, by the resent closure of the

groundfishery, and that has had a dramatic impact on the business community in

Gander which services most of the Northeast Coast.

Of course, we have opportunities, as I said, to develop our

river which has been managed for the first time in a professional way and that

has the potential to employ hundreds of people. We have often times spent

foolishly in the past and often for just political reasons. We have placed our

future and our children's future in grave doubt. We have borrowed our way to a

false prosperity in many ways and have put ourselves into a position where our

cherished social programs are in danger. The services we offer our seniors, our

disabled, and others less fortunate than ourselves are perhaps in real jeopardy.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow these programs and services to

our people to be further downgraded. I believe these programs are the measure of

a civilized and caring society and we must protect them. However, in order to

protect those programs we have to rethink the way in which we govern this

Province and we must do so within the parameters of our financial ability, and I

have great confidence that we can be successful. Indeed we must, for our

residents will accept nothing less.

We also have to realize that we are on the verge of a new

prosperity in this Province which will propel us well into the next century and

one day in the not-too-distant future this Province will be in a position to

become a net contributor to this great nation of ours. While we may now live in

difficult times financially, we also have responsibility to our people to not

continually talk of doom and gloom, of cutbacks and financial reorganization, as

important and necessary as they are, and I don't think there is anybody in this

Province who doesn't realize how important it is to reassess our financial

situation, and to cut back, avoid, and eliminate waste.

We must offer our people hope and encouragement of better

times in the future, particularly in rural Newfoundland. We must tell them there

are opportunities for small business. There are exciting new developments in

offshore and onshore oil. There are new mineral developments. There will be a

revitalized fishery, and there are tremendous opportunities in tourism, national

and international, aquaculture development. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of

the many, many opportunities in this Province. We must not be afraid to instill

in our people a sense of excitement and anticipation of the new prosperity that

I am convinced is just around the corner. That is a provincial responsibility.

Now, along with our provincial responsibilities there is also

a federal responsibility. While Confederation with Canada was no doubt the

single most important and positive development in this Province's history, I

cannot help but feel that in a lot of ways we were shortchanged. Having been

born a Canadian and grown up with changes in this Province, and while the social

programs that Confederation brought to us were badly needed by our people - I

can remember my own dearly departed grandmother who had a picture of Joey

Smallwood over her mantel, and if you said anything against Mr. Smallwood, then

you were in deep, deep trouble.

That was the benefit that Confederation brought to people. We

were living on five or six cents a day and then all of a sudden, the next day,

the revenue and wealth were coming to the mothers and fathers of this Province

that they never ever had seen before, never possibly dreamed could happen.

I talked to a lady in Gander during the campaign - I just

happened to run into her on the street - and we talked about Confederation. She

worked with the postal service in Newfoundland prior to Confederation, and she

told me she made $45.00 a month and the month after Confederation she made

$350.00 a month; that's the kind of benefit, Mr. Speaker, that Confederation

brought to us, but I fear that what was really needed in this Province was

assistance with the development of our resources and the knowledge and the

training to enable us to become a contributing partner to Confederation and not

dependent on these programs.

The programs that reflected the Newfoundland reality were

often ineffective and contributed, in my opinion, to a large-scale dependency on

Ottawa that, coupled with the mismanagement of our fishery and the unwillingness

of Ottawa to exercise its powers and allow a corridor through the Province of

Quebec, have contributed to the position that we find ourselves in today. And

now, Mr. Speaker, Ottawa has its own problems and they now want to further

damage our already fragile economy by downsizing the already meagre role played

by the Canadian military in this Province.

This is not just about cost savings, Mr. Speaker, or

modernization or creating a more efficient military. This is about the

protection and the convenience of the bureaucracy in Ottawa. Why else, would

they try to build new facilities in Leitrim instead of Gander, when we have been

told that the savings would be pretty well equal in either place? If they were

serious about saving dollars by remoting Gander and centralizing in Ottawa, then

I would encourage the military to continue that model and move all military

activities to Newfoundland if they could operate more efficiently in this

Province than they could elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days, I had occasion to

read The Evening Telegram and in the corner - I forget what page it is

now -I saw a news item there that says: `Base Building Boom', and it certainly

caught my eye, and it said: Trenton, Ontario. And I will ask your leave to just

comment on a few words here. It says: The building boom has landed at Canada's

busiest air force base. The Canadian Airborne Centre will be moving the Canadian

Forces Base from Edmonton to Trenton, next year. The Skyhawks, Canada's famous

parachute display team -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. VEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- will be moved from CFB, Edmonton to Trenton. The mass

relocation will mean $50 million in construction projects. A training centre, a

barracks, a mock skydiving tower are among the facilities to be built. This is

going to cost $50 million in construction and $13.3 million, the cost of

relocating. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, where are the cutbacks in the richest

province in this country?

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to run over my time

and I will now like to defer to other hon. members of this House, allowing them

an opportunity to debate this issue, which is near and dear to me and, I am

sure, near and dear to other members.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I first want to, publicly in this Chamber, congratulate the

Member for Gander on being elected in the recent by-election and I apologize

also for interrupting him initially when he was making his maiden speech. I

thought he had spoken earlier, after all, we have been in the House some five or

six weeks, but I apologize, I didn't meant to interrupt you in your maiden

speech and I fully understand, when you rise in the House, initially as a new

member, with some trepidation and to get a chance to thank your district, but,

Mr. Speaker, that's the only apology I will make in my comments dealing with

this private member's resolution.

Now, the Member for Gander has said: `WHEREAS Newfoundland

and Labrador are the most Easterly points in North America which historically

had and continues to have major importance as a strategic military location;'

and he goes on to say, `and

WHEREAS only two per cent of Canada's National

Defence Budget is spent in Newfoundland and Labrador; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED

level of National Defence spending in Newfoundland and Labrador; and BE IT

FURTHER RESOLVED that this House recognizes Gander as a strategic military

action to strengthen, modernize and expand Gander and other military locations

throughout Newfoundland and Labrador.'

Well, it is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Gander

didn't put these thoughts together and publicly announce them during the Gander

by-election, because the pitch that he made during the Gander by-election, was

not one to discuss this issue but was one to keep this issue from coming to the

forefront publicly until the by-election was over.

The resolution that he probably put to Mr. Tobin and Mr.

