March 13, 1991

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 8

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Before proceeding to the business of the day I would like, on

behalf of hon. Members, to extend a warm welcome to the House today to

fifty-five Grade XII students from the Glovertown Regional High School,

Glovertown, in the District of Terra Nova. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Mr. Alphonsus Farrell and Mr. Hubert Sparkes, and their bus-driver,

Mr. Oram.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

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

Lands.

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

inform the hon. Members of this House, and the residents of the Province, of

changes made to certain licences and fees, the big game licensing procedure, and

Hunter Capability Testing. These changes apply to the 1991 draw and hunting

season.

For big game hunters these changes include:

1. the elimination of the present method of applying for a

resident big game licence where single applicants must include a total of $30

and 2-party groups must send in a total of $35 with their applications.

2. an increase in net costs to individual hunters, from $30

to $35 with no change in the net cost to a 2-party group which presently pays a

total of $35 per licence.

3. the elimination of the need to include any money at the

time the application is submitted so that only the hunters who will be required

to pay any fee will be those who have been successful in the big game licence

draw.

Mr. Speaker, before I announce other changes, I would first

like to elaborate on the ones I have just stated. Under the previous system,

when a hunting licence application arrived at the Cashier's Office, a receipt

would have to be issued. Considering that the number of applications received in

recent years has averaged 45,000, this procedure caused a number of problems. It

resulted in a work overload for the Cashier's Office staff, delays in processing

applications, and ultimately, delays in the timing of the big game licence draw.

The delays in the draw caused considerable frustration for

applicants who needed to know as early as possible if they were successful in

receiving a licence in order to

schedule their annual leave.

In the past, Government collected a non-refundable $5.00

application fee with each big game licence application. Each applicant had to

submit it along with the appropriate licence fee when he or she applied for a

licence. If the applicant was unsuccessful in the draw, the $25 licence fee was

refunded.

These requirements have become too cumbersome to continue and

have led to unnecessary inconveniences for the hunting public. Also, when

applicants were unsuccessful in the draw, additional administrative costs were

incurred for issuing and mailing thousands of refund cheques.

This problem would have been compounded by the need to refund

GST on the license fee but not on the application fee. Dropping the application

fee and the requirement to submit the licence fee along with the application fee

will streamline the licencing process considerably.

The changes we are making, Mr. Speaker, will save Government

time and money, make better use of human resources, and provide better service

to the hunting public. These changes will not apply to resident caribou licences

in Labrador, since they are not part of the draw process. Fees and procedures in

Labrador will remain the same.

Mr. Speaker, this streamlining of the process will mean that

in the long run hunters will pay less for the big game hunting opportunities

since they will not be required to pay application fees in years when they are

unsuccessful in the big game draw. The net effects of these changes are as

follows:

The current cost to an individual hunter who is successful in

the draw is $30 - the new cost is $35. The current cost to a two-party

application successful in the draw is $35. Therefore, there is no increased cost

to these applicants. The new procedure will maintain approximately the same

level of revenue and result in more than a $30,000 savings in administrative

costs.

These changes will be described in the new Application Guide

which will be mailed out shortly. Applications are being distributed later than

last year because of the time required to implement these changes before the

applications could be mailed.

However, the timing of the draw and the notification of

applicants should not be significantly delayed because the new measures will

expedite the process. We expect that timing of the licensing operation and the

notification of applicants to be greatly improved in subsequent years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the Budget Speech?

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to carry on with his Ministerial

Statement, please.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to announce

the quotas for the 1991 hunt and a change which will affect those wishing to

take Hunter Capability testing this year. The moose quotas on the Island have

been increased another 22.5 per cent over the 1990 quotas to 29,227 licences,

which is 5369 more than last year.

Caribou licences on the Island are increased by 8 per cent to

2640 licenses, 195 more than last year. In Labrador, 145 moose licences are

available for the 1991-92 season, an increase of fifteen licences or 11.5 per

cent from the 1990 quotas.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is

reading his speech, and we do not have copies of it. I understand the Minister

is not permitted to read in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am not aware that the rule of reading applies to

Ministerial Statements. It has never been applied in this House before. I say to

the hon. Member, it is not a point of order.

With respect to providing copies, again there is no

obligation other than the courtesy to certainly supply it to the Opposition

spokesman, and I trust the hon. Minister has done that.

The hon. the Minister.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We provided, of

course, a copy to the official Opposition. And as it has been ruled in the House

that a private Member does not have the opportunity to respond to Ministerial

Statements he would not be given a copy, but he will get a copy subsequently.

These increases on the Island are made because our moose

populations are high in most areas and can withstand an even greater harvest in

spite of the substantial increases made in last year's quotas. Caribou

populations on the Island are also doing reasonably well but they are much lower

than moose.

It should be noted that the Department is committed to

finding ways and means of conducting census counts of big game as soon as

resources can be found. Areas of concern include moose populations in certain

parts of Labrador, and moose and caribou herds in certain parts of the Island.

This is necessary from both a sound management and sustainable harvest point of

view.

I would now like to announce a change in the time of the

Hunter Capability Test, Mr. Speaker.

Over 87,000 residents have now passed the test which in the

past has been available to people from May to October or November of each year.

However, in view of the hectic nature of our Wildlife Officers' schedules at

that time, testing in the fall has become increasingly difficult.

It has also become too expensive to conduct testing over such

a long period of time, often with only small numbers of people participating in

each test.

For these reasons, we are going to concentrate the testing

period between early April and the end of June. In this way we will complete

testing before the summer holiday period.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce some changes

that will be of interest to small game hunters. Until now, hunters of both game

birds and snowshoe hare and arctic hare had to purchase two separate licences at

a cost of ten dollars each. For 1991, only one licence will be required at a

cost of $15. This will result in a $5 reduction in costs to small game hunters

who normally purchase both licences and will allow a hunter to take ptarmigan,

ruffed and spruce grouse, snowshoe hare, and arctic

hare on a single licence in the applicable areas.

We are also changing the fee for a non-resident small game

licence which previously cost the same as a resident licence.

The fee is now set at $25, which is ten dollars more than a

resident would pay. Figures, Mr. Speaker, should remain approximately the same

and again there will be significant savings in administrative costs.

We are also establishing for the first time a free Small Game

Youth Licence for anyone 15 years of age and under. This licence will be for

snaring only, Mr. Speaker, and will make it easier for our young people to share

in the responsible use of our wildlife resources.

It should be noted, however, that the initiative is intended

for our young hunters. Hunters who are 16 years of age and older who participate

in small game hunting in any way will be required to have their own licences.

Participation, in this context, mean accompanying free licence holders on

hunting trips, collecting game from snares on behalf of free licence holders, or

any other activity deemed to be part of the hunt.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that these changes

which I have announced here today are positive changes which show sound

judgement and fiscal responsibility for the future. These changes will be

beneficial to our provincial wildlife system, to departmental officials, and to

the people of our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

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

First I want to thank the Minister for giving me an advanced

copy of his statement. In fact, about an hour ago he gave me his statement and I

really appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, at the same time I want to congratulate the

Minister and his Department for increasing the moose licences by an extra 5,000.

I believe he should go a little bit further and increase it probably to 7,000 or

8,000 or 9,000 because I think, until we tackle the problem in this Province

with moose on the highways, we are going to see more lives lost and more damage

to our people.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say I am quite pleased to

see the increase in fees for non-resident small game licences. This is

worthwhile too, Mr. Speaker. And I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, I am quite

pleased to see free game licences for children under the age of 15. That is good

news too, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, however, I have to go back and say to the

Minister, with all of those announcements there is still $59,000 extra taxes

that the people in the Province will pay - an extra $59,000. And, Mr. Speaker,

if the Minister does not believe it, on page B-4 in the Budget it says there:

Combined rabbit and partridge licences an extra $27,000; Eliminating big game

application fees an extra $32,000, Mr. Speaker. Now, that is an increase of

$59,000. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is in the document.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is in the Budget.

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, let us look at an example

of what he is doing. Let us look at the small game licences. Ninety per cent of

the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador today when they buy a

small game licence they also buy a rabbit licence. Now only about 10 per cent

buy the licence for the small game birds. Now, Mr. Speaker, even though that 90

per cent out there want to go rabbit catching they have to buy the combined

licence which is costing them an extra $5. So here is the Minister trying to

deceive the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell him, Garfield.

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, in this statement there is

not one word mentioned about Sunday hunting.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WARREN: The Minister was too cowardly to come forward

when 35,000 people said to the Minister they wanted Sunday hunting. The Minister

was afraid to stand up, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take seven or

eight minutes because all this means is the Minister came in with a Ministerial

Statement telling the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that there is going to

be an extra 5,000 moose licence, but there is an extra $60,000 in taxes that the

people will have to pay. That is what the Minister has told the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I must say one final thing: I can see

trouble five or six months down the road when the small game licences come out.

In all the schools throughout Newfoundland and Labrador there are all kinds of

field trips. Every morning on VOCM, I listen to Dick Reeves giving the school

report. Next year Dick Reeves is going to come on and he is going to say: would

the students of MacPherson please be advised that your rabbit snaring trip is on

today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: So this is another activity of this

Government, an activity for the school children to go out rabbit catching.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the Minister

of Finance confirm that the total salary savings for Government Departments -

now I want the Minister to clearly understand that I am not talking about

savings resulting from layoffs by hospital boards, or nursing home boards, or

boards running the post-secondary institutions, or the university - just

Government Departments, the fourteen or fifteen Government Departments - will

the Minister confirm that the salary savings for Government Departments as a

result of cutbacks announced in the Budget, and layoffs announced in the Budget

in the public service in Departments, will amount to only $1.3 million for the

coming fiscal year?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there

will be 650 people involved with layoffs within the Government Departments, and

if you multiply that by the average salary - I do not know what the average

salary is offhand, but maybe $20,000 or $30,000 at the low end - that should be

about $20 million. I do not understand where the Member is getting his figures

from.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, the Minister has confirmed that he anticipates that it

will be more that $1.3 million, and so would we. Mr. Speaker, I would assume

that the Minister of Finance would have his estimates book, 1991, at his

fingertips. If he does I would like for him to refer to it, and I refer the

Minister to Page 277 in those estimates. Now, once the Minister gets his book I

will very slowly and carefully run through Page 277 with him. Page 277, Mr.

