June 1,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 8

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

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

House of Assembly seven students from the GAIN Centre, Norman's Cove and Long

Cove in Bellevue district, accompanied by Mr. Bill Norman, Miss Evelyn Ennis and

Ms. Jill Cumby.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1992, I announced a

successful Request for Bids that resulted in work expenditure commitments of

approximately $1.65 million for three petroleum exploration permits in onshore

Western Newfoundland. Those permits cover an area of about 117,000 hectares.

On February 5, 1993, I announced a second Request for Bids,

at which time interested parties were invited to submit bids in the form of work

commitments on ten parcels of land by May 28, 1993 - last Friday.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that I have

selected bids totalling approximately $5,729,000 on six parcels covering an area

of about 191,000 hectares.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: As before, the successful bids are in the

form of work expenditure commitments whereby the companies undertake to spend

the bid amount on exploration during the five year term of the exploration

permit.

The successful bidders are:

For Parcel No. 4, Labrador Mining and Exploration Company

Limited with a bid of $16,712;

Parcel No. 5, Labrador Mining and Exploration Company Limited

with a bid of $135,000;

For Parcel No. 6, Vinland Petroleum Incorporated with a bid

of $25,000;

For Parcel No. 7, Vinland Petroleum Incorporated with a bid

of $27,500;

For Parcel No. 9, Hunt Oil Company with a bid of $5,125,200;

For Parcel No. 10, Canadian Roxana Resources Limited with a

bid of $400,000.

I would note that Labrador Mining and Exploration Company is

a Canadian company with headquarters in Calgary. Vinland Petroleum is a

Newfoundland-based company with connections to another company in Calgary. Hunt

Oil Company headquarters is in Dallas, Texas; and Canadian Roxana Resources'

headquarters I understand to be in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Parcels No. 4 and 5, which encompass approximately 35,000

hectares and 33,000 hectares, are located north of Parsons Pond, adjacent to the

other permit area given to Labrador Mining last year.

Parcels 6 and 7, approximately 24,000 hectares and 29,000

hectares in area are in the Deer Lake basin north of Deer Lake.

Parcels 9 and 10, each about 35,000 hectares in area, are

located on the Port au Port Peninsula for No. 9, and south of Stephenville on

the Fischells area for No. 10.

Mr. Speaker, certain requirements must be met before I will

be able to issue permits, pursuant to this Request for Bids. These include, in

some cases, the receipt of a $10,000 performance bond for the first year's work

and, in other cases, the verification of eligible pre-permit expenditures in the

area of the licences which can be credited toward the work obligations for a

permit.

Mr. Speaker, provided all requirements are met, the number of

onshore exploration permits issued since the Newfoundland and Labrador Petroleum

Regulations were promulgated in 1991 will be a total of nine, with total work

expenditure commitments to date of an amount to approximately $7.4 million.

On offshore Western Newfoundland, there are eight exploration

licences with total work expenditure commitments of approximately $6.1 million

have been issued since 1991.

Mr. Speaker, I am gratified by the level of interest that the

oil and gas industry has expressed in Western Newfoundland and we hope that this

will lead to further economic activity whereby the full petroleum potential of

that area will be realized.

Thank you.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly want to say to the minister that it is nice to

hear something positive in this House for a change coming from the government.

Obviously it is interesting to note that onshore development is going to take

place in somewhat more of a significant way than it has in the past particularly

in the area of Western Newfoundland and that is encouraging news. Last night at

the estimates committee, the minister made reference to the two bring spots in

the economy of this Province namely Hibernia and the Come By Chance oil

refinery. Both of these projects are ones that were brought in by the previous

administration, so it is nice to see that this government is at least initiating

some good, positive economic news for a change on their own.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not

returned I take it from the province so I will put my questions to the Premier,

anticipating the arrival, with great anticipation, of the minister. He is on the

way, I presume.

Over the weekend the Premier was reported as saying, in some

of the media at least, that the public sector unions would soon have to make a

decision, or cut a deal, on how to save that $70 million that we hear so much

about in employee compensation, or the government will have to legislate cuts as

it did with Bills 16 and 17. That clearly indicates that the government has some

kind of a deadline in mind in order to bring it into the negotiations. Can I ask

the Premier what date has the government set to break off negotiations, or

talks, if there is no agreement? There must be some date in mind.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. We do not want to sort of

have a guillotine hanging over anybody's head. We just say simply this: we are

already two months into the fiscal year so we have to move expeditiously. Now,

does that mean by 4:30 p.m. this afternoon? No. Does it mean noon tomorrow? No.