Baker and the Premier at the time was,

Whereas three and-a-half weeks ago it

said that people in Gander were polled and it was indicated that 82 per cent of

people in Gander would vote for him and the Liberal Party; and

whereas at this

point in time, some two weeks later, we were running neck and neck plead,

therefore

be it resolved Mr. Tobin and Mr. Wells, please do not bring down the

cuts on Gander, please do not announce how the military cutbacks will impact

upon Gander, because it may impact on my ability to get elected in the

by-election. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker, and it surfaced initially during

the by-election, but was held off until some two weeks later; now, that is what

happened. I was there, I spent three weeks there during the by-election with a

terrific candidate who knocked on every door in Gander - unlike the Liberal

Party candidate of the day - who knocked on every door, who left no stone

unturned and who lost by .07 per cent of the vote. I say to the Member for

Gander, enjoy your time right here because it will be short. The candidate for

our party will be back in the next election, and I can tell you that after the

next election is over the Member for Gander will be sitting with the Tories and

not with the Liberals, I can guarantee you that, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Gander has a

strategic and important part to play in the economy of Newfoundland and

Labrador. It is one location for which we should be speaking out more. Like

today, in questions that I asked of the Government House Leader about the

impacts of privatization of air traffic control services. The impact directly on

jobs is one thing in Gander. What will happen? Will all those jobs move to

Moncton? What this government should be doing right now is getting a guarantee

and a commitment from the federal transportation minister that those jobs at the

air traffic control station in Moncton, will be coming to Gander - that's what

should be happening here. It is not the jobs in Gander that should be going to

Moncton but the air traffic control centre in Moncton that should close down and

move to Gander, for very legitimate reasons - strategically located. The most

easterly point, as the member has brought out.

This area, whether hon. members know it or not - there is

more air traffic over Gander to be handled than there is over New York or over

Chicago, two of the busiest airports in the world. But the amount of

international traffic coming through, it is a point that bottlenecks and air

traffic control in Gander sends planes everywhere from that point. That is what

should be happening, but I have my doubts, Mr. Speaker, that this government

will lobby the federal transportation minister to do that. I urge the Member for

Gander to ensure that that happens. I tell him now that if he needs any support,

if there is anything that I can do to help him in his efforts to ensure that

that happens, then I commit that today. The federal transportation minister, Mr.

Doug Young, is not a stranger to this Province, I can tell you that. I say to

the hon. the Member for Gander, before his arrival in this House last year and

continuing, the federal transportation minister's initiatives, in terms of

transportation in this Province, have been lacklustre, to say the least. They

have been initiatives taken by him and his department that have negatively

affected this Province in a most serious, serious way.

Let's look at the Newfoundland Dockyard, for example. We know

what happened there. We know what is happening there, and I can tell you now, I

know what will happen there. But the federal Department of Transport needs to be

taken on, and taken on first and foremost by this Premier. We cannot sit by, Mr.

Speaker, day after day or month after month and watch the political rape that is

occurring in this Province through the Federal Government. Because that's what

is happening. To the Member for Gander let me say this: That whatever it takes

to ensure that the military base remains intact, whatever it takes to ensure

that a little bit more of the Federal Government's national defence budget goes

into Gander - because if the jobs that are predicted to be lost there now

publicly, and he knows, if they are lost, then there won't be a base, because it

will lose its base status. It will lose its definition. It won't even meet the

criteria to become a base. He knows this. He knows it better than anybody, I

suspect.

In terms of air traffic control, can you imagine the impact

of 250 jobs taken out of Gander? Now, these jobs are in the range of somewhere

between $60,000 and $110,000 a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: And more, yes. The impact, indirectly, in

terms of the local economy, what that would have. It would be significant,

unbelievable. We are talking about high-paying disposable incomes that are spent

as such. I have a lot of friends who are air traffic controllers; I went to

university with many of them. And they are very, very scared.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, twenty million, exactly. As of April

1, all air traffic control services, or all air traffic control people, will not

work with the Federal Government. It will be a privatized service in this

country. The reason for it? Two hundred million dollars, it cost the Federal

Government last year for air traffic control services. That is a responsibility

they should maintain. That is a very important service to all Canadians

including those people in Gander.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in supporting the resolution

put forward by the Member for Gander today, and support it openly and publicly.

But let's do more than put it on paper. Let's see if the proof will be in the

pudding. I urge the Member for Gander to get to his Cabinet colleagues and get

them on their feet. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who

deals every day, or should be dealing every day, with the federal minister, Doug

Young - get him moving; and get the Premier moving, to ensure that this private

member's resolution which I support that he has put forward adds up to more than

just a debate in this House today. Then, at the end of the day we will see some

concrete results that will positively impact upon this Province and the people

of Gander.

Thank you very much.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the hon.

member's resolution. It is very timely, of course, with the situation with

government finance being very difficult these days. Newfoundland has been, over

the years, a strategic point in the overall development of military policy for

the NATO countries, North America in general, I guess. And we have seen the

growth of Gander to its high point at some time in the recent past, with respect

to the infrastructure that it has maintained on behalf of the people of North

America in the area of air traffic control, the area of defence, and the area of

providing the services necessary to maintain the infrastructure of air travel.

From a military standpoint, it has been a strategic location

both as a northern listening post, the `turkey farm' as anyone from Gander and

anyone who flies in there frequently knows of, the listening post that is there

looking like an turkey farm. That particular area as it is referred to is a

covert operation but it is a necessary part of the Canadian Security

Intelligence system. It provides good benefit to the Province through these

people living and working in Gander.

In the overall, I would suppose, you could say that these are

things we should hope to maintain at the maximum level possible. We should also

hope that much less transfer would occur to other locations throughout the

country, that Gander plays second fiddle to no one. Granted, the low amount of

spending that occurs in this Province insofar as the amount of defence spending

on a per capita basis is concerned - the amount of defence spending overall in

the Province is very low. It is only in the last number of years, within the

last five years, I suppose, that defence spending in Atlantic Canada has even

risen - with respect to the contract and procurement area - risen to its high

point because of the contracts that were let to St. John's shipyard in building

a lot of the navy vessels, and this has askewed the defence contracting to

Atlantic Canada's benefit, but not necessarily to the benefit of the Province.