Speaker, is entitled

Summary of Salary Costs by Department, and it lists all the

Government Departments and their salary bills. Now, will the Minister confirm

that this table on Page 277 shows a revised salary expenditure of $326.4 million

for 1990-91 - the Minister is nodding his head but he can say it verbally when

he gets up if he wishes - and will he confirm that an estimated expenditure of

$321.2 million is confirmed in that table for 1991-92. Now, will the Minister

agree that if these figures are adjusted to remove the salary costs of persons

employed in the Employment Opportunity Program in the Department of Social

Services and the Employment Enhancement Program - the Minister will see a

footnote explaining those on the bottom of Page 277 - if those figures for both

the last fiscal year and this fiscal year are adjusted to take accord of that

footnote, in other words salary costs that are spent out in Ming's Bight,

Harbour Deep and everywhere else employing people in the community development

programs, if these figures are adjusted for that, will the Minister confirm that

the salary estimates for bonafide civil servants employed in Departments is

$300.1 million for 1990-91 and $298.8 million for 1991-92, a difference or a

saving of $1.3 million. Can the Minister do his sums and confirm these figures,

Mr. Speaker?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I gladly take that as notice

and I will look into his question and have an answer for the House tomorrow.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, that is some Order Paper

question - the document that the Minister brought into this House last Thursday.

Let me ask the Minister this question. Can the Minister explain how he can lay

off 650 persons in Government Departments, eliminate 500 vacant positions, and

only save $1.3 million - according to his own figures - or is the Minister out

to demonstrate again this year, like he did last year, that he is incapable of

doing his own sums competently and correctly?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take lessons from

the mathematical wizards across the House who ran this Province so ineptly for

so long. What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not taking into account

is that what we were faced with was a potential Budget deficit of $200 million.

And it is not what it was last year, it is what it would have been this year had

we not taken the appropriate steps, and that is what is missing from his

mathematics, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the

Minister of Finance will try to explain to some of the mathematical wizards he

is laying off how come he is only going to save $1.3 million this year, and some

of them are mathematical wizards and computer wizards and a heck of a lot more

of a wizard than the Minister is, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister this. Is this

paltry saving of $1.3 million, and that is what it is this year, the Minister

cannot get out of it, is this paltry saving of $1.3 million worth the hardship

and the pain that this Government and this Minister are inflicting on 651 men

and women who worked for Government Departments, their families and relatives in

Newfoundland and Labrador? Is it worth $1.3 million?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: The Leader of the Opposition is attempting

to pretend that there is no financial problem facing this Province and what he

is doing is misleading the people of Newfoundland in the tenor of his questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are misleading them.

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, had we not taken the drastic

steps we had to take in this Budget, and had we not been able to borrow the

almost $600 million that we are faced with having to borrow this year to repay

debt that is coming due, as well as our $58 million deficit on current account,

plus our capital borrowings, almost $600 million, had we been placed in a

situation where we would have been unable to borrow, then we would have had to

layoff, Mr. Speaker, 25,000 public servants.

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

supplementary.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting the Minister's

figures he tabled in his Budget in this House on Thursday. If anybody is

misleading the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is the incompetent

bungling Minister, Mr. Speaker!

Now, I want to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, is he prepared

to stand behind the figures that he tabled as a Budget in this House last

Thursday, or does he want to go out and bring in a new set of figures as he

should have done last year, when he brought in the most deceitful, fraudulent

Budget this Province has seen?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I will provide the figures

tomorrow, as I indicated, and I do stand behind the figures in the Budget.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the

President of Treasury Board. Yesterday, in response to questions that I asked

about layoffs in the Public Service, I think both he and the Premier in fact,

gave the clear impression that the unions, in discussions leading up to the

decision, really offered no solution to the layoff of thousands of employees.

Indeed, he said they exhibited a lack of co-operation; those are his words,

`they exhibited a lack of co-operation'. Is that still his position?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member

knows, what I pointed out to this hon. House was that as soon as we recognized

what a serious financial problem we had, I spoke individually and with groups of

union leaders in terms of the Public Service of this Province. I explained to

them the very serious -

PREMIER WELLS: In October.

MR. BAKER: That was in October. I explained to them the

very serious financial problem the Province was facing, I explained to them that

the budgetary process we were now getting into, we were going to Departments and

asking for impacts of frozen Budgets. I explained all this to them and, at the

same time, indicated to them that we would like any input; we have asked for

management input throughout our system, we would now like input from the

Organized Labour Movement associated with the Public Service in this Province.

What I did point out to the hon. Member was that there was some input from some

union sources, but by and large there was indifference and an indication that

they did not believe that we had a financial problem.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons for that, of

course, is that the Government, every time somebody raised the question of

layoffs and a difficult budget coming, always said it was `fearmongering' and

all the rest of it. So they did not have much incentive.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary to the President

of Treasury Board. Can he confirm that before the Budget was finalized, and

before that now infamous February 24 Sunday meeting that was held with unions,

and another one just prior to that, as I understand it, that in fact a proposal

was discussed with one particular union whereby all Government employees would

take a two week leave of absence as a way of saving jobs, money, and avoiding

layoffs? And if it was discussed, why didn't the Government consider it and save

jobs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition - I am sorry, the

hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thanks for the

correction as well.

During our very torturous examination of the financial

condition of this Province, I should imagine almost every conceivable option

imaginable was at one point or another discussed in terms of Cabinet. We were

searching for options and I suppose every possibility at some point in time was

examined. But to get to the specific intent, I suppose, of the hon. Member's

question, there was no formal presentation by the unions at these meetings or

before those meetings concerning that one particular option, although it may

have been mentioned. I have had many discussions with the union leaderships

since last October, verbal discussions face-to-face, and letters back and forth;

I have had many discussions with union leaders and some of them have suggested a

number of options, so I would not rule out that, at some point in time, having

been mentioned, either by me or by some individual union leader.

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

MR. SIMMS: A slight difference, I think, from the

response we got yesterday, I believe. Mr. Speaker, let me ask a further

supplementary then to the President of Treasury Board if I may. First of all, I

say to the President of Treasury Board, or I ask him, did he actually request

formal presentations to be made by the unions? Since he did not get any formal

responses, did he ask for formal requests and alternatives? And can I ask him,

as well, in addition to asking the unions for their suggestions and proposals,

what proposals did the Government make in their discussions with union groups

for discussion and consideration to avoid this situation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Starting with the last

first. We did not make proposals. We explained

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BAKER: Well, I am telling you what I have been

telling you for months. We have explained to the union leadership the

seriousness of our financial problem. We have asked for input from them. We went

to all of the management groups around the Province, asked for input from them,

and Government collects the information and makes its decisions. We were not

asking these people to make decisions for us. We did not put options to them. We

did not suggest things to them in that process, starting in October. We asked

for input from the public service unions of this Province, we asked for that

input. And I will repeat again, what I said a moment ago is not in contradiction

of anything I have said before.

There were some suggestions from some unions. As a matter of

fact, one union actually held a convention in Gander, bringing together their

people from all around the Province, and put together a formal presentation and

gave it to me concerning what they thought should be done. So there was

certainly some input. But by and large, the reaction was that there was no

belief that we had a financial problem. That, or they just did not care about it

and just wanted us to make the decisions without any input from them.

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

final supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess it is pretty

clear from everything we have been hearing now in the last couple of days, and

particularly today, that this Government was hell-bent and determined on laying

off employees. That was their objective.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: But, Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the

Premier. We hear from reports that apparently the Government has reached some

kind of an agreement with the RNC to avoid layoffs. I want to ask the Premier

now if he would consider rescinding layoff notices. Would he consider stopping

the process of further layoffs in the Public Service? And will he now call in

the public sector unions and sit down with them and try to develop a plan that

might save essential public services and save jobs in the Province? Does he have

any flexibility at all?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, we had flexibility starting

last October, when we advised the unions, as the President of Treasury Board has

said, of what the circumstances were and what the potential impacts were on the

Government of this Province and on the Public Service of this Province. In our

meetings that took place, I believe on February 20 and 24, on the 20th with

representatives from unions on an individual basis and on the 24th there were

representatives of four unions present, we told them clearly, `we are seeking

input from you, not negotiating. We are not asking you to accept responsibility

for the decisions. We are going to take the decision. It is our responsibility.

We are not trying to shed it to the unions. Even if you give us advice, the

overall interest of the Province may not enable us to implement it in the way

that you suggest, but we want to hear your point of view.'

Now that, as I recall, is essentially what we said to each

one of the groups individually and collectively. If there is some way of

enabling the Province to cope with its financial situation in a way that has

less impact on the ability of the Province to govern itself in this coming year

and in the future, we will be happy to hear from the unions or anybody else

involved. We don't close our mind to anything. But I remind this hon. House, Mr.

Speaker, that we have to think in terms not only of this coming fiscal year.

Hon. Members will remember that the Federal Minister of

Finance announced in his Budget that the cutbacks for this current fiscal year,

which was announced a year ago in the Budget, it is now going to be extended for

the next three years. So we have to deal with this problem not alone in this

fiscal year, but we have to deal with it in this coming fiscal year and the next

three. So we have to make decisions in a way that enables us to keep the

Province on a sound financial basis, and that requires balancing on a fair basis

the borrowing we can do, the taxes we can raise, and the reduction of

expenditures.

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) call them in for that

discussion?

PREMIER WELLS: No, you cannot call them in.

MR. RIDEOUT: You will not call them in.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the

Premier.

In the Budget, the Minister of Finance said that the

electrical subsidy to the three denominational colleges on Memorial University

campus will be phased out over the next three years. Is the Premier aware that

the previous Liberal administration agreed to defray the cost of electricity,

and that this commitment was honoured by successive Progressive Conservative

administrations?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member will recall that

last year the Government announced that the electrical subsidy to the colleges

would be terminated as of the end of 1990-91. In the interim, we have met with

some of the officials of the colleges and we determined that instead of ending

it this year, we would phase it out over the next three years. So really it is a

change of an earlier decision, Mr. Speaker, which gives the colleges time to

find other sources of revenue to replace the subsidy money.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again to the

Premier.

Why is the Premier now refusing to honour the word of former

Premier Smallwood to the churches of this Province? Why is he treating the

churches the same as he is treating the First Ministers of Canada and the union

leaders of Newfoundland and Labrador? Who can trust the Premier of this Province

when he refuses to honour the obligations of previous Governments, including one

in which he served himself?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, our concern is for the people

of the Province. That is what motivates us in taking the action. Maybe the hon.

Members opposite failed to do it, and that is why they are where they are today.

We have to justify taking money out of people's pockets generally and giving it

to any specific group; we have to justify it. And if it cannot be justified,

then we should stop the practice.