But, it means pretty darn soon after that. We do not have much time left. I do

not want to say it has to be by such and such an hour or minute. I do not want

to seem to be threatening anybody in that way. I just say to people, from a

practical point of view, the Budget is not yet passed for this fiscal year and

it is now June 1. We cannot go on forever like this. We have to deal with the

issue soon.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Premier points out there are now only ten months left

in the fiscal year and the government still has to find ways to save that $70

million from the spending estimates of the government departments, and that is

the concern that I have. I would not expect him to get up today and announce

that 4:30 today was the deadline, but how much longer exactly can we expect it

to go on, another week, another month, another year? How much longer? He must

have something in mind.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the time we had in mind was

the day when the House opened. That is when we expected to have it resolved, by

the day when the House opened, so that we could move to address it. Now, we have

been accommodating to the unions and associations involved and we have given as

much time as we possibly can. We have not had an absolute and I do not want to

be provoked by the Leader of the Opposition into saying such and such is an

absolute cutoff. I am just saying we expected to have this done when the House

opened. It did not work so you try a little bit longer, and a little bit longer,

so as to try and achieve agreement, but we have pretty well reached the end of

the line and we have to move quickly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Far be it for me to try to provoke the Premier. There are

many others in this Legislature who have a knack and a way for doing that,

rather than I do. Let me ask him something else then, is the Premier or is the

government trying to negotiate with public sector unions some sort of a social

contract similar to what we see going on in Ontario? Where the government will

offer to the unions, and I do not expect him to provide me with details of

negotiations, but where the government would offer to the unions some security

or some concession on job security or some other benefits in return for a deal

on compensation cuts of $70 million in this case, is that the kind of

negotiation that is going on? Just so we know what is going on or have some

idea.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, there are no

negotiations, no quid pro quos, we agreed to sit down with the unions to

identify the best manner in which to implement the $70 million overall cost

reduction. It is not a question of saying: if you agree to the reduction, we

will agree to give you that. That is not the issue, that is no part of the

agreement.

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

MR. SIMMS: No, social contact than. Can I ask the Premier

this and this is a very specific question and I am sure he can answer it: In

addition to seeking the cut of $70 million from employee compensation, is the

government proposing to continue the wage freeze or the freeze on public sector

wages and if so, how long will that particular wage freeze last this time?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition

to let the collective bargaining process that we have in place run its course

and then the government will announce to the House exactly what has been agreed

upon with the unions. I do not want to thwart or make more difficult the

discussions that are underway by answering and responding to these kinds of

speculative questions. I would sooner let the negotiating process take its

ordinary course and hopefully the minister can work out an arrangement with the

public sector unions and associations involved.

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

of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize I was asking a

speculative question, to be perfectly frank with the Premier, I was hoping he

would confirm what I thought was already said publicly by some of his ministers

that in fact it is obvious that there will have to be a wage freeze. I do not

know who I thought had said it, maybe the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations or somebody else. In any event, let me ask him just this one final

question. Obviously the preparation of legislation would take some time to deal

with an unsatisfactory resolution to this current situation. Can I ask the

Premier: does the government have the legislation prepared that they may have to

bring in to the House in the next week or thereabouts if the negotiations are

not successful? Have they made that kind of preparation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It seems to me the Leader of the

Opposition is determined to provoke and create difficulty. I just ask him to put

for the first time perhaps in his career the interests of the people of this

Province ahead of his own political interests.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: I'm asking him to put the interest of the

people of this Province ahead of our narrow political interest.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Well, perhaps not. To put the interest of

the people of this Province ahead of the political interest and stop trying to

provoke difficulty in the negotiations between the government and the unions.

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

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

a question for the Minister of Fisheries. The president of FPI told shareholders

earlier this month that the company is shifting its emphasis to secondary

value-added processing using fish that they're getting from foreign sources in

the Pacific, Iceland, Norway, Greenland and so on. I would like to ask the

minister: can he tell the House how much if any of this foreign fish that FPI is

borrowing from foreign interests is being processed here in Newfoundland? Is any

of that fish being processed here or is it all being processed outside the

Province?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I can answer that

question except to say that there is a lot of foreign fish - not a lot, but a

certain quantity of foreign fish - finding its way into the Province. My

understanding is that most of it is being processed here. Not maybe in a

secondary processing form, but certainly it's being processed here. At least

that's my information.

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

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

touched on the topic really that I'm pursuing, that of secondary value-added

processing, which I think we all agree we have to further encourage and support

if we're to maintain a fisheries economy in the Province. FPI says 60 per cent

of the groundfish it will use in 1993 will come from sources external to FPI's

traditional groundfish supply. As a result, its secondary processing plants in

Boston and Danvers are fully utilized. Really, they're at maximum utilization.

I'm just wondering. There are some, only marginal, improvements in the secondary

processing at Burin, which is FPI's only value-added plant in the Province. Is

the government taking any action to encourage or require FPI to do any more

value-added processing in our Province? Can the minister inform the House of

that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we're constantly encouraging all

companies to do as much secondary processing as they can given the limitations

that are on secondary processing, there is only so much they can do.

Now, the plant in Burin, I am told, is one of the most modern

plants of its kind probably in Canada, maybe even in North America, and it is

operating at about, I think, 40 per cent of its actual operating capability.

Naturally, we are encouraging companies to get involved in secondary processing.

In fact, there is a lot of interest being shown now, Mr. Speaker, in the

secondary processing of caplin, for example. There is a lot of interest. In

fact, there are at least two plants that I know of in the Province that are very

much involved now in producing the product that the Japanese are buying from

Newfoundland, the female caplin - shishamo, it is called - and a lot of that

secondary processing is now being done in the Province.