There are numerous companies in the Province that have

undertaken efforts to try to improve their possibility of bidding on government

work, and in order to provide the goods, materials and services necessary for

the benefit of the military. We have a number of small high tech companies that

are growing in this area, some providing sub-contractual work for General Motors

on defence contracts, and others that are doing such in relation to a number of

defence contracts, and this is all good for the Province. But again, we don't

receive the full share of our total percentage that would be due us under the

Federal Government legislation on procurement for the Province. So there is a

point there that could certainly see some future business development

opportunities for Gander should the strength and the suasion of the Government

of Canada be in favour of the efforts to help diversify as the base in Gander

changes its focus with the cold wars now being over and the changes to

intelligence and other things that will take place there.

There is no doubt there will be changes. There is no doubt

that as elected politicians on behalf of the people of the Province, we should

do everything in our power to help mitigate these changes, to help maintain the

maximum level of employment possible, to maintain the maximum level of benefit

for the Province possible, and to try to minimize the level of displacement of

individuals and the effect on the community possible.

So, looking at that, one would have to say that the hon.

member's motion, and Gander in itself, was chosen for a reason, and that reason

hasn't really changed. The reason for Gander's existence as an airport of

international significance has not changed whatsoever. From a military

standpoint there are some things that have been happening with respect to

strategic military situations that would indicate that maybe a large air force

base type situation there may not be in the cards in the near future, but who is

to know what the future beyond the immediate term will hold? Who is to know if

world peace, as we have it now, is something that will be maintained? It is not

something that we wish to change, but certainly it is the kind of thing that we

would have to look at, that the infrastructure there should be maintained, that

a certain level of service should be maintained as well.

Now, looking at the situation, the Opposition will always try

to paint the government's initiatives with respect to Gander, and also anything

to do with elections, the hon. member's election here to the House, a victory

beyond what anyone would say is a stellar victory in a very close-fought race,

and the hon. member stood true and came to this House of Assembly without any

apologies, without fear of the Opposition suggesting that he shan't be here

long, because nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. member is a very

steadfast individual who will stand and represent the constituents of Gander to

the best of his ability, and I would say, doing his job in a very true and

steadfast manner, that he will be re-elected to this Chamber come the next

provincial election, without any doubt. It will wear thin to suggest that an

opponent previous shall gain in any way in the interim period while the hon.

member is sitting in this House and doing business on behalf of the people of

the Gander area. So, we look forward to his return to the Chamber in the future

and also we look forward to his success.

I must say that when the announcement was made back some time

ago by the hon. MP, Mr. Baker, who spoke of the potential for cutbacks at the

Gander base, I was very pleased with the reaction that was brought forward, not

only by the hon. member here in this Chamber, but by the mayor and others in the

area who know and realize fully that they will have to make changes, adapt, and

do what they can to maintain the best possible benefit from the

commercialization of certain military activities in the area. Now, that is

without any consideration for the effect it will have on the community, of

course. They will have to deal with that impact as they expect to, because there

will be some changes, there will be some downsizing, but we here in this

Chamber, I think, have to support the hon. member's motion because of its

timeliness; and we have to see to it that we are all working in concert with one

another to do whatever we can from a commercialization standpoint of the

existing military services and this sort of thing that are being provided to

them, see if they can be improved somewhat, if we can undertake efforts that

will provide the maximum benefit to Gander, and other airports in the Province

that have any dealings with the military.

This is not just a Gander motion, of course, it is a motion

that will have an effect on the whole Province with respect to national defence

spending and all of these things. It is a kind of motion where we ask the

Federal Government to do something. It is not the kind where we can solicit the

expenditure of our own funds clear of any benefit that would be provided to the

council and the airport development group at Gander, and how they go about their

work, but certainly, the argument put forward is a very capable one. The hon.

member mentioned it would be not unlike removing the full government bureaucracy

from St. John's to see the downsizing of the airport's support system at Gander,

that kind of effect would be had on that particular area.

Gander is not only just an airport for that situation. You

would have to look at the Gander airport as to the infrastructure that has grown

up there and how that affects the overall area that uses Gander as a service

centre. The sustenance of the infrastructure in the Gander area for benefit of

the outlying areas is also a key

part in the critical mass of population in that

area, is what will maintain that kind of infrastructure for the benefit of those

who come into the Gander area and shop, those who are provided with medical

services, provincial government and court services and what have you.

Those are all key parts and reasons why we, as hon. members,

should do whatever we can. There is very little military activity in the area I

represent but I would say to the hon. member that all of us in this House would

do whatever is possible. As the hon. member opposite has mentioned, we should

always, I suppose, take what people say at face value, and certainly, the offer

of the hon. Mr. Byrne from Kilbride to offer all of his assistance in this, of

course, is balanced against the dagger he would have out to have this hon.

member removed from the Chamber come time of the next election. That is

something we have to weigh when we are being offered the opportunity to work

together on something.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member's motion

should be looked at favourably by all hon. members here. I also commit to work

closely with the hon. the Member for Gander and the people of Gander in whatever

capacity I may on behalf of the people of the Province, in seeing to it that

the Province being represented here in this Chamber collectively, to take that

forward as something of substance for the benefit of all of us here in this

Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will allow hon. members opposite to

have further comments. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte - White

Bay.

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

I am pleased today to rise and make a few comments on this

particular debate, especially on the motion put forward by the Member for

Gander. I want to say at the outset, that first of all I am glad to see the

Member for Gander take his time to get up here today in the House and represent

his district by putting forward such a motion. I am glad that he also had a

chance to make his maiden speech. I thought he would have had a chance before

now - he has been here for a few weeks. I am not sure how long exactly - three

weeks now, almost four weeks in the House of Assembly.

It is a very timely issue, as the Member for LaPoile has

already mentioned and it is something that is very important, not just to the

people in Gander, it is important to everybody in this Province, what is

happening, and the potential implications for Gander with the downsizing of the

military in Gander.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I, too, also know Gander very well. It is

what I consider to be my neighbouring community. I have spent a lot of time in

Gander. I know a lot of people in Gander. I have a lot of good, close friends in

Gander, and we all know, as government and Opposition, how important is the role

that Gander has played in the economy of this Province. It is probably one of

the most prosperous per capita communities in this Province and it has been for

many years. It all lies within the realms of the military presence in Gander

and, of course, the airport itself. So, Mr. Speaker, it is timely that this

motion is brought forward to the House and I would say to the House and to the

Member for LaPoile who talks about daggers and so on, Mr. Speaker, I pledge my

full support, as all of my colleagues, I am sure, on this side of the House and

government members would also pledge their support for this resolution. We have

no problem with that, Mr. Speaker. We know how important that is to this

Province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion and make a few

points from the motion specifically. First of all: `Whereas Newfoundland and

Labrador are most Easterly points in North America which historically had and

continues to have major importance as a strategic military location;' Mr.