Now it was announced last year that this would be eliminated.

The groups concerned made a case for phasing it out instead of eliminating it

all in one year. The Minister of Education, the Minister of Public Works, and I

guess the Cabinet generally, took a look at the proposal and agreed that in the

circumstances that was fair, but we could no longer agree that we would charge

everybody who went to a store 12 per cent sales tax and take money from

everybody and give it to a specific group on that basis. So that is the basis on

which we made the decision; that is the basis on which we have made a great many

other decisions. It is called fairness and balance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: I thank the Premier for his answer, Mr.

Speaker. However, at the same time I am going to table a copy of a Treasury

Board Report of July 1975 where the Government of the day agreed that the

colleges would be forgiven their electricity. I want to ask the Premier a final

question: Is the Premier aware, when he is talking about fairness and balance -

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

I want to advise the hon. Member that we made a ruling some

time ago about the tabling of documents by private Members. The hon. Member is

not allowed to table the document. He can proceed with his question, of course.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will pass

it along to the media instead.

My final supplementary is to the Premier. Is the Premier

aware, when he is talking about fairness and balance, that by taking away

roughly $250,000 from the three churches which have colleges at Memorial

University - colleges and residences - he is forcing the three churches to close

down the residences, and outport Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will again

have to pay more in order to get a proper education in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, there are no residences going

to close down that I know of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I have no doubt the University will deal

with that issue if, as, and when it arises. And whether the churches operate the

residences or the University operates the residences will be for the churches

and the University to decide. We still, Mr. Speaker, have to make the right

decisions and to treat people fairly and spend the money of the taxpayers

wisely. We can no more justify some of the expenditures that were in place, and

put in place by former Premier Moores' Government, which he is talking, about in

July 1975, not Mr. Smallwood -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Smallwood was not there in 1975.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: But in any event, Mr. Speaker, there were

expenditures and commitments. The former Government committed to give 1,263

automobiles and pick-ups to people employed in the public service to drive

around.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

PREMIER WELLS: We have cut that now to 908.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: We have cut that so far by 360, and we are

going to save millions of dollars for the taxpayers. We are going to continue to

do that and spend the taxpayers' money wisely, and we are going to do the same

thing in respect of the church colleges on the University.

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

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. The Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations is one of the people in this Government who is directly

responsible for the creation of employment in the Province. We have now 2,500

people being laid off, and the unemployment rate is now at 19.5 per cent. Would

the Minister tell us today what plans she has as Employment Minister to offset

the terrible effect, the drastic effect these layoffs are going to have?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

First of all the figure that my hon. critic gives of 19 per

cent unemployment is the seasonally adjusted rate, and in fact we are showing

greater strength in that area in Newfoundland than we have in the past, and are

faring very well against the rest of Canada. That is not to say that we still do

not have a long way to go. We have more people entering the work force and

getting full-time jobs which has a very positive impact.

Now, regarding the second point in his question: what plans

do I have? If you look at the Budget you will see what plans are there for

employment programs at this time. My answer will be the same as it has been in

the past to my hon. critic, that we will continue to watch the situation.

Obviously, the layoffs in the civil service are going to impact on the

unemployment rate in the Province, and we can expect that. Certainly, we looked

at it and explored it at the Cabinet level in making this decision. I will be

continuing, with my colleagues, to monitor the situation such as we find in the

Burin Peninsula, where unemployment is really high, and if we see need to take

action we will, as we did last year with the Employment Stimulation Program.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer is

different. Her answer the last time around was - let them go on welfare. I am

glad she mentioned her Employment Generation Program. In view of the new

unemployment rate, as I said 19.5 per cent, could the Minister tell the House

how she can possibly justify reducing the Employment Generation Program budget

from the budgeted amount of $2.9 million last year down to $1.5 million this

year, a cut of almost 50 per cent? Can she tell me how she can justify that?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, again, this was one of the very

painful decisions that we as a Government were forced to take. Perhaps, if the

Member opposite with his colleagues, would look deep into their hearts and

acknowledge one of the reasons why we had to take these actions, my hon.

colleague in particular would not be so ready to leap to his feet. As it is we

have $1 million to continue the program, those monies already committed to

individuals who had found employment, and we have $500,000 to put into creating

new jobs.

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

MR. DOYLE: So what the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations is telling the people of the Province is she has no new money for

employment generation this year and has reduced her budget by $1.5 million for

the coming fiscal year. Could the Minister of Employment, again on her

Employment Generation Program, tell the House why her revised estimates in the

Budget, delivered just a few days ago, shows that $700,000 was not used from the

Employment Generation Program of last year?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: That particular point he ended with regarding

the $700,000: in fact, we were not able to spend because of fiscal requirements

which did not allow us to spend that money because there would have been a

carry-over into the following year.

On your first question let us not fool ourselves and try to

fool the public, Mr. Speaker, that the Employment Generation Program is the only

program in Government that is trying to get people employed. That is absolute

nonsense. We have a variety of programs that are trying to improve the

employment rate in this Province, not only in my Department. If you would like

to look at your Budget you will see them. There are all kinds of worthwhile

projects being done under various agreements that we have with the Federal

Government. Also, under the Minister of Development, we have all kinds of

projects. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is, they cannot 'bare'

to hear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. COWAN: The Government remains committed to increasing

employment. We heard the hon. Premier the other day when he referred to our not

increasing taxes, that this was one of the ways we were trying to encourage

business. And through the encouragement of business we will encourage

employment. I could stand here for hours, Mr. Speaker, talking about what we are

going to do to increase employment, but they do not want to hear it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I just want to remind the hon. Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations that Question Period is only half an hour, so we could not

permit her to stay for hours and she should get to the point quickly.

I am sorry to advise hon. Members that Question Period has

expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of documents to

table: one is the Annual Report for 1989-90 of the Department of Finance; and a

fine report it is, and I would be very glad to answer any questions asked

concerning that.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to table certain

pre-commitments the tabling of which are required under The Financial

Administration Act of 1973. I have four pre-commitments: one is for the

Department of Education having to do with school books and supplies; for

examination supplies $3,000; for purchase services and printing $100,000; and

for textbooks pre-commitment $7 million; for a total of $7,103,000.

And, Mr. Speaker, a second pre-commitment to The Department

of Works, Services and Transportation for purchases of equipment and components

of $2.5 million, and $4 million for the purchase of heavy equipment; $2 million

for the purchase of maintenance supplies. All this, of course, is subject to the

freeze on the purchase of Government vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, a third pre-commitment to the Department of

Forestry for $220,000 for the construction of approximately seven kilometers of

forest resource road at Chouse Brook near the community of Hampden which was

referred to yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

And a fourth pre-commitment, Mr. Speaker, for $514,000 to The

Department of Development to permit the awarding of contracts for the printing

of tourist information literature.

And, Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to table

three Special Warrants. One of these Special Warrants is for $1.6 million, I

will tell you what it is for now in a minute when I get the heading here, for

the Hibernia project - Professional Services. And another Special Warrant for

$1,411,400 to enable us to meet the payroll this week for Government personnel

cost employee benefits. And the third amount, Mr. Speaker, is for the amount of

$4,960,000 to enable us to pay social assistance for this month. I will give you

the breakdown; $4.5 million for social assistance allowances and assistance; and

$460,000 for foster homes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Are there further Reports By Standing and

Special Committees?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

It is not very often I do this but I think I am compelled to at least get the

record straight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a debate when the

Member for Mount Pearl was debating the Budget, during the debate the Minister

of Education sort of said: do you want me to answer some of those questions? And

I think there was a fair debate going back and forth between the Member for

Mount Pearl and the Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of Hansard

from yesterday and I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of

Education said and I hope I can establish a point of privilege with his

statement. And he says 'Last year', this was referring to the three church

campuses or the three church residences on Memorial University campus, the

Minister said, and I quote 'Last year we announced in last year's Budget that

the subsidy totalling about $250,000 a year will be terminated this year.' Now I

believe that is correct, the Minister did say that yesterday. And earlier today

I understood the Minister said the same thing. And I understood the Premier said

basically the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, last year, on April 26, 1990, after the Budget

was presented the Member for Green Bay asked a question in this House, and the

question was, and I repeat the question, because I want to establish my point of

privilege: Mr. Hewlett: On April 9 this year three church-run residences on

Memorial campus, namely Coughlan, St. John's and Queens, were told in writing

that their electrical bills would no longer be paid for by the Crown. I would

guess this is more budgetary smoke and mirrors. In the case of my old master,

Coughlan College, this amounts to a slash of $60,000 or more and would close the

facility. My question to the Minister is: why was this not mentioned in the

original Budget speech? Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Baker answered -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: - Mr. Speaker, Mr. Baker answered the

question.

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

The hon. Member in raising a point of privilege should get to

precisely what the point of privilege is. What he is now doing is engaging in

debate as if the Chair had ruled that there was a prima facie case. So the hon.

Member should make his point and make it clear.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, if you will listen another two

minutes I think the point will be made. And Mr. Baker responded to the question

and he said: -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: -The reason I am answering this question is

because something came across my desk this morning related to that and caused me

to do some research. I believe it was given to somebody in the course of Budget

preparation and in the course of the year, indeed, there are many, many things

which are considered by officials within Departments as Members opposite know

who were in Cabinet, and this was one of the things that was mentioned in the

memo. I believe that went from the Department of Education to Development. That

came to my attention this morning and it is why I have cause to research this.

The reason this was not mentioned in the Budget speech is that it is not true.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now, now!

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the two Ministers is

telling a lie. Mr. Speaker, either the Minister of Education or the President of

Treasury Board has told a lie. Now, Mr. Speaker, I will go further and say to

the Minister of Education, if he is willing to withdraw the statement he made

yesterday and the Premier is willing to withdraw the statement he made today,

and the Minister is willing to withdraw the statement that he made today, then I

will withdraw my case.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the

explanation is very simple.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: The hon. Member last year, and I remember the

incident well, was indicating that these budgets had been cut last year, and it

is quite clear from what has been said today the answers are not (Inaudible).

There was an announcement made last year that for the coming fiscal year, which

is this one, that there would be a cut. But there was no cut last year, and this

is what the Members were on at the time, they were saying that all of a sudden

somehow, we were cutting off these three colleges. And my point was, no, that

was not being done, and it was not done last year, it did not happen last year,

Mr. Speaker.

So there is absolutely no conflict at all. The Minister has

said that the plans were there last year to cut it out in this fiscal year but

now we have reviewed it and decided to do the phase-in over three years in the

future.