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the minister has referred

to encouraging secondary processing. Can the minister inform the House what the

Provincial Government is doing to encourage secondary processing? What actions

are you taking as a government? What support or other mechanisms are you putting

in front of companies to encourage? You say you are encouraging. Is that by way

of sending telexes, faxes, or writing letters, or having meetings? Really,

specifically, how are you, as a government, encouraging or promoting secondary

value-added processing in this Province?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, there are many ways in which we

are assisting and encouraging the companies. For example, it was only a few

months ago that the Province, in collaboration with the Federal Government,

undertook a trade mission to Japan, with representatives from ten companies in

Newfoundland, for the purpose of identifying new markets in that country.

I am happy to say that there has been a certain, in fact

quite a high level of success and that markets were discovered in Japan for

certain products that will soon, I hope, be processed in the Province; but we

are constantly, one way or the other, providing support for most companies who

want to get into secondary processing. My own department, the Department of

Fisheries, has a branch that is very much involved in product development,

seeking out new markets, and a number of other things to encourage secondary

processing.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

FPI projects sales of some $650 million for 1993 - up 64 per

cent from the level reached in 1987. As a corporate entity, they are recovering

very well from the problems, really, that we are facing in our fishery today,

but it is not translating into new investment or jobs in our Province. National

Sea, to all intents and purposes, are following the same course.

I want to ask the minister: Is the Provincial Government

prepared to let the investments and the jobs go to the United States? Are you

concerned that the largest corporate entities in the fishing industry in this

Province are directing new investment and job creation to the United States

instead of right here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador?

The minister can talk all he wants, but what we are really

seeing is that the corporate entitles of FPI and NatSea are moving all their

efforts into the U.S., creating jobs in investment, while we will be left with

practically nothing in this Province.

MR. SIMMS: All the jobs are going to the U.S.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, of course, we don't enjoy seeing

FPI or, indeed, any company shipping out raw material for processing in the U.S.

There were certain barriers, of course, that FPI and other such companies had to

deal with - one, of course, being tariffs that still exist on finished product

going into the U.S. In fact, under the Free Trade Agreement it is reducing, but

certainly the tariff is still there. I am told that does provide an impediment

to companies who want to get involved.

We have had discussions with FPI with respect to their plant

in Danvers, Massachusetts, to find out precisely what they can do in this

Province - what they are now doing in Massachusetts - and I can only speak as I

find. I am satisfied that Mr. Young, the President of FPI, is making an all-out

effort to engage his company in secondary processing in the Province. It might

not be moving as rapidly as you want it to move, but I think there is a lot of

effort being made now in that regard.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Health.

As a result of budgets presented to them in March, hospitals all across the

Province have been closing beds and laying off staff. Can the minister tell the

House how many beds have been closed and how many staff positions have been

eliminated since March?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not have these numbers at

my fingertips but I will certainly look these numbers up and relay them to the

hon. member at the appropriate time.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the

shutdowns have been carried in the press. They have carried layoffs on big

closures at St. Clare's, at the Grace Hospital, the Peyton Memorial Hospital in

Gander, the Jackson Memorial Hospital. Among these hospitals, they have shut

down over fifty beds and eliminated seventy jobs. How many bed closures and

layoffs does this government expect to achieve from its latest assault on

hospitals and nursing homes? Do you have a figure that you expect?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, the budgetary restraints that

we faced imposed quite a burden on the health care system. We had to take

something like $10 million out of the health care system. Each hospital board

was asked to prepare a plan as to how they might achieve the savings that were

allocated to them. They came back with a variety of proposals, some things of

which impacted very little, most things, not at all, on the care of patients.

These proposals were examined by staff in the Department of

Health and some of the proposals were rejected because they did affect patient

care. But, through discussions that were going back and forth, eventually plans

were achieved which, in almost every case, did not affect patient care to any

point that anyone needs to be alarmed about. So I would caution the hon. member

not to equate efficiencies in the health care system with reduced health care.

The two don't necessarily go together, any more than if we doubled the number of

people in the health care system would we have any better health care. We might

have worse health care.

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

for Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister has

admitted that, in some cases, it has affected patient care. He said, in all

cases it hasn't, in some it has. Hospitals are concerned about the latest impact

of cuts in health services, waiting lists for surgery and other procedures, in

diagnostic services. Does the department, intend to set up an independent group

to monitor and evaluate the impact of those cuts in our health care system?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker, we will not be setting up

an independent group. Each hospital is operated by a hospital board consisting

of individuals who are apart from the staff of the hospital. They monitor. This

job of mostly lay people is to monitor what is going on in the hospital. In

addition, no change can take place in what a hospital does unless agreed to by

the professional staff in the Department of Health and, where necessary,

consultants are asked to review certain proposals. We have been doing that

consistently, and I am satisfied, up to this point, at least, that that

procedure works quite well.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. Will the government continue any kind

of a swine breeding program anywhere on the Island of Newfoundland? Will the

government build on the twenty-year success of the Western Swine Breeding

Station in the Humber Valley, take advantage of Newfoundland's unique

disease-free environment, pursue opportunities for expanding the economy by

exporting swine breeding stock, and heed the findings and recommendations of the

Task Force on Agri-Foods, chaired by the minister's colleague, the Member for

St. George's?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: No, Mr. Speaker, the government have decided

they are not going to continue funding the Swine Breeding Station to the extent

that we did. That Swine Breeding Station was costing the Province $800,000 per

year. The government decided they were going to get out of subsiding the hog

industry, that is, by way of price support and by way of subsidies. The Swine

Breeding Station was one of those subsidies. It may be possible to privatize the

Swine Breeding Station. We have had some enquiries about that possibility, but,

if the Swine Breeding Station is to survive in the future, it will have to

survive -

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Hulan report?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FLIGHT: - by way of being privately operated. It

won't continue the way it has been operated for the past twenty years.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the minister. I am not asking the minister

to continue subsidizing the commercial industry. I am not asking the minister to

continue the large, expensive Central Swine Breeding Station outside St. John's,

but I would ask him to reinstate the small, efficient, and successful Western

Swine Breeding Station which operated very successfully in the Humber Valley for

about twenty years. Will the minister do that?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, the only real purpose of the