Speaker, this first

section of the motion, for example, was repeated by the

Premier in this House and during the by-election. It was also put forward by the

Premier that it was a strong case to expand, to improve and to keep - at least

maintain the presence in Gander, as is now. That was articulated by the Premier,

by the Member for Gander and by other politicians, such as the MP for Gander,

Mr. George Baker - it was also articulated by him. So, Mr. Speaker, all of us,

including those people, support the presence of the military in Gander. We also

believe that it should probably be expanded with just this first

section of the

motion which reads its location and how it is strategically located in the

Atlantic so that we should expand it and should maintain in Gander. So nobody

has a problem with that part.

The second part: `Whereas only 2 per cent of Canada's

National Defence Budget is spent in Newfoundland and Labrador;' Mr. Speaker,

only 2 per cent. Again, I agree with the Premier when he articulated those

points and the MP for Gander when he also said it and all of us who have said it

- less than 2 per cent, Mr. Speaker, of the defence budget. Although everybody

agrees on the strategic location and that we should have a presence in Gander

and as a matter of fact, expand on that presence in Gander.

The Member for Gander commented earlier that it was very

important in World War II, the location of Gander. We all know that through

history, we covered that. During World War II, as the Member for Gander said

earlier, it was a very important location inasfar as strategy goes, and the

effects and the implications that it had for that particular war. But more

recently, of course, in the Gulf War, during which we saw very busy times for

Gander, it was used again. So, Mr. Speaker, the point is, it was used in the

past as a strategic location, and it was used just lately in modern times as a

strategic location. Therefore, although the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation in the Province doesn't understand, I will try to simplify it

again for him, that the Member for Gander, the Premier, all the members of the

House of Assembly, should support Gander as a strategic location. It makes sense

to have Gander as a strategic location, not just for this Province or for this

country, but for the world, as a military strategic location. So we all support

that.

The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation has a hard

time understanding that. But I can understand that, though. I really feel sorry

for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation that he doesn't

understand it. Maybe, later on, his colleague, the new Member for Gander, who

has only been here for a short while, can explain to the veteran who has been

here so long, who wakes up every now and then and listens to a few things, maybe

the Member for Gander, the rookie, can go and explain it to him, and maybe even

write down a few notes for him. Because he does have a hard time understanding,

I can see that. I feel sorry for the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation who can't understand it.

It is very understandable that he is out of touch with this

as far as transportation goes, like he is out of touch with the rest of the

transportation issues in the Province. The Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation can go back to sleep. We will wake him again at the end of the

comments. The Member for Gander, the rookie MHA, will go and explain it to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Then we turn to the third

whereas: "Whereas every other

province of Canada, except two, receives a higher percentage of the Department

of National Defence budget." It is a good point and I am glad that the member

put it in his `whereas'. Because, as to the point raised earlier on the

strategic location, there is not a better place than the Island of Newfoundland

for that location. It is better than Prince Edward Island, better than Nova

Scotia, I would say to the Member for Gander, better than anywhere in Atlantic

Canada. That is why it is so easy, that we can support it so strongly.

So: "Therefore

be it resolved that this House of Assembly

spending in Newfoundland and Labrador." Here is where we started to run into

some problems, I think, and that is what I would like to make a few comments on

today.

I congratulate the Member for Gander, for bringing forward

such a motion at such timing. I am glad that it has been brought forward. But

here is the question, and it is just not tied to this particular issue. It is to

do with federal cousins, federal counterparts, whichever way you want to term

it. It is fine for us to get up today and articulate our positions here in this

House on a private member's resolution, but I challenge the Member for Gander

now to take it further than this debate, and further than the Premier of this

Province has taken it so far. This is where I've seen it.

Once during the Gander by-election, the Premier made a

three-hour appearance for a three-week campaign, made some announcement that:

`We are not sure of any cuts yet, we haven't heard of anything yet, we don't

know anything.' The same old story as with so many issues in this Province.

`Listen, our federal cousins will take care of that. We trust them. We have to

be responsible. We can't get up and rant and rave,' the Premier says. `We can't

do that. We can't get our fingers dirty.' The Premier of this Province can't

roll up his sleeves, he has cufflinks in. He can't roll up his sleeves; that

would be too irresponsible. That wouldn't be like the Premier to speak so

irresponsibly, so he can't roll up his sleeves.

I'm saying to the Member for Gander here today in all

sincerity: You ask the Premier and the ministers of this government to do more

than lip service and do more than a resolution in this House, and roll up his

sleeves and get his hands a little bit dirty, and maybe raise his voice every

now and then - it won't hurt him - to his federal counterparts, to make sure

that there is some meat behind this. That is what I challenge the Member for

Gander, to make sure there is some meat behind this - not an opportunity for the

Member for Gander to get up and make his maiden speech with a resolution that

affects his district, which is fine and dandy. But what comes behind it is what

really counts. That is what the people in Gander are going to be waiting to see

in the next general election, whether there was any meat behind what the Member

for Gander really brought forward.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just to digress for one second now, and we

will talk about polls. Everybody is worried about talking about polls. I'm not

worried about talking about polls. The poll that came out yesterday was just

like the one a few weeks before, just like eating an ice cream, it happens for

today and then that is it. We all know in this House what a poll means. It is

the day and enjoy it and have a smile because it is all over tomorrow. Because I

was out there in Gander district for three weeks also, and the Member for Gander

knows it. You know the poll that was handed to me three weeks before that Gander

by-election, the safe Liberal seat in this Province, the Winst Baker seat that

nobody was ever going to defeat, nobody thought we had a chance, 82 per cent

Liberal of decided vote, 12 per cent Tory, and they sent us out with a candidate

of whom everybody asked: Who is that? He has won by acclamation. What is he

going to do? No campaign headquarters, no candidate, no nothing, 82 per cent

Liberal, 12 per cent Tory. Forget it boys, don't even bother going out there. We

were told that, forget it, don't bother to go out there. Eighteen days later, on

the real poll, the only one that I like to talk about, the real poll on Election

Day, what was it? A difference from 82 to 12, from 47 to 46.1, a difference of

less than a percentage point - less than a percentage point.