So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. Member is trying

to prove. And what is more, Mr. Speaker, even if there were a difference in

terms of the two answers that would not by any stretch of the imagination

constitute a point of privilege in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: To the hon. Member: I have heard enough

submissions but I will certainly take a brief comment.

The hon. Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is quite

clear, the evidence is there in black and white, that the Minister of Education

yesterday lied to this hon. House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HEARN: The Minister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

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

The hon. gentleman is on a point of privilege and in making a

point of privilege of course the hon. Member will have to make a motion

accordingly, and we will take care of it in due course.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Because that is the basis of the point of privilege, the hon.

gentlemen might not realize that but they will learn. The Minister said

yesterday quite clearly, in fact -

AN HON. MEMBER: The sook is gone now.

MR. HEARN: - I will point out two statements that the

Minister made which apparently are untrue. He said: last year we announced in

the Budget that the subsidy totalling about $250,000 a year would be terminated

this year, that is what the Minister said, they announced that in the Budget.

Nowhere in the Budget Speech or Estimates will these figures appear, Mr.

Speaker.

He further went on to say: we have met with the boards from

the various institutions, today he said: we met with some officials; maybe the

Minister will want to explain the difference between the boards and some

officials, however, the President -

AN HON. MEMBER: It is pathetic.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are pathetic.

MR. HEARN: - of Treasury Board, in responding last year

to the Member for Green Bay -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: - following up to the original question and

answers quoted by my colleague, the Member for Torngat Mountains -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking hon. Members, to please bear with the hon.

Member, I am going to listen to a very short further statement by him. The Chair

has heard enough but I will let the hon. Member proceed.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I think what I have to say will

give further evidence to the fact that the Minister misrepresented the truth

yesterday in the House.

The Member for Green Bay, in his questioning, determined that

a memo had been sent or a letter had been sent from a high official in the

Department of Public Works, stating that the subsidies would be cut. The

Minister or the President of Treasury Board, in explaining the letter says: ' a

letter, yes', and I ask you, Mr. Speaker to listen carefully to the words here;

the letter refers to April 1, 1991 which is the date that is in the next fiscal

year and therefore would not affect this Budget year, but, it was not in the

Budget, it was a letter, but I need to go a step further and say to the hon.

Member, that this was an item that was under discussion, under consideration as

many hundreds of thousands of other items are, and that the decision has not

been to go ahead with it, so, he is saying, they decided last year not to go

ahead with it, it was not mentioned in the Budget and the Minister stood up

yesterday and told us that it was decided in the Budget to go ahead with it and

consequently that is why the subsidy was cut and, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did

not tell the truth in the House yesterday and we ask you to rule accordingly.

MR. SIMMS: You are the pathetic one, have a look at

(inaudible).

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

Hon. Members know that to make the accusation that somebody

misled the House is not a point of privilege. The Chair has ruled on that

several times. It is a difference of opinion between two hon. Members or it is a

dispute as to the facts and it is a matter of debate, more than a matter of

privilege.

Being Wednesday, Private Members Day, I think it is the

Private Members Day for Pleasantville so I call on the Member for Pleasantville

to present his resolution.

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to propose a motion in relation to

the devastating policy of the Federal Government of this Country in its effort

to redistribute the cost of running the Country, penalize those of us who live

in the outlying areas of the Country, and increase the benefits for those who

live in the central part of the Country.

As the motion begins, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS the Government of

Canada has presented, through Transport Canada, proposals to recover from users

certain costs associated with air and marine transport services.

Now, Transport Canada's proposed new cost recovery policy,

phase 2 discussion paper, follows release in May of 1987 of a discussion paper

proposing guidelines and principles for increased cost recovery. The phase 2

discussion paper, which applies to both the air and marine modes, provides a

clear understanding of the approach and methods that would be employed to

determine the recovery levels.

Now, the purpose of this policy of the Federal Government,

which is not really a new policy, they have always recovered some of the costs

for the various services they provide in the country. But this is a new effort

to essentially recover all of the costs, and they say that the purpose for

adopting the policy is to contribute to the Government's efforts to reduce the

deficit and ensure that users bear a fair share of the costs of facilities and

services from which they derive benefits; relieve the general taxpayer of

financial burdens properly born by users of the transportation system; impose

greater discipline on user demands for additional or better facilities and

services; and improve the efficiency of the transportation system.

Now, they say that is the purpose of this cost recovery

program, and who could fault such a motivation? Who could fault such a policy in

a Federal Government or any Government in this Country? It would be a laudable

policy, Mr. Speaker, if the Country were run in a businesslike manner, then it

could not be faulted, if we lived in a competitive economy, where the economy

and the political system were not organized to benefit parts of the country. If

we lived in an economy where Newfoundlanders, for instance, could buy all of the

goods and services we consume at the best prices available in the world rather

than being forced to buy them from the protected industries of Central Canada,

and we have to do so at prices far above the world market, and, Mr. Speaker,

even far above the American market.

Just last year a study done by the Toronto Globe and Mail

indicated that the price, for instance, for ground beef in the United States was

$1.73 a pound compared to $3.00 a pound in Toronto. The comparison was between

business outlets in Washington and Toronto. The price of bacon was 46 cents for

100 kilograms in Washington and 74 cents in Toronto. And, Mr. Speaker, we all

know our prices are far above Toronto prices. A bottle of ketchup was 26 cents

in Washington and 53 cents in Toronto. People don't understand the price

differences between Canada and the United States, you know. A lot of people do

not appreciate the high cost of living we have in this country. A six pack of

beer was $2.31 in Washington and $6.25 in Toronto - imagine, almost three times

as much. A Mac computer was $1,160 in Washington and $1,799 in Toronto, almost

50 per cent more. A Maytag washer was $685 in Washington and $900 in Toronto.

So, we live in a very high cost country, Mr. Speaker, and

particular regions benefit from the high costs, and that is the region that is

now finding increased competitive pressures as a result of the free trade

agreement with the United States, as a result of the increasing global

competition in the world, and as a result of the Americans forcing trading

relationships between the two countries that no longer permit central Canada to

benefit from the extent that it had become accustomed to from trade between the

two countries.

They are trying now to pass on the cost of free trade and the

competitive marketplace, but they have no intention of passing on any of the

benefits, Mr. Speaker. How many cars are built in Newfoundland or Atlantic

Canada? This country is not run like a business and Transport Canada is not

pursuing cost recovery efforts for that purpose. This is another

chapter in what

I call the voodoo economics of Confederation, the smoke and mirrors that my

friend across the way is referring to today. It is not Transport Canada trying

to be more businesslike, Mr. Speaker, it is Central Canada, through their

majority in the House of Commons in Ottawa, trying to get other Canadians to

bear more of the costs of Confederation, and trying to preserve more of the

benefits for themselves. Central Canada trying to get the outlying provinces to

pay a larger share of the costs of maintaining the institutions and structures

keeping this country together, and it is Central Canada, again, increasing the

costs and lowering the standard of living in other parts of the country. It is

another reason why we have to change the manner in which this Country is

governed if it is going to be worthwhile remaining part of it.

Revenue sharing plays a much more important role in Canada

than it does in most countries in the world. It has been talked of as the kind

of glue which holds the country together, and that is necessary because we have

such a fabricated economy in Canada. We do not operate in accordance with a

market system and we have not developed one of the most competitive environments

in the world.

Transfers are the second largest item in Federal spending,

amounting to some $40 billion a year. They account for a quarter of all

provincial budgets in the Country and something like 44 per cent in this

Province, an increase, I think, from about 48 per cent just over the last three

years. But, you should note that federal transfers acquire for an average of 25

per cent of all the provincial governments in the country, so it is not just

Newfoundland and it is not just the poorer provinces who benefit from transfer

payments. As we all know it goes to all of the provinces. Cost recovery, Mr.

Speaker, is the latest vehicle being employed by the Federal Government to

change the balance of economic benefits and the advantages of Confederation

throughout the country.

Now, the Transport Canada cost recovery proposals indicate

users of marine and air services are being expected to meet recovery targets of

$25 million and $40 million respectively in the first year the proposals are to

be implemented. The only recognition of long distances is provided by capping

the marine navigation service charge at 300 nautical miles and thereby reducing

costs for all the ports between Quebec City and Thunder Bay - Central Canada

again. Another policy provision again to the advantage of Central Canada, and

not to the advantage of the outlying areas of the country. Newfoundland air

carriers will pay increased landing fees and full air navigation fees. Shipping

companies will pay a flat monthly fee for a net registered ton. Estimates of

annual fees exceed $50,000 per vessel and the current recession has these

carriers operating in a very thin margin such that cost recovery may drive them

from the marketplaces. In airports such as Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver

where traffic volumes are heavy, the cost per aircraft to meet the costs

associated with that airport is small. The less heavily used airports such as

St. John's, Deer Lake, and Gander will pay higher costs per aircraft.

The large market for air services in Central Canada already

has many advantages, such as lower fares per seat mile and special fares which

are not available in the outlying parts of the country. The bottom line of cost

recovery, Mr. Speaker, is to place a larger proportional burden of user pay on

remote, less populated areas of the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not allowed to read your speech.

MR. NOEL: This goes completely against the philosophy of

cost-sharing through cross-subsidy upon which Canada was founded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. NOEL: The hon. gentleman opposite might make a

greater impression on people if he gave a little more thought to the remarks he

makes in this House before he makes them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: As it is so often with the Federal Government,

Mr. Speaker, the figures currently being discussed appear to be small figures

and they are small in relation to the total cost being talked about. Forty

million dollars for air services in comparison with a potential of $517 million,

I believe. And $40 million in comparison with a potential of $1.2 billion, in

potential costs which may be recovered for air services. And in the marine area

$25 million in comparison with a potential of $517 million, which may be

recovered.

Now this does not seem like a lot at present, but it is a

great way to get to establish the principle and to get the Federal Government

and its departments into cost recovery, and once they get that done then they

can keep increasing the rates as they have done with so many other things in

this country, and keep moving the costs from the centre of the country, where

the benefits of Confederation are concentrated, to the outlying areas.

Now Air Nova, for instance, has indicated that it anticipates

its costs to increase from a present $178 per metric ton to $201 in the first

year of cost recovery, and $13.64 per ton under full implementation. An increase

from $1.78 to $13.64.

Their overall impact is estimated to be in excess of $1

million in the first year, an increase of 12.7 per cent for most services, 100

per cent for air navigational services and a total in excess of $1 million for

the whole year. And that is just in Atlantic Canada.