Swine Breeding Station was to support the commercial production of hogs in

Newfoundland. That Swine Breeding Station supplied young pigs to the sixteen

commercial producers in Newfoundland. Without a commercial hog industry, as

supported by the Province, with massive subsidies, there would really be no

purpose served by the Swine Breeding Station. The main purpose of that Swine

Breeding Station was to supply young pigs to the commercial hog

industry,supported by the Province through subsidies. We have cancelled those

subsidies, so there is no reason, from our perspective, to continue to maintain

the Swine Breeding Station.

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

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supplementary to the minister. Has the government assessed

the pros and cons of squandering the investment of the past twenty years and

abandoning swine breeding? Has the government, for example, looked at

opportunities for exporting breeding stock, the opportunities that were pointed

to by the Hulan Task Force?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the government considered

all the options with respect to the hog industry in Newfoundland and came to the

final decision that it was going to withdraw its support to the hog industry.

Part of that decision was: What will we do with the Swine Breeding Station? And

the decision was made to effectively close the Swine Breeding Station as of June

15. If that has to be carried to July 15 or August 15 to get it closed down

effectively, then that is what it will be, but the decision has been made to

close the Swine Breeding Station.

Mr. Speaker, let me finish on a comment with regard to

squandering. The money that was squandered in the hog industry, Mr. Speaker -

this government also made a decision not to follow through on the $22 million

that was squandered in the cucumber-producing industry, as well. It didn't take

as long to squander that as it did to take the money that might have been

squandered in the hog industry.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A final supplementary to the minister. Do the genetically

superior animals that were bred at the Western Swine Breeding Station and

trucked across the Island to the Central Station outside St. John's, in the

Summer of 1991, still exist? Do the animals that were bred successively over the

years at the research unit in Pynns Brook still exist? Do we still have the

benefit of that investment?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that the animals

produced at the Western Swine Breeding Station were any more genetically

superior than the hogs produced at the Central Swine Breeding Station here in

Portugal Cove. I can take that question under advisement and find out exactly

what the situation is at the hog breeding station now. I know we have been

downsizing. I can tell the hon. member that we have been downsizing the Swine

Breeding Station this past month or two. Hogs and young pigs are being sent out

to producers, so we are slowly but surely winding down the operation of the

Swine Breeding Station, and unless there is an intervention, unless we get an

acceptable proposal from a private source then the Swine Breeding Station will

effectively be closed as soon after June 30 as possible.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question

to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. Several months ago, I wrote to the

minister under the Freedom of Information Act, as I recollect - and I don't know

but that the law may have been broken, I will have to check that later on. But

he certainly remembers my letter, I am sure, because he mentioned it to me,

personally. I asked if he would provide a breakdown of the expenses and

expenditures incurred by the commissioner who did that report - months ago. When

is the minister going to provide that information to the House of Assembly?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, as required, I intend to provide

the information to the hon. member, and it will be up to him to provide it to

the House of Assembly.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Education. The minister and all hon. members will know that there

exists a serious discrimination against school students in St. John's and their

parents with respect to school busing. Where students all over Newfoundland and

Labrador, urban and rural, receive school busing at the taxpayers expense, in

St. John's it is not available and parents or students must pay the cost of

school busing. I want to ask the minister why, last night, did he refuse to give

a serious answer to the question of when the government will address this

discrimination? Does he not regard this as a serious issue?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the school bus system in this

Province, evolved I suppose - at no time did some group of people sit down and

put in place a firm plan as to this is the way it will be done, it evolved. As a

result, what we have is a system which does show some drastic differences. For

example, in St. John's, as the hon. member points out, as a general rule school

busing is not provided but yet at the same time we are busing children from East

Meadows who live in St. John's, we are still busing people from the Goulds. The

whole issue of school busing is one which we intend to look at, Mr. Speaker, in

due course, as I explained to the hon. member last night. In very specific

terms, I told him that in due course we would be looking at it. Somehow he

considered it was better to kick up a racket and try to make a big public issue

of it but the reality is, Mr. Speaker - we recognize that there may be some

perceived inequities there and in due course we will be looking at them but it

is not something that I can say is going to start five past twelve this

afternoon or 3:00 a.m. tomorrow morning but we will be looking at that in due

course.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, if the minister regards, `in due

course', as a very specific response to an important question involving

discrimination against people then he is using a different language than I am.

Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that affects students every day and families who

are required to pay the cost of school busing from limited incomes. I want to

ask the minister, can he be more specific than the words; `in due course'? Can

he tell us whether or not his department has undertaken a review as to whether

he has asked for a review at this time, what alternatives he is considering, and

when we can expect to hear some response from the minister on this issue?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to get into

any specific time frame on this issue, the whole St. John's issue. There is a

St. John's Transportation Committee which would have to give authority to the

Province if we were to do school busing in the city. The reality is, we do not

have the authority to go and start busing St. John's students without the

approval of the St. John's Transportation Commission, that issue has to be dealt

with, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member talks about discrimination. Now most of the

school busing which has taken place in the Province, was done as the result of

schools which were closed and because the schools were closed children had to

find their way sometimes up to thirty miles to the school. Now I would think

that if the people in Raleigh, for example, were allowed to keep their schools

open, they would be quite satisfied to be discriminated against, to find their

way to their school. So, I do not think discrimination is the right word to use

in this case, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out this system evolved over the years.

There may be some perceived inequities in it and hopefully in the not too

distant future, we will be seeing if there is a way that we can take out some of

these perceived inequities, if indeed they are as inequitable as the hon. member

would have us believe.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford -

Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Education. Recently the department published a booklet entitled, Profile `92'.

In that booklet note is made of the fact that there has been a very significant

increase in the number of sixteen-year-olds who are dropping out of school. In

fact in 91-92, the rate was 97 per cent attendance, in the past year it is down

to 91 per cent. Can the minister explain the sudden increase in school dropouts

for sixteen-year-old?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I would commend this book to

educators and to all stakeholders throughout the system. This is essentially a

snapshot which was done of the school system in a specific time and it is a tool

that educators and school boards and superintendents and various people will use

to make their planning for the way they deliver education in the Province over

the next year. A lot of good things are in this thing. For example, we find that

the rate of females who participate in science and math, who excel in science

and math, is higher than it is for males in this Province, which is different

from the rest of the country.

Now one of the things which was pointed out, is that, there

seems to be a lesser number of sixteen-year-olds participating at this

particular time. Now that has turned up as a statistic. Educators in school

boards throughout the Province hopefully will look at that weakness and see just

what the cause is, likewise, it will be evaluated within the department. I am

not in a position at this time to get up and say: here is the reason for that.

All I have done is provide the facts, now, Mr. Speaker, over the next months,

people will speculate and people will try to arrive at a reason as to why this

is happening, if it is some failing in the system that we can correct. That is

the whole point of this Profile '92 and there are other things, Mr. Speaker,

like the performance and the CTBS and so on; all these things will be looked at

and hopefully, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to improve

the delivery of education. That is what it is all about. I would like to commend

the people who made this available.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Order, please!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, some time ago my friend, the

Member for Waterford - Kenmount, asked if the university had intended to cancel

admissions to first year education courses as a means of dealing with their

costs - their budget problems. This was two or three days ago it was asked.

The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: It is my turn now. Could we call Motion No.

2 please, before we get into the substantive debate?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, Motion 2.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Workers' Compensation Act,"

carried. (Bill No. 8).

On motion, Bill No. 8 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, would Your Honour be good

enough to call Order No. 6, which is Bill No. 3? My friend from Humber East

adjourned the debate yesterday on the bill to create the Department of Tourism

and Culture.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, this is continuation of the debate on

second reading of Bill No. 3.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

Order please!

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the two minutes remaining to me, let me reiterate that I

support this measure creating the new Department of Tourism and Culture, with

qualifications. I am concerned that given the orientation, given the context,

the government may focus much too narrowly on culture by looking at only the

dimensions of culture and the arts related to the economy and tourism. Culture

is all pervasive and has many meanings beyond immediate short-term measurable

economic gain.

Mr. Speaker, I do see this as a big improvement over the

previous arrangement of assigning responsibility for culture to the giant

Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I am concerned also because the

department has been set up in the absence of a provincial government policy on

culture.

The Wells' administration, on taking office, appointed a

policy committee on arts. The government appointed Dr. Patrick O'Flaherty to

Chair the committee, and appointed several others - artists and supporters of

the arts in different parts of the Province - to make up the committee. That

group gave the government its report more than three years ago, and in the

beginning of the document pleaded with the government to develop an arts policy.

The government has ignored the whole report and has failed to develop an arts

policy.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I have to underline one of the chief

findings of that committee, which is that a minuscule percentage of government

spending supposedly for the arts actually is going to the artists - to the

creators of art. Something like only 3 per cent of government expenditure

reaches directly the creators - the people for whom all the trappings have been

put in place, the people who are supposed to be boosted and served by the

buildings and the bureaucrats. In many instances, the government, the Cultural

Affairs division, is actually making life more difficult for artists, and the

situation is getting worse.

The Arts and Culture Centres - and we are blessed with these

facilities; we have six of them throughout the Province - are being expected to

generate more and more of their own revenue. What is actually happening is the

opposite. There has been a sharp drop year after year in Arts and Culture Centre

revenue, from $1.6 million some six years ago, down to $900,000 last year. The

government keeps over-estimating the revenue that will be generated by the

Centres.