I say to all hon. members, if they are comfortable with this

so-called poll from yesterday about 30/40, or whatever the heck it was, it was

not very much - I did notice one thing, that there are a lot of undecided voters

in this Province who are not clinging to the seven years of this government, who

are not hanging their hats on the seven years of this government. I would

challenge the Premier today, if he was here. If the Premier were here today I

would say: Premier, yes, smile on your polls. You just got your poll in, now,

call an election. If you were comfortable with Gander election, and scraped by

with a .7 percentage point - .7 of a point, not even a full percentage point. If

that was comfortable, call an election and we will see where that undecided vote

goes, if that was a comfortable seat. The Member for Gander well knows, when the

famous MP, George Baker, who, by the way, is a lot more popular than this

Provincial Government, and I can see why he has -

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SHELLEY: Because he is the only one who has

opposition, outside the opposition on this side, in this Province to stand up

and talk about Newfoundland issues when it is against his government policy. Mr.

Speaker, that is what I challenge some members on this opposite side to do, with

the reception he got in Grand Falls last night, and I can tell you, if the

Member for Gander gets the MP for Gander behind him the same way that he hopes

to get his own government behind him, if he gets his MP behind him from Gander

the same way that he hopes to get the Premier and his ministers behind him, we

may do something with this resolution. But if it is just lip service in this

House, where it is going to stop here and we say, `Good job, you have presented

your resolution', that is where it dies. That is what we are going to see, and

that is my challenge to the Member for Gander today.

I will say this to the Member for Gander today also. I hope

there is enough stirred up by this government and this Premier on this

particular issue with Gander, because it is important, and I would like to see

you win it. I would like to see enough lobbying and pressure, or whatever you

want to call it, more than a lip service of a Premier from three weeks ago

standing up for two minutes during a by-election and saying that he was going to

do all he could for the people of Gander - all he could. Well, my question is:

What is `all he could'? We are soon going to find out, because what the Member

for Gander has done here is put the carrot out. Now, the Premier of this

Province and his government, to which he belongs now, we are going to find out

if he is really supporting this, or if this is just token support. Mr. Speaker,

this is not the only issue in this Province where we need the support of the

Premier and the ministers and this government.

The UI reforms that will hit this Province as hard as any

issue in the history of this Province are about to come down the tube within

days. Now, will somebody in this Province, or somebody on the other side of this

House, get up and tell me about the fight that was put up by this government to

protect Newfoundlanders who need UI so desperately, from the impact of those UI

reforms. Ottawa, including our own MPs, Mr. Tobin included, who is my member,

have said very, very little about it. And it will come home to roost. The

changes to the UI that are about to come down the tube will have more impact on

this Province than on any other Province of Canada. Can somebody, federally, on

the other side of the House, anybody in the Province, tell me where the fight

was by this Premier and this government?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: Mr. Speaker, that reminds me, now that we

have another squeak from the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation - it

is funny how it reminds me. He doesn't have to say a word - all he has to do is

burp and he reminds me. The Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, who

used to be the big hero on the soap boxes wherever you went, before I ran,

before I really got interested in politics, I thought he was the biggest hero we

have ever seen since Mammy's sliced bread. He was on every soap box, he was

everywhere, I have clippings I saw - my colleague from Placentia showed me

today, clippings of the minister when he was a Social Service Critic - what was

he the chairman of, the fishery - what was that called? Can the minister tell me

what he was chairman of? Some fisheries group, I can't remember. Can the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation tell me what he was the chairman

of, what committee was that? United Fisherpersons. The minister was the Chairman

of the United Fisherpersons of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker, he was

going to take on John Crosbie and everybody else.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder where was his soap box in the

last few days when the fees for fishermen started to go up? What did he do with

his soap box? Did he take the soap box apart, Mr. Speaker, I wonder, and sit

back in his chair now? Of all the members over there, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SHELLEY: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Member for Gander but

he has left his seat and I guess he is listening to the system outside, but I do

want to begin by congratulating the Member for Gander on his maiden speech into

the resolution which will bring prosperity and will continue to bring prosperity

to the Town of Gander.

I can't imagine that anybody could be argumentative against

the resolution such as the member has introduced in the House of Assembly today,

but I have to make some comments about the hon. member opposite who was up on

his feet speaking. In fact, the first five minutes of his speech, I was starting

to be concerned, I was starting to get down under my seat because I was feeling

that some shells were going to come passing over my head when he started talking

about wars; war I, war II, war III. Now I don't know if he really had himself

convinced that we were in a world war or he was just practising with the live

shells he had in his pocket. But whatever it was, I was starting to get a bit

nervous,

So then he gets the speech going from the wars, then he

starts getting into a fighting mood and I said: My gracious, what's coming down

here this afternoon? What did this man have for dinner? From a war to a

fistfight or to whatever, but, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Shellfish.

MR. EFFORD: Shellfish, he is all mixed up.

I heard a statement made to a fellow one day when he was

having a big argument and someone else said that he was still going around with

live shells in his pockets and I believe the hon. member fits that description.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that why you were shell-shocked?

MR. EFFORD: Yes, I just was actually.

Mr. Speaker, I have to make a point on how to approach the

federal government on an issue such as this issue which is so important to the

future development of Gander.

The resolution as put forward by the member has been agreed

upon by both sides of the House. It is a resolution that nobody can argue

against but the hon. member opposite makes some points on it, how would you take

this to our federal cousins in Ottawa?

Well, I will tell you, I have seen some pretty wild debates

in this House of Assembly. The former Premier, Brian Peckford, was real classy

as to how he presented himself in a speech and how he used to jump and have the

hands going and ranting and raving; another friend of mine, Richard Cashin, the

leader of the union was a similar individual, when he would get up and he would

rant and rave and the fist going all over the head and how we are going to take

on our cousins in Ottawa. I have seen some incidents when all of this would

happen, at times you would have to go and take them down off the desks, Peckford

- and he will hop on to the middle of the desk and he would go from one end of

the stage to the other with the fist going and the people cheering and ranting

and raving and all this.