Air Nova's opinion is that Government charges and fees are

going up 24 per cent, and there is a Transport Canada document on the table

which has identified a 400 per cent increase in landing fees alone, under full

cost recovery if it is implemented. The real cost in revenue data from one of

Canada's regional airlines shows the airline in question could lose 30 per cent

of its passengers if full cost recovery were to be implemented. The loss of 30

per cent, they contend, would mean the end of current airline service levels to

numerous small and remote communities in Atlantic Canada.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about substantial sums here,

and substantial penalties to the remote parts of this country. An increase for

instance: by the time landing fees, if they are fully implemented over the next

three to five years, a small plane landing in St. John's would absorb a cost of

$11.66 per ton compared to $2.35 in Vancouver. Now that is not kind of contract

that we made when we became part of Canada.

This cost recovery program will not just be limited to

travellers and airlines and our transport industry, but it could extend to our

basic industries, and one of the most important industry in this Province which

stands to be vulnerable is the iron ore industry in Labrador. According to the

Canadian Shipowners Association what may appear to be minor increases in the

delivered cost of iron ore can cause sudden shifts in the delicate balance

governing the ability to penetrate competitive hinterlands resulting in cost

sales and markets particularly to foreign competition, free of this burden. The

potential for competitive disruption is perhaps greatest in iron ore, in

particular. And they estimate that under full implementation this could cost our

iron ore industry some $4 million to $4.5 million per year. While it is not a

big number in comparison with the value of the industry, it is a serious cost

insofar as our exports are concerned because we are talking about a very

competitive world market in which small amounts make a big difference. They

could cut out the whole market.

The concern is such that both mining companies in Labrador

West as well as the town councils of Labrador City and Wabush have come out

against the introduction of the fees.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government wants to do all of

this in spite of our rights under the Terms of Union, and in spite of all we

gave to Canada as part of becoming a province.

Under Term 33, Mr. Speaker, we turned over to Canada the

Newfoundland Railway, our dockyards and wharves and harbours, the airport in

Gander, Hotel Newfoundland, the other airports we have in the Province, some of

which the Canadian Government helped build, some others of which the American

government helped build. And the American shares have also since been turned

over to the Federal Government. We turned over our public communications system,

our broadcasting system, custom houses. We turned over a great deal to Canada,

Mr. Speaker, in return for their commitment under Term 31, which obliged Canada

to take over so many services in this Province.

And their undertaking was to relieve the Province of

Newfoundland -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!

MR. NOEL: If I may just have one minute, Mr. Speaker, to

conclude this part?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

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

MR. NOEL: Their undertaking was to relieve the Province

of Newfoundland of the public costs incurred in respect of each service taken

over. Now it is interesting how that has been interpreted over the years - to

relieve the Province of the public costs incurred. I am sure the people who

signed the Terms of Union expected that the understanding was that they would

continue those services indefinitely at those kinds of cost levels. Not that

sometime, twenty years, forty years along the way, they would look back to the

Province to assume part of the costs for the responsibilities they had

undertaken.

They were supposed to continue operating the Newfoundland

Railway and steamships, civil aviation, protection and encouragement of

fisheries, other public services. These are the responsibilities Canada took on

when we became a Province, and these are the kinds of things that we gave up to

Canada as part of the Confederation deal.

begun in the past and is continuing to accelerate the extent to which it is

endeavouring to welch on that deal, to impose more costs than we agreed to on

this Province, and to retain more of the advantages for other people in this

country. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member I want to

welcome to the gallery, on behalf of all hon. Members, Mr. George Billard,

Deputy Mayor of Stephenville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want

to have just a few words on this resolution.

First of all, it has to be one of the most ill-timed

resolutions that has ever come before this House of Assembly, I would expect,

from the hon. Member's perspective. Only today did the Premier of this Province

say in answering a question from the Member for Torngat Mountains, that they had

to make decisions, and the decisions he was talking about was giving a subsidy

to the residences at the University, some of them. The Premier said that during

the process of preparing the Budget they had to make tough decisions on who

would receive the money that is collected through the 12 per cent RST - they had

to make decisions - and was it fair for the general taxpayers in the Province of

Newfoundland to have to pay the cost of an electrical subsidy for residences at

the University?

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier got up to speak in this

debate, and I doubt very much that he will, the Premier would give that same

answer to the hon. Member. Because if you look at a study that was done by the

Fraser Institute, which came across my desk a little while ago, and you want to

look at who is benefitting most by the Federal Government continuing to

subsidize the transportation costs, especially air transportation in Canada

generally, you will find in this study that of the people who are benefitting

most by Federal Government spending on transportation, 45 per cent of them are

of the top 30 per cent of income earners in our country - 45 per cent of the

people who benefit by the Federal Government subsidizing transportation and

communication costs are the top 30 per cent of the earners in this country. So

should we as general taxpayers, as the Premier said today, offer to the top 30

per cent of wage earners in this country, income earners in this country

continued subsidies on transportation and communications costs? I do not know

that we should.

Of the bottom 30 per cent of wage earners, only 13.1 per cent

of those people benefit by Federal Government payments on communications and

transportation spending. I would say that if the Premier was going to speak,

especially if he uses the same rationale that he used in preparing his own

Budget, he would say Well, we have to make choices. And I would imagine that is

what the Federal Government is saying, too - We have to have to make choices as

to where we can spend our money most efficiently. Should we continue to

subsidize the top 30 per cent of the wage earners in this country, or should we

try to get those people who are using the service to pay a fairer share? Because

they can afford it. Forty- five per cent of them are earning more than $50,000 a

year, and maybe they should pay a fairer share.

There is one other interesting statistic I saw in this. The

hon. Member, especially in his speech in the Address in Reply to the Throne

Speech, and again today, used some figures about the draconian Federal

Government we have which is always beating down Newfoundland. There is a figure

in this, and in actual taxes collected and actual money spent in this Province

by the Federal Government, there is a difference. Newfoundland received $1.822

billion more than they paid in taxes in the year 1988. So, I mean, there must be

some advantages. The Federal Government must be doing some good works in this

Province, yet when we hear from the hon. Members, especially in their Private

Member's resolutions, you would think that the Federal Government has abandoned

us and left.

One interesting statistic I see in this, and I found it to be

a bit surprising, is the net Federal spending benefits by province in 1970 as

compared to 1988. Now 1970 was the big time of the Liberals, as far as I know. I

think Trudeau was there. He spent so freely he almost bankrupted the country

while he was there. But in 1970, they were great days for spending, the Liberal

days, and Newfoundland's share in 1970, when the Liberals were in office in

Ottawa, was $805 per capita, which ranked ninth in all of Canada for Federal

Government spending benefits by province - in 1970.

Now that we have this Tory, free enterprise Government up

there, you would expect that to fall a lot lower than that on a per capita

basis. But what happened in 1988? For Federal Government services it was not

$805 per capita as it was in 1970, it was $6,020 per capita - quite a big

increase. And that does not say it all. We were ninth in 1970 when the Liberals

were in place. Federal Government spending on Federal Government services now

ranks us fourth in Canada. That, to me, does not sound like the information hon.

Members opposite are giving, when they make statements in this House concerning

the Federal Government.

Yes, I would like to see transportation costs kept down.

Everyone would. That is a motherhood statement. This resolution by the hon.

Member, if you read it over, is motherhood. Who is going to vote against that in

this House of Assembly? I do not know that anyone would. They would be crazy if

they did. The more (inaudible) keep it. We are the top 30 per cent wage earners

in this country. You are benefitting yourself by keeping it down. That is what

you are trying to do; you are the one who benefits most by Federal Government

spending on transportation.

Mr. Speaker, this motion, this resolution here, the timing of

it is completely inappropriate. Because, Mr. Speaker, since last Thursday the

issues the people of this Province want to deal with today, the real issues, are

the issues of trying to keep their homes, trying to be able to stay in their

homes they have built over the past years; people who have worked for

twenty-five and thirty years with the Provincial Government, who got their

layoff notices yesterday, Mr. Speaker, kicked out on the streets, are going to

lose their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I know of people in my district; one young

couple, one of whom works as a security guard in this Province, which does not

pay much money - you do not make much money as a security or a watchperson,

whatever the title is - they scraped and saved and did whatever they could to

try to get a home for themselves. They were very fortunate, because their family

had some land. Their family gave them some land for free and they scraped

together enough money to put a dwelling on it two years ago. He was fired

yesterday, Mr. Speaker. Now, not only does he lose his home, he loses his

family's land. Those are the issues that should be brought up in this House of

Assembly today, not worry about some landing fees. This young family will not be

worried about airport landing fees in the next fifty years, because they just

lost the biggest investment of their lives.

They might have to worry about the ferry costs, going back

and forth from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, Mr. Speaker. They will have to

worry about that, because they are going to have to scrape up enough money now

to try to get across there to get to the mainland to look for a job, because

they are going to be left out in the cold here.

Issues that people in this Province are worried about today

have nothing to do with landing fees at Toronto airport, as the hon. Member was

saying, or St. John's airport. They are worried about educating their children,

and that is the main issue we should be discussing here on Private Member's Day.

I am sure if the Member for LaPoile was up here with a Private Member's motion

today, Mr. Speaker, you would have a different story; he would have a motion

today either on the fisheries, which is becoming a disaster and a serious

problem in his district, or he would have a motion on hospital care, which is

being gutted in Port aux Basques. If you had one of your backbenchers, the back

bencher from Placentia, would he be here talking about landing fees and

subsidized transportation costs across Canada, or would he be here talking about

the closure of the hospital in Placentia? the real issues in this Province, Mr.

Speaker.

The hon. gentleman has mistimed this resolution in this

Province. I know people in this building who have worked very faithfully. One

person in the Department of Development, of whom I heard the other day, he has

been here almost thirty years - almost thirty years working for the Government -

a very loyal employee, he told me that in all of that time he has not used 10

per cent of his sick leave - he never used it. If he could, he would come to

work sick. Mr. Speaker, had he known he would have been laid off yesterday, if

he had known that in December when the decisions were made, he could have bought

his two or three years pension time and retired with a reasonable pension.