There is a basic problem in the government's policy, or de

facto policy governing Arts and Culture Centres. I don't think there is a

conscious policy. Management is poor. Communication between the political level

and the staff is poor or non-existent, and the people in the Centres are

floundering. Arts groups are being asked to pay more and more so that many are

finding the cost prohibitive and are either finding other space or are not able

to mount the kinds of performances that they would like to produce.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those qualifications, I support the

bill creating the new department. I would join with the Arts Policy Committee in

urging the government to develop a policy, a conscious, deliberate policy

governing culture and the arts, and would ask them to try to keep in perspective

the fact that most of this is for the artist and for the benefit of patrons and

audiences. Instead of spending such a disproportionately large amount of

available public funds on bureaucrats, administrators and buildings, can't we do

better for the artists, themselves?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Culture.

If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I didn't

realize that the minister was going to close debate. I just wanted to have a few

words to say on Bill No. 3,

An Act Respecting The Department Of Tourism And

Culture.

I think basically, as most speakers to the bill have said, it

is positive legislation. I consider it a positive move to establish a department

such as this. As the Member for Humber East said, we had concerns where

components of this particular department now were in the Department of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs - no reflection on the ministers who have held those

portfolios. But once a department gets so large and so cumbersome, then it is my

impression and my belief that certain segments or certain divisions get lost and

they don't - not by design or by intention, but it just so happens that once

departments get too large, some aspects or divisions suffer. I think this was

the case here with the components of this department, that they were lost in

other departments. I say that with no ill intent, but that is just the way I

feel about it. I think it is positive that now we do have a Ministry of Tourism

and Culture and I think that will augur well for the industry.

I see the minister over there tightening up his tie and so

on. Of course, he wants me to say that we have an excellent Minister of Tourism

and Culture, but I would have to be bribed a fair bit now, Mr. Speaker, before I

would get that carried away.

Having said that, there is a lot of potential -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Grand Bank Museum is closed.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The Grand Bank Museum is closed.

- a lot of potential in the Province for tourism and culture.

MR. SIMMS: Did you close that?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: No, the minister is threatening me over

there, I think. There is a lot of potential, particularly the tourism aspect of

it, I say to members. It is something that, in my region of the Province, I have

had some very serious concerns about for years. Having said that, I think there

has been a lack of initiative and a lack of involvement by those who have most

to gain from the tourism industry, I say to the Minister of Tourism.

So many times I have run into people in the district -

particularly around the St. Pierre ferry service - and I have heard people who

are benefitting from that service; they are always looking to someone else to do

something, I say to the minister. They are always asking: When is someone else

going to do this? and, When is someone going to do that? Quite often, I ask the

question back: When are you going to do something to improve the situation so we

get more travellers, so that travellers are more comfortable when they are

waiting for the ferries, and so on?

Because too often, I think, the people who have most to

benefit from the tourism industry are not pro-active enough. I don't say that in

a derogatory fashion. I think that is basically the problem in my region of the

Province. There have been some movement and some initiative and some gains over

the last couple of years there specifically in trying to develop the tourism

industry and to promote the industry, but yet, we are still a long way from

reaching our potential in our region of the Province, that being the Burin

Peninsula. But we do have a pretty natural set up there with The Loop and so on,

and with the attraction of St. Pierre and Miquelon.

I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology looking

in a sort of - I was going to say in a strange way, but I don't know, really, if

he believes in this or not - but there is in excess of 20,000 visitors who go,

as I understand it, through the port of Fortune to St. Pierre and Miquelon, and

that is a lot of people.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not allowed there.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The minister says I am not allowed to go

there anymore, Mr. Speaker. That is not quite correct. I have been a visitor to

the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon for twenty-six or twenty-seven years,

some years as many as five or six times.

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman should be careful what he

says on the phones (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: You never know who is going to be listening.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: If your phone is tapped, or from St.

Pierre -

MR. ROBERTS: The hon. gentleman will never know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: From St. Pierre, you mean, or at home?

MR. ROBERTS: Can't you remember anything about this

(inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes, I can remember quite vividly.

AN HON. MEMBER: They gave us the key to the city over

there one time.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: They were thinking about giving me the

key to St. Pierre and Miquelon, but that was before I made what they considered

to be inflammatory statements about the fish situation when they had the

demonstration there, how ever long ago that was, when I said that I felt it was

in bad taste, and that the political leaders in St. Pierre and Miquelon and the

people should come to their senses, because there wasn't any fish to give them.

And they took great exception to that, and word wasn't very long coming back,

telling me that I would perhaps not be too wise if I visited there in the near

future. But that didn't bother me, I felt what I said was correct and I still

do.

MR. ROBERTS: No more (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: That is right on, the hon. member knows.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people go there to visit, quite

naturally, it being a French territory so close to our shores, but we, in our

area of the Province, are not reaping any benefits from the people who go

through. The most we get out of any of them is probably a tank of gasoline for

the cars. The

schedule of the ferry is so that they drive in in the morning,

take the boat, go to St. Pierre and Miquelon, stay for a night or two or three

nights, come back, take their cars and drive away.

MR. ROBERTS: You have to leave the car (inaudible) before

you go over because you can't use the gas on St. Pierre.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I didn't say that. But, Mr. Speaker, my

point is that, there needs to be some attractions or some promotion done in the

area to keep some - you know, not to keep all of those visitors, but at least

keep some of them in the area for a night or two, and consequently, get some of

their valuable dollars. But as of now, what is happening is, the dollars that

are spent, are spent in St. Pierre and Miquelon and we get very few of the

dollars.