I saw it one time in effect with the freezer trawlers. I know

one time on the factory freezer trawlers: we are not, under any circumstance

going to allow factor freezer trawlers on the Grand Banks, and the sweat coming

off, and the tie off to one side and his shirt collar open, Brian Peckford, the

former Premier of this Province, and we are not going to agree with our federal

cousins in Ottawa, we are all of the same stripe, well we are not going to allow

it. We are going to take them on and we are going to rip it all apart.

Well, I saw that work, saw that type of action take place but

I can tell the hon. member one thing, the factory freezer trawlers made it to

the Grand Banks, with all the ranting and raving, they went out there and that

is the reason why we have 25,000 to 30,000 people unemployed today. Because all

that ranting and raving - for ten years that former premier with the ranting and

raving. The point I'm making, Mr. Speaker, is does the ranting and raving really

work?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Yes, you have that right. I'm talking about

ranting and raving to try to solve a problem. Does it really work? That is the

point I'm making. I'm not arguing what is out there. But this is what the member

is saying, that the Member for Gander should rant and rave, and all the people

on this side.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we used a different tactic, if you

used some common sense, some sensible debate, some level of intelligence, that

you sit down and you would rationally discuss an issue that matters to the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I wonder if at the end of the day would

at least as much be accomplished or possibly more. So does the ranting and

raving really work?

No, it doesn't really work. How an individual gets his point

across is up to the individual who is presenting that point. If the former

premier felt that he needed to get his point across in that manner that is his

right. That was his right. I remember the time Richard Cashin went to Ottawa.

That was really when I (inaudible) about the ranting and raving. When he left

St. John's, get out of my way, there were fists going everywhere. When he got up

in front of Brian Mulroney, before he met Brian Mulroney: Brick by brick we'll

tear this building apart. We'll take it down brick by brick, take the mortar

out. We will have what we want for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Boy,

did he go in. Walked in through the door, this little man, about four feet five

inches tall, and he was going in, fists coming apart.

Boy, you should have seen him when he came out. What a

meeting we had. The smile and the calmness of when he came out, and Brian

patting him on the head: Now Richie, you go back to Newfoundland. What did he

get? There is ranting and raving. There is what ranting and raving really takes

care of.

We know all about the ranting and raving, we know all about

what the hon. members get in their ranting and raving. The Member for Gander is

quite capable of presenting his case to the people in Ottawa. To his so-called

federal cousins in Ottawa he is quite capable in his own style, as is the

Premier of this Province, as is every person on this side.

Let's get to the real issue about Gander. I had the

opportunity just over the past couple of months to travel with the TOPS group,

the people involved in promotion of the Gander airport, trying to attract some

more business, passenger service, and the international flights stopping in

Gander. I tell you, this is where you really get a good education of how

important the aviation system, how important the federal service to the armed

forces would be stepped up in Gander, how important it is to the future economic

conditions of Gander. Nobody can argue that anything that anybody - whether you

are a minister of government, a premier of the Province, or a member on this

side of the House or a member on that side - anything that anybody could do to

impress on the federal government in Ottawa how important - not only the

strategic location of Gander, but the economic development, and what it means to

the economic survival of the future of Gander, and look at other parts of

Canada. Because I think that is a real issue here.

If you've got a presence of armed forces in other parts of

Canada and you look at what the numbers are here in Newfoundland, look at the

prosperity of the provinces where the armed forces are located in other parts of

Canada compared to the economic situation of Newfoundland. For all the reasons

that you could put together, or all the thoughts you could put together, I don't

think anybody in Canada can argue that we deserve our fair share for all the

reasons. We were strategically located to the advantage of Canada and the United

States and North America during the great world wars, the First World War and

the Second World War. They needed us then, why drop us now?

That is what I'm talking about. You needed us then in

Stephenville, Pleasantville, St. John's, Goose Bay, and especially in Gander,

and Argentia. We were there. The people of this great Province were there. Not

only did they go overseas and give their lives but the Province - the location

was strategically important for the protection of North America.

Now most of the place is starting to disappear. We are

saying, as a Province, we do not want it to disappear. Who knows, God forbid,

that we would ever need it again but nevertheless the training and the presence

of forces, the Armed Forces will remain in Canada. The fact that it remains in

Canada and the multimillion dollars is spent in Canada - the fact remains that

during the First and Second World War that we were strategically located and it

is important that it should continue. It should continue and it should be

stepped up. If you can spend money in Quebec, you can spend money in Ontario,

you can spend money in British Columbia and other parts of Canada, you should be

able to spend an equal amount or even a percentage higher in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

We are willing to give our commitment, we are willing to pay

our fair share in time of need and in the good times we should be equally well

deserving of getting our fair share of the pie and to ask to have in Gander, in

St. John's and in Goose Bay, to have the presence not only stay but to be

stepped up. I don't think it is an unfair request or unfair demand on the

federal government. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier, all members

on this side and especially the Member for Gander will communicate to the

federal government the position that he so adamantly put forth in this

resolution today that will mean future financial success to the future of Gander

and if Gander succeeds financially and plays a role in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador dealing with the future financial commitments of this

great Province of ours.

The hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West took his sleeping

pill again this morning after he got out of bed not knowing that he is supposed

to take it before he goes to bed in the evening, took it out again this morning.

So rather then allow him to fall asleep I am going to sit down and let him get

up so he can stay awake for at least another ten or fifteen minutes.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to

support the resolution as put forward by the new Member for Gander.

Before I continue, I would like to echo support for what the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation just had to say. When they needed

us they pumped money in. Now should they be allowed to drop us? No, they should

not, `they' being the federal government.

The resolution as put forward by the Member for Gander states

defence spending in Newfoundland and Labrador. Percentages were used here

earlier today, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going into those because there is a

danger of just percentages. We all know that Newfoundland has somewhere around 2

per cent of the population of Canada. The resolution said that they spend about

2 per cent but actual spending is closer to 1 per cent from the little bit of

research I have done, which makes matters worst.

A few years ago there were 68,000 people in Eastern Canada

employed because of military spending. Thirty-eight hundred of those were

employed in Newfoundland. That is in every mode of spending from those enlisted

in the military to civilian workers. Our volunteer rate in Newfoundland, in the

Canadian Forces was always exceptionally high. Two or three years ago it was up

around 12 per cent of the volunteer services of the Armed Forces of this

country. The shame of it is that Newfoundlanders filled most of the combat arms

units. Other provinces, their enlistments went into higher technical services of

the Canadian Armed Forces. That has to change as well. We have to train and

better train our people to be able to fill these high ranking services in the

military because when they get out of the military they can take jobs on, as

they say `city street' in the military. They can transfer their technologies to

civilian life. What we have in Canada is other provinces enjoying military

spending and Newfoundland not getting its fair benefit. There are hundreds and

millions of dollars every year that go into operations and maintenance. Is any

of it coming here? If there is, show me, because I am not aware of it. We have

to get in on committed funds. We have to know the way DND spends its money.