He is out on the street now, Mr. Speaker. And although he has

been working for quite some time, he still has a young child five years old and

a child who is seven years old, whom he still has to educate, and he still has

to clothe and he still has to feed. Mr. Speaker, where is he today when the hon.

the Member for Pleasantville - I believe, but I am not positive of this, that

gentleman lives in your district. I will find that out for sure. But it is

irrelevant whether he lives in your district or not. But you should be dealing

with the issues of the public servants. The one who was in the gallery yesterday

was from the District of Pleasantville and had twenty-three years service in the

public service. I know that person lives in Pleasantville; he is involved with

Mary Queen of Peace Parish. He is out the door; he has nothing. He does not have

enough pension to live on, $6,000 or $8,000 a year. He has no other great

training, except what he did in the Public Service of this Province, and here

today we have the Member for Pleasantville talking about landing fees at Toronto

airport. Mr. Speaker, that has to be the most ill-timed resolution that was ever

presented in this House.

Mr. Speaker, transportation issues the people of this

Province are interested in: I had a call from a constituent of mine two days ago

who has a heart problem, and the only transportation issue that person is

interested in is trying to get a taxi to go see the doctor. She cannot do it;

she cannot get any money from social services. This person said, I would even

settle for a bus pass, a bus pass to get on the city bus to go see her doctor

because she has heart problems. That person is not interested in the landing

fees or the costs of the Federal Government at Toronto Airport, the St. John's

Airport, or the Deer Lake Airport. Mr. Speaker, that person wants to see a

doctor.

The people on Bell Island - and I am sure the hon. Member is

around here somewhere - the major transportation issue they are interested in is

the losing of six months of ferry service in this Province. That is the

transportation issue we should be talking about here today, not talking about

air fares, landing rights, or so many cents per ton if you land in St. John's

Airport. Mr. Speaker, the people on Bell Island want to get back and forth to

work. They have enough problems now with weather and wind without taking off the

ferry. They lost the new ferry they were supposed to get and that was a big

enough blow, but now they are going to lose the ferry they depended on. There

are two ferries running, and for six months they are going to lose one of those

ferries. Those are the transportation issues we should discuss in this House

today, Mr. Speaker.

Another transportation issue that should have been discussed

in this House today is the lack of maintenance, snow clearing and ice removal,

on our highways this Winter, Mr. Speaker. That is the big transportation issue

that should be talked about today in this House by a private Member on the

Government side or on this side, not Toronto Airport, and not so many tons per

cent or cents per tons. It makes no sense, Mr. Speaker. A transportation issue

that should be talked about in this House of Assembly: is the Premier being

chauffeured around St. John's in his chauffeur-driven car and still getting

$8000 expenses - $8000 car fare along with his chauffeur to drive him around St.

John's. There is a transportation issue that could be discussed in this Province

today, Mr. Speaker. The only transportation issue the Cabinet of this Province

is really concerned about is making sure they get their $8000 a year for car

allowance. That is the big transportation issue. Cutting out that alone would

have saved five or six $30,000 a year jobs in this Province. That is all you

would have to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they just cleaned out

the private dining room. Listen to the Member for St. John's South. He should be

up on his feet talking about issues in his district, not pounding on the desk

when someone here wants to see how many cents per ton extra it is going to cost

to land a small plane at St. John's Airport. Most of the people on Shea Heights

do not care whether it is two cents a ton or twenty-five cents a ton, because it

does not affect them. The people who will benefit are the top 45 per cent of the

wage earners in this country of ours, in Newfoundland; keep the cost down so the

big money people in Toronto can get a benefit from it. That is who you are

keeping it down for, the people out in Calgary who are bursting with money,

making all kinds of money. Those are the people you are keeping the cost down

for. I would love to see the cost down if there was some way to keep

Newfoundland separate and keep the cost down for Newfoundland. Yes! Great!

But that is not the major issue in this Province on March 13,

1991. The major issue in this Province today, as it has been for decades almost,

but it is much worse today than it ever has been in the past number of decades

that I know of, are jobs for people who want to raise their families in this

Province, jobs for the mother's sons who were supposed to come home to this

Province, Mr. Speaker. They are leaving the Province in droves. It is so bad,

Mr. Speaker, that the statue of Gaspar Real, which was hidden between here and

the Trade School has even left. There is nothing left in this Province. Not only

are mothers' sons not coming home, but the mothers themselves have to move away

to try to find work so they can feed and educate their children.

If you want to talk about issues that relate to this Province

in this House of Assembly today, do not talk about air fares or landing fees at

Toronto Airport, because it is not relevant to the 2300 people who are losing

their jobs; it is not relevant to the 2000 or so service jobs people are going

to lose; it is not relevant to the young family who are going to lose their

house and their family's land, Mr. Speaker, because they lost their job and they

cannot find work. It is not relevant to someone who two days ago, when it was

snowing, drove from the Burin Peninsula Highway to St. John's in the middle of

the day and there was not one piece of snow clearing equipment on the highway

from Whitbourne to St. John's; there were more accidents that day than there

have been for a long time in this Province.

These are the issues that need to be discussed. If you want

transportation issues to discuss, come over and I will do a few motions for you.

If you are short of motions on that side come over and I will do up a few for

you so we can get them on and be debated in this House. The Member for LaPoile,

as I say, would not be wasting the time of the House with this silly no-nonsense

Budget. And you know the foolish thing about it? I will probably vote for this

when the time comes.

But, Mr. Speaker, you know what I would like to be able to do

with it? I would like to be able to tear it up and throw it in the garbage and

discuss the hospital in Placentia, that is what I would like to discuss. I would

like to discuss the clinic in Come By Chance today, that would be a good thing

to discuss in this Province today -

MR. TOBIN: Old Perlican, Old Perlican!

MR. R. AYLWARD: - 430 hospital beds closing down. Five

operating rooms in the Province I believe is the figure, going to be three.

Nurses who have to work sixteen and twenty-four hours to try to keep up today

with the demands and now we are going to take - how many nurses are they going

to fire, how many hundreds?

MR. TOBIN: Three hundred!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Three hundred nurses going out of the

system, and the nurses today in the Province can't handle the work load. But the

Minister of Health says he is going to fire 300 of them and the system is going

to get better. What a joke.

MR. TOBIN: Closing Social Services' offices.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Respite care: These were not respite care

workers, the people who would go to your home, try to keep senior citizens in

their homes. It is a benefit to the senior citizens, it is a benefit to the

Province, it saves money for the Province if that is all they are worried about,

but it also benefits sick people in their homes. It relieves families who are

looking after sick parents in their homes. It relieves parents of handicapped

people in the Province. And what has the Minister of Social Services done? The

one who was going - the real change when he got into Social Services. What has

he done with twenty-seven of them, the whole lot of them in the Province? Out

the door. Out the door and head for Toronto so you can go get a reasonable job,

that is where he put them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. TOBIN: By leave!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, by leave I will continue, if

you would like.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I have just a few more minutes to clear

up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have -

MR. R. AYLWARD: I haven't touched education yet, Mr.

Speaker!

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

Does the hon. Member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Point of order! Point of order, Mr. Speaker!

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

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

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker the comment that the Member for

St. John's South just made across this House was somewhat demeaning to the

literally tens of thousands of people who live in Mount Pearl.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: He said, he is suggesting that Government

should close down the city of Mount Pearl, Mr. Speaker. I take strong exception

to that.

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

There is no point of order.

The hon. Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Point of order!

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

point of order.

MR. MURPHY: Not yet.

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

The Chair has ruled on the point of order raised by the hon.

Member for Burin - Placentia West. There is no point of order.

The hon. Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Like I was trying to say, Mr. Speaker. It

is a pleasure to be back on my feet in the House and make my first speech. I

thank you for the warm welcome, and in the words of another politician in this

Province, "Kevin is back."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Youth Advisory Council!

MR. K. AYLWARD: I will get into that later, in another

Private Member's motion, or in the next couple of weeks. I want to say that it

seems as if the Member who just spoke thinks that transportation will have no

impact on this Province. That it is nonsense to be even bringing the issue up,

that it has no effect on the economy of the Province. Now let me show you how

non-important it is in my case. That is one file. There is the other one. Now

that is on Stephenville in the last two years.

Now, what I am amazed at is, there are a hundred issues, all

kinds of issues, that we are all very concerned about, but I do not think we

should downgrade one issue. I mean they are all important, and it has almost as

much effect on the Province as any other thing. And there are a number of

Members opposite who have been working on transportation issues for a number of

years, and we are going to be debating the Budget for the next number of weeks,

there are all kinds of things to debate, and they are all important to the

Province. So I am just saying, transportation is extremely important to this

Province.

As a matter of fact it can have more effect on the economy

than a lot of other measures. There is no doubt about it the Federal

Government's policy of deregulation is absolutely wiping out the transportation

system of this Province. Now, if you do not understand that, that is too bad,

but I am going to just try to go through it in my own particular circumstance

and tell you some of the effects that it is having.

The airlines themselves, for example, are having an extremely

difficult time right now, not only with increasing fuel prices and everything

else that has been going on, but also with the policy of deregulation and how

extreme an affect it is going to have on their operations. All the airlines have

made representation to the Federal Government concerning user fees for the

airports. And the only way you can get to this Province to develop the Province

and bring in people to help develop the Province is either by marine ferry or by

airports. We have only got two ways to get here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Labrador.

MR. K. AYLWARD: And Labrador, the same thing, basically.

So we are an isolated Province - we are by our geography - and it is extremely

important that we have a proper system to get people here back and forth. I find

it distressful that a Member opposite would say that the issue is not worth it

and not even worth a few minutes of the time of the House of Assembly, but I am

just going to ignore those comments. It is extremely important to a number of

people in this House, including the Province and the Provincial Government. They

are wiping out the system. There are user fees for everything you can think of -

increasing Marine Atlantic and so on. It is putting more pressure on the

Provincial Government to take over these services and they are pitching that to

all the provinces, and it is a responsibility that they inherited with

Confederation. And they do not want to keep it going.

So I find it ridiculous that they are doing that. And they

have made a number of moves to affect all transportation in this Province. In

1987 the NTA or National Transportation Agency brought in

an Act which really

took over from the CTC and they really have gutted being able to monitor

transportation within this Province and across Canada. Now with reference to my

colleague who just spoke a few minutes ago, he says that 30 per cent of the high

income earners are what affects the airports and so on and the travelling. Well,

I have to say to him that the ten cities of Canada have about 65 per cent to 70

per cent of the population, so there is only 35 per cent left and these ten

cities have the best transportation system you can find. But in rural Canada,

especially rural Newfoundland, we are now being treated the same as Ottawa and

Montreal, in having to come up with the same type of funds.

So, what actually is happening is that rural provinces are

being forced now to put more pressure on airports and marine systems and it is

kind of bringing people together, moving them to the bigger cities, because the

transportation system is getting destroyed. If anybody was to look at it in that

fashion and look at it seriously that is what you would see. So it is extremely

important for the future of this Province that we have a proper system. And a

number of people here, I know, on both sides, have been working to try to get

that done and to improve the system.