So it is just a concern that I have about tourism in our

region of the Province and it is something that needs to be dealt with. I know,

the Member for Mount Pearl, when he was responsible for tourism, tried to do

some things down there to get the industry going, but as of now, we are still

not getting the benefits from it that we should be getting. And, as I said, I am

not throwing the blame at anyone's feet - I think, in the region itself, we have

to take responsibility for that. We have not been good promoters.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the ferry (inaudible).

MR. W. MATTHEWS: The ferry times, I say to the Minister

of Industry, Trade and Technology are set by the operators of the St. Pierre

Ferry Service, both St. Pierre-owned-and-operated and they set the times as they

see fit. And, of course, they are setting the times so that they get most of the

people out there, quite naturally.

MR. FUREY: Is there anything we can do to (inaudible)?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I don't think there is anything, really,

that we can do. I mean, what could we do, as a Province, to tell, again a

private operator? I think one of the ferries is part government controlled from

the French end of it; I think it is partly owned, actually, one of the fastest

boats, by the Government of France and I think there is some subsidy involved,

so I don't see how you could really influence that, because they, quite

naturally, as I was saying, have the

schedule set to reap the most benefits for

the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon. They want people to be able to drive in,

take them over and when they come back still be able to drive back to their

destinations, particularly in the Island section.

Those are the concerns that I have, Mr. Speaker, and I just

hope that someday, with the help of the Provincial Government and the Department

of Tourism and Culture, and with the initiative of the local people, that we do

have a proper tourism plan and a tourism plant in our region of the Province

that will attract more people in and be of greater benefit. Because we are

certainly not reaching the potential that we can in our region of the Province

in tourism.

Those are the few comments I wanted to make on it. Having

said that, I think, basically, that the bill is positive. I think the

establishment of the department is positive and I would like to wish the

minister all the best in what has been a very important industry for the

Province, but I think we are nowhere close to reaching our potential yet, so I

wish the minister all the best.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I would like to have a few words on this bill,

as well. First of all, I would like to say that this department is going to be

extremely important to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to

continue in the same vein as my colleague from Grand Bank, that being the

tourism potential on the Burin Peninsula that has not been developed and has not

been taken advantage of. There are several areas where there is potential for

tourism development on the Burin Peninsula. One such aspect would be the Bay de

Loup Heritage Village. I know the minister is very familiar with that. The

present Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is very much aware of it. He

had meetings, as did previous ministers.

I would like to have the attention of the minister. I want to

talk about the Heritage Village, I say to the minister, the Heritage Village for

Bay de Loup, with which both ministers are very familiar. They are very

important to the people of the Burin Peninsula, there is no doubt about that.

This has great potential. A study was funded by the government, it was put in

place, and it determined that a Heritage Village at Bay de Loup would be very

beneficial. It claimed to restore the old Bay de Loup area and turn it into the

type -

MR. A. SNOW: (Inaudible) around Trinity Bay somewhere.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I say to my colleague from Menihek that

there is no other area in this Province, including Labrador, that has done as

much work in terms of determining the area, having the study done, and having

the leg work done as that committee has done.

MR. WALSH: It has to be a place with a better climate. It

is always fogged in down there.

MR. TOBIN: Well, I am not concerned about the land you

own, 'Jim'.

I am after losing my train of thought, thanks to my

colleague. In any case, to restore the Bay de Loup, which is a former fishing

village in this Province, the Placentia West Development Association has done a

tremendous amount of work on it. Elizabeth Murphy has been the chairperson of

that committee, which has done a tremendous amount of work, and I think that is

something that the minister should look at.

Now, there is another area, and something that concerns me,

which I am going to mention here tonight, and I don't care who -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Who is offended.

MR. TOBIN: - who is offended - and that is the need for a

second hotel in Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: I wish the minister would listen to this.

There was a determination made for the need of a second hotel in Marystown and

there is something very conspicuous happening. There is something very fishy as

to why that hotel cannot receive any assistance. I say to the minister, there is

something happening as to why that hotel cannot receive assistance. Now, the

whole thing is above board, I say to the minister. A group of businessmen went

out and purchased the land, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the piece

of land, and made application to ACOA for funding. ACOA, as I understand it,

submits it to the Department of Tourism and a joint committee made up of

officials from Tourism and ACOA decide on where funding is to be spent and if

the Burin Peninsula has the potential, in terms of tourism, to support the

second hotel.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: I ask the minister, when he gets up to speak,

to tell the House what the recommendation was from his officials to ACOA, to

that board, as it relates to the second hotel for the Burin Peninsula, because

there is a need for a second hotel on the Burin Peninsula. There is a need. It

has been proven.

MR. MURPHY: You should have known (inaudible) there has

been a monopoly down there for twenty years.

MR. TOBIN: Pardon?

MR. MURPHY: There has been a monopoly down there.

MR. TOBIN: The Member for St. John's South says there has

been a monopoly on the Burin Peninsula for twenty years.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes, I am sure you did.

So this is what is happening, I say to the Member for St.

John's South - that a group of businessmen, last year, got together and applied

to build an hotel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose district is it in?