Some time ago the Premier and Brian Tobin announced an

economic renewal program for the Province. As a matter of fact, it was announced

on June 16 of this year. They talked about $100 million for a five-year period

for aquaculture, tourism and information technologies. In that press release,

they touched briefly on a special task force on the Newfoundland economy that

was established by the Privy Council. That group, made up of the Prime Minister,

the Premier, federal ministers, and provincial ministers do not have to look

very far beyond the disproportions and ratios of what this Province gets in

military spending. If they got that up a percentage, or two or three, we would

see the economy improve in this Province.

Discretionary spending - we have not been accessible to it.

Some companies might be able to get in on some of these discretionary payments

but that committee which I just mentioned a minute ago, the provincial wing of

it, if they found out for sure what way the defence department spends its money,

the whole gamut from defence right on through, Newfoundland companies or those

people willing to form companies could be informed on the ways they could get in

on some of these operational and maintenance multimillion dollar projects. Then,

we would see these companies being accessible to committed funding over a

five-year period, or over a ten-year period, whatever way some of these units

work, where a company or companies could make further plans and further

improvements.

In the rest of this country, there are hundreds and hundreds

of million dollars spent a year by the Department of National Defence, and what

unemployment. If we are not getting our fair share, if they are not willing to

up the percentages of what we are getting, what they are shipping us, Mr.

Speaker, is just unemployment. Now, we have enough unemployment.

Where I come from in the Placentia area, which for decades

has contributed greatly to the Newfoundland economy, you have unemployment

running anywhere from 70 per cent to 73 per cent. We could all do with a shot in

the arm. If Gander improves, so does Newfoundland, or wherever they spend their

money, but for them to only ship us unemployment, and then we be made laughing

stocks by the likes of the Globe and Mail and others, is not very fair

either. We have a right to a percentage, a rightful percentage of the Department

of National Defence's spending in this Province.

The Minister of Finance, federally, tells us that we should

tighten our belts, but he had a fleet of ships and he had it transferred over to

flags of convenience so he could hire foreign sailors for dirt wages. We see

Minister Axworthy about to inflict more pain on the people of this Province, and

the Minister of Defence, Minister Collenette, is he willing to make improvements

to defence spending in Newfoundland? That remains to be seen.

This resolution today is a good one, but it should not die

here. It should be taken up further with the Federal Government to make sure

they are aware of what is happening in this Province. And however you do it,

whether you want to rant and rave or continue to negotiate, that committee, the

special task force on the Newfoundland economy, which works in conjunction with

the Federal Government, should continue to harp on the unequal and unfair

treatment of our access to military procurement in this country.

We have the worst unemployment situation in the country. We

have the worst rate of unemployment, and if the Federal Government brings down

those changes that are rumoured here, they are making the unemployment situation

worse, while other provinces enjoy hundreds of millions of dollars of military

spending.

We need the committed funding, as I have said. We need

operational and maintenance spending. We should not have to be going `hat in

hand' to Ottawa. If we are a Province, if we stand for a class of people, it

should not always have to be an orphan's fight; we should not always have to be

begging for crumbs from a table. They wanted us when it was for the defence of

North America, and they should not be allowed to ignore us now. Why should we

take their unemployment? We want what is fair. We are not covetous. We are not

being fairly treated by the Department of National Defence. We were never, ever,

treated fairly.

The Member for Gander, the new member, I congratulate him for

putting this in place today. I said earlier, what is good for Gander is good for

Newfoundland. There are other places, other businesses in this Province that,

given the chance, can get in on operational maintenance and the procurement of

Canadian funds in national defence in this country. But we want it open, and

this committee, this economic renewal, this new task force, federal and

provincial ministers, the Premier and the Prime Minister should be able to make

sure that we get our fair share.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am very pleased today to get up in this debate. The first

thing I would obviously do is congratulate the Member for Gander on an excellent

presentation -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: - a first-rate effort by the Member for

Gander on the issues that are facing his district, Mr. Speaker. As usual, of

course, when the member makes a good speech and shows exactly why he has the

support of his people you get the naysayers on the other side saying different

things.

The first person who was up after he spoke was the Member for

Kilbride who said: I can assure the people of this Province he won't be sitting

on this side of the House when the next election is called and the votes are

counted. I say to him, like the Prime Minister of Canada said when he was Leader

of the Opposition just a few short years ago: I wouldn't speak too quickly if I

were the Member for Kilbride. I wouldn't speak too quickly about whether that

member is going to be on the government side or on the opposite side next time.

Because I'm sure they got the Omnibus Atlantic survey today.

Oh, look here, yes. I would say it is more than the Member for Kilbride who have

had a serious look at the Omnibus poll today. I would say the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition has had to have a quick call to old Lassinger. I would say there

were a lot of calls to old Lassinger today. I would say there were a lot of

calls put in to the old Lassinger file today and said: Now, you had better come

back. You got me in three votes above, but my god, get down here, something has

happened to the Tory Party! Something dramatic has happened.

For a little while this summer, around July, August, the dead

of summer, I guess the people were half asleep and when they called them up from

the polling company they asked them if they recognized the Leader of the

Opposition. I suppose, half-asleep, they said: Uh-uh, and they wrote them down

for yes. But obviously now since the Fall has come along and we've had the House

of Assembly open, and we've had the Leader of the Opposition here asking silly

questions day after day, they phone up now and they ask: Did you hear the Leader

of the Opposition? Do you know her? There is an emphatic: Yes, I know her, and I

will never, no never, vote for that person there to be Premier of the Province.

Obviously, we have seen a dramatic turnaround in public

opinion. Here we have sixteen points changed over in three short months.

Obviously, our Leader, the Premier of this Province, who is facing tough times

and dealing with them in the kind of Liberal manner that we are - fairness and

balance are the hallmarks of this government. Obviously, now that they have seen

five or six weeks of the Leader of the Opposition coming out here with her

grandiose schemes about whether the Prime Minister has offered some kind of a

robe or something or other in turn for this and that and the other thing. I

mean, the people, when they are called now by the polling company, don't

hesitate. They bark into the phone: Don't talk about Verge, don't talk about the

Tory party, we've had enough of that.