You know, it is very important for this Province to

economically develop. You look at tourism for a moment. We are promoting all

tourism in the Province, and if you are going to have a hard time getting here,

you are not going to be able to get it going. I mean, the hon. Minister of

Development and Tourism has produced new brochures, they are promoting outside

the Province coming to this Province, and here we are with our system getting

ruined and making it more difficult to get here. I think we should be fighting

Ottawa and asking them to assume their responsibilities instead of wiping them

out. And it is time that everybody got into the act and started doing it. The

previous government's policy on deregulation was unreal. They let CP Air leave

Stephenville for example, and Air Canada. We told them about it a year earlier

and they never did a thing. Next thing you know they were gone.

So I do not need to be told that it is not an important issue

from the other side. It is an important issue for everybody, including the

Member for Deer Lake and the Members on this side, Mr. Art Reid, the Member for

Carbonear, Mr. Ramsay - I can go on and on. It is important to everybody. And in

the future we are going to have to really start dealing with it, because like I

said, it is going to hurt our economy. It is already doing that. And it is going

to hurt people getting here back and forth, and it is extremely important.

When the Federal Government brought in their policy of

deregulation they were saying the benefits would be enormous, and I think a lot

of people concur that it has not been good for the Province here and that it has

not been good for rural Canada. We have to pick up the mantle and start going

after Ottawa on it because if we don't, we will be into user pay for everything

in this Province and other rural provinces. An example would be the fishery:

they are trying again on the west coast to impose higher license fees and so on

to the fishermen and the seiner operators. Again, it is getting to the point

where every responsibility they have they are transferring to the provinces.

This nation is becoming deregulated and I can see that from the way that Ottawa

is handling the Federal constitutional problems that we are having right now,

and it is just unfortunate that it is continuing to go on.

Now, the policy that the Federal Government brought in was

called Freedom to Move, and in that policy they talked about areas benefitting

because of more flights and more economical transportation; prices were supposed

to go down when you fly from one end to the other. Exactly the opposite has

occurred and there have been no changes in the transportation system for rural

Canada. The Federal Government is going to have to soon have a serious look at

it because in Newfoundland right now it costs over $500 to fly from one side of

the Province to the other, and it is really getting out of hand for the

travellers who want to go for medical purposes or for whatever it is. It is just

getting crazy, and it is time that the Federal Government, through which all the

Provinces deal with, made some changes in their transportation policy.

As a matter of fact, the Senate Committee, who came into

Stephenville a couple of years ago and had hearings have recommended to the

Federal Government changes to address rural Canada's needs. I do not know if

they will act on them, but they seriously should be looking at them because they

are extremely important to all of us down here in this Province. We are an

island province, and with Labrador, very rural and very far away from mainland

Canada, and transportation is the only way that we will every be able to survive

and to grow economically.

One of the reasons that businesses come in here and have a

look around to set up is because we have all kinds of resources, but half the

time they set up their head offices outside of here because this is an island

and we are a little bit away from everything. We have to be closer to Canada,

not further away. I believe the policy on deregulation and the policy of

bringing in user fees, etcetera, because it is the Federal Government's

responsibility, is pushing that onto the provinces, and it is certainly pushing

us not closer to Canada, but farther away. I think it is time that we all made a

concerted effort to deal with it because it is to the point of being very

negative for this Province.

Pertaining to the motion brought by the Member for

Pleasantville, I support him wholeheartedly. I believe that it is time again,

like he said, to bring forward this as a public issue because it is not getting

the play that it should be, but it can have a large impact on this Province and

I think the motion speaks for itself. It talks about the cost recovery proposals

that they are bringing forward. It also, certainly, talks about the devastation

that it can have on the economy. I mean if we are going to improve the economy

and create more employment, etcetera, we are going to need a proper system. With

Hibernia on the go and a number of other projects that are getting lined up, we

are certainly going to need a proper system of transportation, and in the last

four or five years that has certainly been devastated by the present policy.

So, I would hope that all Members will support this motion

today, and I would say to the Member for Pleasantville that it is a very timely

motion. It is never untimely to talk about transportation or how it affects a

number of communities in this Province. It is certainly time to take this issue

and make it as important as all the others, and it is time it was done.

I also want to reflect, Mr. Speaker, on the battle that

Stephenville has had over the past couple of years when changes were made in

deregulation and the imposition of user fees, which are coming down the line

now. The CTC used to be there - the Canadian Transportation Commission - and

they used to be able to monitor and regulate airlines, and so on, and marine

ferries.

In the last couple of years there have been changes by

airlines; they have hauled their flights out of a number of airports in Canada,

but the Federal Government is not able to hold them there for economic reasons.

And I think that we had a test case with Stephenville and it has been most

unfortunate that the new National Transportation Agency and the Competition

Bureau, which was implemented, do not have any power. There is no power. Right

now if an airline wants to haul out of an airport or wants to shut down its

services, they can leave at their will with no obligation to the community, and

I think that is extremely dangerous for the economy. There have been a number of

examples of that over the last few years, and I think people should take it

seriously. They should certainly be lobbying to change that policy. It has great

potential for Toronto and Montreal and Ottawa, but it has no potential for rural

Canada; and I have reports here - the report from the Senate Committee - to

justify that and all the recommendations which have been made. But it is really

unfortunate that it has been allowed to go on and that the feds have not

responded to, not only this Province's needs, but also to all the other

provinces who are now starting to wake up and understand what is happening in

their transportation systems.

One thing about it the transportation system within this

Canada used to be from one end to the other and it has helped keep the country

together. But with the dismantling of that it is certainly pushing everybody

further away. So I would hope that over the next year or so, over the next

number of months, that there is a review coming of that policy and we, as a

Province, are going to be fighting and asking the Federal Government, or

negotiating whatever we have to do, to get a proper made in Canada policy which

reflects the needs of all places in Canada, and that is certainly not the case

right now. So I hope that would be done over the next little while. It is

expected some time in the next year that they will be doing those negotiations.

I find it unfortunate that there is no link from the Member

for Kilbride. He makes no link to the economy when it comes to transportation,

because everybody I think understands that there is and in this Province it is

massive.

MR. SIMMS: A good speech.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Len.

I am hoping it is good, but it is my first run at it, so she

is coming.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Us few Members have fought the battle -

MR. SIMMS: You should be Minister of Transportation with

your knowledge of transportation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you.

- have fought the battle and will continue to fight the

battle to get an improved system.

Now I have an editorial here from last year about:

Stephenville's fight is not only theirs, but it is also all of the provinces.

Because I was saying it a year ago, and now some of it is happening. St. John's

hauled in some jet service a little while ago - no it was not going to happen,

but it is happening. The regulation is having its affect on all these provinces

and this area.

So it is an important issue. Nobody should downgrade it as

not being important and so on. It is extremely important in my area on the

Southwest Coast and it is extremely important to the Member for Humber Valley,

and it is very important to the Member for Gander, and Labrador especially. So

there is no way, you know, we should be reflecting on it as not an issue or

whatever else. It is important in all aspects. And I beg to differ with the

speaker who spoke before me because it is not the high income owners that are

using the flights in Newfoundland, it is everybody. We are a rural Province and

we have no other way to get from one side to the other except bus transportation

or whatever, but they are even imposing further fees on that.

The policy was freedom to move, but now you are not allowed

to move because the costs are too high. So I think we should all support the

motion that has been ably put by the Member for Pleasantville, and we should

certainly review it and look at it seriously because it is a serious issue. You

know, any economist will tell you that if you do not have a good transportation

system you cannot make your economy improve.

MR. HODDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. HODDER: I do not mean to interrupt the Member's

speech, but it is not the noise in the House, (inaudible) we plan to speak, if

we get a chance today. But we just have not been able to

hear the hon. Member over here and I think it is a problem

with the mike rather than anything else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: I have never been known, Mr. Speaker, to

be too quiet, so I will try and rev it up a little tiny bit anyway.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue for

everybody. You know, reflecting on what devastation it can have in our area it

certainly has been that and in a lot of other areas the same. I believe that the

Marine Atlantic service as a constitutional part of the Terms of Union should be

again pushed by this Province to make that like the highway system is across

Canada. I think that would be extremely beneficial to this Province if we could

get the Federal Government to own up to that. Yes, they have budget problems

like we do - they do have budget problems - but we have budget problems too, and

they are all extremely tough decisions. But the transportation link is the only

one that keeps us all together, and if that is not effective we are in a lot of

trouble and that is evident across Canada right now as to what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is a unity issue.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, it is a unity issue in many ways in

keeping this place together, this country. It is getting wiped out. No wonder

people feel alienated because they are getting pushed away not brought together.

It is time they took it as an important issue.

I was noticing only a couple of weeks ago the Federal

Government included in their Budget another $1.3 billion to the farmers out

west, and in Newfoundland what are they doing? They are imposing user fees on

fishermen. I mean it is crazy. That is no way. Everybody should be treated in

the same fashion. It is about time that they did. You know, everything that

affects the rural provinces, especially on the east coast it seems, it is taking

away and it is not putting anything back in. The funds may seem to have gone up,

but they have not. They are even trying to sell airports in all areas, as a

matter of fact, to areas that might be interested, but in our case they may just

cut the funding to them anyway in the next couple of years. It is a fighting

ongoing battle.

If you do not think it has any negative impact I can tell you

differently, because you can try and bring in all the business you want to in

this Province, but if you do not have a decent system to get goods and services

here you can forget it. And what is happening is we are out there trying to

promote the Province and the Feds are hauling away the transportation system.

There are all kinds of other things that they can have a look at, mind you they

have looked at everything and done the same thing almost: the UI payments, the

whole works have gone out, they are all out of that now, they are all out of

this, that, and everything else. No wonder there is alienation, not only here in

a sense, but in other parts of Canada. This is no doubt a unity issue. There are

so many specifics on how it affects all of us, the hon. Member for Pleasantville

pointed out some of the things - high costs to this Province that are getting

worse. If you compare the prices of transportation within this Province as

compared to four years ago it has at least doubled. A flight from here to

Stephenville and back used to be $250 and it is now $500, and that is mostly the

result of user fees which are coming in, and a lot of other costs that the

airlines are incurring. We hope the Federal Government will understand how

important the issue is to us and hopefully try to mend their ways or fix it. It

is most unfortunate. I am very pleased that the Provincial Government has been

dealing with the Federal Government on that matter. The Minister of Works,

Services and Transportation has certainly made a strong effort to try and

resolve the problems we are having and to get the Federal Government to respond

with a proper transportation policy. It is unfortunate that the previous

Government let the policy come into place, and actually supported it. Here we

are now getting wiped out. I would think we should all reflect on where we are

going in this Province when it comes to the future, and certainly that is one

area that is extremely important to not only me as a Member but to also a lot of

other Members in this area. Like I said, all the efforts you can take to promote

are not going to be worth a darn if they do not have any improvements in the

transportation system.

With reference to some previous comments made by the Member

opposite for Kilbride. When we talk about what this Provincial Government is

doing there are a couple of facts I would like to point out. The first time the

unemployment rate hit 100,000 in this Province was when the previous Government

was in, and the first time that employment hit 200,000 was when this Government

is in. We could talk about numbers all day but I would just like to say we have

only been here eighteen months and we are trying to do our best, and we are

certainly going to continue to do that. One of the things we are going to try

and do to make some changes is to get the Federal Government to understand how

important transportation is to this Province. I would hope that everybody would

get on side. Pertaining also to my airport, for example, it was only three weeks

ago that the Federal Government which had previously announced a new combined

services building, over two and a half years ago decided that they were not

going to do it and that has had somewhat of an impact on our airport. I would

also like to compliment the Stephenville Airport Corporation which has

undertaken and made some excellent gains for the Airport, also, the town council

of Stephenville who have been very involved in this move. In our area we have

gotten together, and I would hope that in this Province we will get together and

deal with transportation in a proper manner, and put it in its right light. I do

not know if it is a new policy of the PC Opposition, what the hon. Member for

Kilbride said, but I do not think so. Is it or is it not? I am not sure. Is

transportation not important or important? I really cannot tell. I know how

important the other issues are, myself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: It is okay. You can get your next Member

to give me the answer. I would hope that is not the policy. I would hope the

policy is not that. I would hope the Member for Port au Port and the Member for

Humber Valley would know how important it is. Maybe they can have a chat with

your caucus and try to work this thing out because I would hope that it has

changed. I would hope that it reflects what the Province needs and I am not so

sure. I still think it is an important issue and I hope others think the same.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the hon. Member for

Humber Valley, I would like to welcome to the galleries today, on behalf of hon.

Members, the Mayor for Grand Falls - Windsor, Mr. Blackmore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, from the onset - maybe I should - on a point of

order. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are losing your time.

MR. WOODFORD: I am on a point of order, Mr. Speaker and I

want to (inaudible).

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

point of order.

MR. WOODFORD: I just cannot hear other Members speak - I

do not know about anyone else, maybe I am deaf or whatever - but there is

something radically wrong with those bloody microphones or something.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: I like to listen to Members opposite as

well as I do my own colleagues and especially when they are speaking on a

resolution in which I have some interest and I cannot hear it, period. So as far

as I am concerned it is a legitimate point of order and I think it should be

checked out and checked out fully.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is a legitimate point of order and I will

have the technicians check it. I have no difficulty in hearing the hon. Members,

but I know that when I am sitting over there, I do have difficulty.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: If it is on the same point of order, he

just ruled on that.

MR. SPEAKER: I just ruled on the -

MR. HARRIS: I will make another point of order because -

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

a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: - if the hon. Member is concerned about him

being able to hear over there, I will add to the point of order by saying that

there is a speaker on my desk here and you can barely hear even when you have it

turned up at full volume, so even if you make an effort to put you ear to the

speaker it is very difficult to hear what is going on in other parts of the

House and it is something that really needs to be checked out. I could not hear

the burden of the hon. Member's speech, you could pick up bits and pieces but

not the full speech and it would be very difficult to reply in kind to it.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay. The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, both Members make very valid

points and I understand from the Government House Leader that he, in

consultation with Mr. Speaker, is examining the problem of hearing in the

Assembly and one of the things they are looking at is perhaps putting a heavy

mounted curtain right across here to absorb some of the echo and other

alterations to look after some of the sound systems. I know I had trouble myself

hearing the Member for Stephenville and I sit on this side.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from St. John's South says that

there are head-sets available but I think there is something wrong with the

system itself, even people who have the head-sets are having difficulty hearing.

But I understand that the Government House Leader and perhaps the Opposition

House Leader has had something to do with this as well, are discussing this with

Mr. Speaker, so that should be rectified soon.

MR. SPEAKER: As was ruled earlier, it is a legitimate

point and not to cut into the hon. Member's time, I recognize the hon. Member

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, this resolution brought

forward today by the Member for Pleasantville, is a resolution that is very,

very important to my district, particularly my district in the Province - and

other districts - I would like to draw to the attention of Members Opposite and

Members on this side. Now in the

WHEREAS' and in the

BE IT RESOLVED part of it,

there is some insinuation that the cuts and the costs recovery may be caused by

CAPS and EPF funding and so on, but we will forget that. I think, to be honest

about it, that is why certain Members, even on our side in particular are drawn

into something like that, because it does not really stick to the subject that

the hon. Member started out to do in his

WHEREAS', but, having said that, I

would just like to say again how important it is to airports in this Province,

and not only in this Province, Mr. Speaker, this particular resolution and the

cost recovery attempt by the Federal Government in this case, to recover in user

pay fees pertaining to the air mode and marine sector in this Province and

Atlantic Canada is very important and is going to be detrimental, if it goes

into full implementation in three or four years. If it stays at just 1991 levels

then it will not be too serious. But if it goes beyond the 1991 levels it is

going to be a radical policy change for the airports in Atlantic Canada

especially.

Mr. Speaker, let me just explain for a minute that in

Atlantic Canada we use primarily small aircraft, and namely the Dash 8s and BA

146s, the jets now used by Air Atlantic and Air Nova. We used the 737, one run

between St. John's, Deer Lake and into Wabush, going to the Mainland from St.

John's and Gander to Halifax, you used 737s or 727s or what have you. But mainly

small commuter aircraft to try to connect not only within the Province itself,

but also into Labrador and again on to Halifax to connect to go on to other

centres.

This is where we are going to be hit. If it stays at 1991

recommended levels it will just be a 10 per cent increase, which will not be too

serious. But if it does go on in the following years, the following three years

that they recommend for a total recovery, it will mean a 30 per cent decrease in

passenger movements within the Province alone. We have no other choice in this

Province. To drive on the Island portion itself by car or else to get off the

Island portion into Labrador you have no choice, in the summertime you can

probably take the ferry and in the wintertime you have to fly whether it is

Provincial Airways or Air Nova or Air Atlantic or what have you. To get outside

sometimes because of the Gulf and because of the ferry situation out there, it

is by air. So it is very important to the people of the Province and more

specifically to the District of Humber Valley, when I say Humber Valley, I am

talking pretty well about that whole part of the west coast except for the

Stephenville area where you have another airport in western Newfoundland, we are

fairly fortunate in that sense.

The Member for Pleasantville brought up the subject of

competition. One of the things that I would like to make quite clear here today

and I am glad that I got the opportunity to do so, is that in the Humber Valley

area, the Deer Lake Airport area, we have three main airlines operating out of

there Air Nova, Air Atlantic, and Provincial Airways.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: Now one of the things the Member should do

firstly, when you are talking about competition, is have a talk with the Premier

specifically and the Cabinet as a whole, because, Mr. Speaker, I didn't see

anybody, and I have not seen it for a goodly number of years, I can go back

probably fifteen or sixteen, but there are other cases I will not mention here

this evening, of interference in the private sector in this Province, when we

had a Premier of this Province and a Government standing up publicly and telling

the public employees in this Province: you use Air Atlantic, and do not use

anything else. Tell me, Mr. Speaker, what that is doing to private industry in

this Province? What is it doing to other airlines in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That he did not.

MR. WOODFORD: What is it doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no he did not.

MR. WOODFORD: Next week we will probably hear the Premier

telling the Government employees to shop at Dominion.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WOODFORD: I hope it does not get to that, or Sobey's

or some other store in this Province. Mr. Speaker, nobody in this House should

be more cognizant of what it means for an airline in this Province, in Atlantic

Canada, to say that we are only going to use one airport.

MR. SIMMS: It is free enterprise.

MR. WOODFORD: It is free enterprise. The hon. Member for

Stephenville knows full well how it hurt his community when Air Nova pulled out

of there. Now we have every Government employee coming through Deer Lake and

Gander. Gander, I might add, and St. John's, supposedly they could fly anywhere,

now they have to fly Air Atlantic, and to me that is wrong. The airport system

depends on all three airlines and as far as I am concerned the Premier and his

Cabinet as a whole should take the bull by the horns and reverse that particular

policy, because as far as I am concerned it is wrong. It is wrong for the

Province and it is wrong for the people and more specifically for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the cost recovery, as I said, pertains to air

modes, primarily the air mode, and the Marine sector. The air mode in this

country, Mr. Speaker: DOT spends approximately $1.4 billion a year on the air

mode in this country. They take in, and I think the hon. Member referred to it,

$1.2 billion in revenue.

It is cost recovery now because they are claiming and

reclaiming almost between 80 and 88 per cent of the total cost of air mode in

this country. The marine sector, for instance, is recovering only 58 per cent.

They are asking the air mode now to recover an extra $40 million which would

bring it up to, I think, 91 per cent of recovery - something like that - 88 to

91 per cent recovery; and marine, I think, $25 million, and that would bring it

up to 73 per cent. So, it goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that the air mode in

this country and the Province itself mainly is a total recovery now. So, I mean,

to go on further what the air mode of transportation in this country is doing is

subsidizing the marine sector and subsidizing via rail. That is what they are

doing. That is where the money is coming from to keep those other sectors going.

Now, in the marine sector, the only marine sector that is

going to be taxed is that any commercial ship, 15 registered tonnes or more,

will be hit with this cost recovery factor. All commercial fishermen, all

pleasure boaters will not be touched with regards to this particular thing, this

particular part. But any boat, commercial vessel, 15 registered tonnes heavy or

heavier, will be taxed.

Now, why the Federal Government would go strictly after the

air mode in this case is obvious, I guess. It is obvious because especially,

like I said in Atlantic Canada where you are sort of a captive anyway, and

especially on the Labrador sector, you have no other way. By air or nothing,

unless it is in the summertime.

The three parts that are going to be hit, Mr. Speaker, are

the airport landing fees - an increase in those, the general terminal fees, and

the air navigational services, and along with the airport ticket tax, which is

applicable pretty well in all of Canada and parts of the U.S.

So,