Now, we have seen the results - apart from the fact that she

has taken a dramatic tumble in public opinion. She is now ten points behind when

she was six points ahead of our Leader - a sixteen-point change.

AN HON. MEMBER: What caused it (inaudible)?

MR. DUMARESQUE: I think a number of significant things

have caused it, Mr. Speaker. The first thing, I think, that caused it is that

she has actually gone on tv and has said for the last time that she is not going

to vote for the referendum, or is it, that she is going to vote for the

referendum, is that what it is? I am not sure. Well, maybe it was the fact that

she said she wanted fifty-two members before she got the leadership and now she

doesn't want or - I don't know, maybe she still wants fifty-two members and then

she comes along, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: She wants forty.

MR. DUMARESQUE: She wants forty. No, that's the would-be

leader, that's the man who wants to be leader, that's the real leader who is

over there, Mr. Speaker, he wants forty, and he really understands this Province

I can tell you, he wants forty; he wants two seats in Labrador to have everybody

from Nain to L'Anse-au- Clair, 1,400 kilometres, served by one member, but

that's okay, you can still go in and take Churchill Falls and Goose Bay - Happy

Valley down to Northwest River and still have one seat in Labrador.

Now here is a man who would be Premier; here is a man who

understands this Province, Mr. Speaker, but I say that obviously, you can't

always count on your leader to be able to get over the hump and those seats that

you want at election time, it counts on whether the party itself is in good

standing. So, yes, they had to ask the people of this Province: Do you support

the Liberal Party, if an election were held today or do you support the Tory

Party or do you even know about the NDP Party, but when they asked the question

this time, in three months there was a 6 per cent or 8 per cent lead in the

public opinion polls for the Liberal Party.

Now, three months after, the people have seen the performance

of the Leader, seen the policies of the Tory Party over there, we now have a 23

per cent lead, a 23 per cent difference, 23 per cent lead. Mr. Speaker, even

with all the articulation, even with all the eloquence, even with all the

intelligence that comes out of the Deputy Leader and the House Leader and the

Member for Placentia, even with all of that, that today, I am sorry to say that

if there were an election today, there wouldn't be one person on the other side

of this House. Now that's not very nice. I don't think that we want to see that,

I don't think we would like to see that, no, I mean, we want the Member for

Gander back yes, he is going to be back here but we would like to see a couple.

The Member for Green Bay, I think the place would be a worse place if he wasn't

back here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps we shouldn't run anybody against

him.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Well, probably I think we should have a

real, solid look at that particular piece of strategy because there are people

here who we would like to see continue over there in Opposition so probably, our

strategic plan for the next election is to say: Okay, that poor soul, that poor

old Tory who doesn't know any different but you know he is - you can't say he

doesn't the difference I suppose, you say he is just going on the basis of what

he was told by his father and grandfather and whatever and he is not going to

really change so maybe, we should say: Listen boys, don't go taking on that

member, let's give him a break you know.

The Member for St. John's East Extern, you know. I mean, I

don't know if the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation would not have

somebody running against him, he might, I don't know but I think that there are

at least, two or three I suppose -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) very harmless.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Very harmless, yes, probably. I know the

questions in Question Period have certainly not been - you are not seeing any

kind of visible impact on the minister over here I must say, so maybe that would

be another seat that we would say: Well, let's have a look at where some things

can go wrong. But, Mr. Speaker, you know the Tory popularity in this Province is

starting to hurt over in PEI. I mean, we have a leader over there, a female

leader over there, Ms. Pat Miller and obviously having another female leader

here seems to be rubbing off because three months ago they had a poll taken over

there that said that there were 33 per cent in the dead of summer when people

were batting golf balls all over the place and waking up and didn't know who was

there, but now that the House is open again and now that the questions are being

asked and the reality is setting in and they have to decide who is the Premier,

who is the Leader of the Opposition, they get the call over in PEI now, in the

last three months, and here she is, this long, this long, in three months, gone

again, down another ten points over there, and the president of the party over

there said that the numbers came as a shock. We will have to go sit down and

look over these numbers very carefully before we decide what we are going to do

next. Well, I say to him, look at what is going to happen to the Tory Party in

Newfoundland and he will know what to do next. He will know what to do next,

because I predict that they will not be having the same leader over there in the

next election coming around in a few short months.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DUMARESQUE: I don't know. I don't hear too many of

those calls. As a matter of fact, I see the Calvert calculus very busy over

there. I see him adding them up now, how many pieces. Will I take two barrels,

three barrels, four barrels? How many barrels for White Bay, how many barrels

for Fogo? I think that he is over there doing his arithmetic now. Old Colonel

and old Mary Brown are going to get another bonanza.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would say that there have been calls

made. Make sure that around the middle of April or the first of May... The

Minister of Fisheries, Food and Agriculture, I would say, will see a little bump

in Newfoundland Farm Products around that time. There will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: A run on chicken.

MR. DUMARESQUE: There will be a run on the chicken again,

and Mr. Sub, I suppose, the people who don't like him down in some areas of this

Province might not want the dinner box so they will be looking for the sub, so I

am sure that the orders are all there. Now it is going to be difficult, because

obviously she has the former Premier in Vancouver, the other former Premier up

in law school now in Ottawa - he is on side - the former, former Premier down in

Florida - he is upside down right now; he doesn't know where he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is on a bus.

MR. DUMARESQUE: He is on a bus heading for - hopefully

nobody knows where he is going because he doesn't want anybody else to know

where he is going, so she does have those kinds of contacts. She can probably

draw on Laschinger again, so I think that what the Calvert calculus is doing

over there now is twisting the arm of old Dow Jones from Menihek and saying:

Now, I need another bucket because, for God's sake, Alec, let's not lose it by

three this time. If we can do it, get that extra money out for that extra bucket

of chicken, another breast for Fogo. Let's not lose it, because we know that the

wheels are spinning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ten wings for St. Anthony.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Ten wings for St. Anthony; coming right

up, no problem. We know today that the Tory Party is over there in disarray.

Actually, I called the other day, the week before last, and I tried to get the

PC Party of Newfoundland