MR. TOBIN: It is in my district, and that is why I am

standing up today and fighting for a second hotel. And I want to know what was

the recommendation the officials of the Department of Tourism - the people who

sit on that board - made to ACOA as it relates to funding.

AN HON. MEMBER: It should be vice-versa: What

recommendations has ACOA made to (inaudible)?

MR. TOBIN: Well, okay. I can tell you one thing. Neither

ACOA nor your department mean anything to me in terms of representing my

district, and if ACOA is at fault, and I believe they are, and if your

department is at fault - and in this case I believe both of them are - then

there is something wrong.

What we have here is the potential to improve and develop

tourism on the Burin Peninsula. We have a proven need for a second motel and

there is some reason why - and I am suspicious as to the reason, but there is a

reason why the funding for that second hotel cannot be approved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Did the owners donate to the Liberal Party?

MR. TOBIN: Well, I am suspicious, I say to the Member for

St. John's East, that is all I will say. But there is a reason why the

provincial Department of Tourism and this government, collectively, have turned

thumbs down on any funding for a second hotel in Marystown.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Well, I can say to the member that there was a

group of businessmen there who did not apply. The application of Brunet

Investments has only been to the government about a year or two years maximum, I

say to the Member for St. John's South. I say to the Member for St. John's South

that Brunet Investments has only been to the government a maximum of two years.

Why are they continuing to deny funding for the second hotel

where the need has been proven? That is the question the minister has to answer.

That is the question I want the minister to answer. Who is running this

Province? Who is running this government, and who is calling the shots?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Who is calling the shots, I ask the Minister?

Because there is some reason. How can you do a tourism study on the Burin

Peninsula, funded through ACOA and probably your department - I am not sure -

that shows the need for a second hotel, and every roadblock that can be thrown

up has been thrown up by both ACOA - ACOA are no different, or probably worse on

that issue than the Department of Tourism - probably worse.

DR. KITCHEN: It is a plot.

MR. TOBIN: It is a plot?

DR. KITCHEN: Yes, it is a plot.

MR. TOBIN: Now, okay, Mr. Speaker, this is very important

- the Minister of Health has stated that there is a plot to keep the hotel from

going to the Burin Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: He told the truth.

MR. TOBIN: The Minister of Health probably has told the

truth - that there is a plot. I know that, collectively, the government are

involved in it.

MR. SIMMS: 'Herb' knows of a plot.

MR. TOBIN: But if there is a plot, why? Why, I ask the

Minister of Health, is there a plot to keep the hotel from going to the Burin

Peninsula?

Mr. Speaker, growth, tourism and development on the Burin

Peninsula has been stifled because this government and ACOA are not prepared to

support something that is beneficial to the Burin Peninsula, something that will

cause growth. The minister knows because I spoke to him shortly after he became

minister. He is very much aware of it, he took a personal interest in it, I will

say that much for him. He took a personal interest in it and he had resolved to

do something about it but that resolve did not get very far because I would

suspect that when he brought it to some of his Cabinet colleagues, thumbs down,

to putting a second hotel in Marystown. Both ACOA, your department or this

government collectively are to blame for -

DR. KITCHEN: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: All I will say to the Minister of Health, we

had three hospitals on the Burin Peninsula before this crowd came into office

and now we have one. So you worry about the hospital industry and not the hotel

industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: There is one.

AN HON. MEMBER: No there is not, half-a-one.

MR. TOBIN: One, there is not two. There are not two

hotels. No, there has not been two hotels in Marystown for years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said there were two out there?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Tourism and Culture, he

did not know that.

MR. TOBIN: No it was not the Minister of Tourism and

Culture, he did not say it.

MR. SIMMS: The Premier's assistant.

MR. WOODFORD: The Premier's assistant used to be down

there. He used to stay down there -

MR. SIMMS: What other one, which other one?

MR. W. MATTHEWS: You closed it down with FPI.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes you did.

MR. TOBIN: There were two hotels years ago. I would say

that Brakes Hotel in Marystown, which was probably closed fifteen, sixteen,

seventeen years ago or something. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, fifteen, sixteen years,

the Member for Trinity North lived down there one time. As a matter of fact, the

job that I - no, I will not say that.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this government is causing a delay in

having growth in the tourism industry and I ask the minister, when he stands up,

what is going to happen now when Cow Head reaches its potential, when Marystown

receives the contract for the mechanical outfitting? I would say to members

opposite, when Marystown, the Cow Head facility in Spanish Room, Kvaerner

received the contract for the mechanical outfitting, what will that do for the

need for the second hotel? Will it not be time for ACOA and tourism to

reevaluate the requests that are before them? Now, there is one other issue that

I want to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) monopoly.

MR. TOBIN: There is one other issue - when I can get the

ministers attention - there is one other issue which I want to mention to the

minister and that is the need for an arts and culture centre on the Burin

Peninsula.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. TOBIN: The need for an arts and culture centre on the

Burin Peninsula, that is what I am saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a waste of money.

MR. TOBIN: The need for an arts and culture centre on the

Burin Peninsula, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: They have the culture, they have the artists,

Mr. Speaker, they have the artist, let me assure him that, they have the artist

- Port de Grave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: And I will not put the first word ahead of it

but there are three letters in it, I say to the Member for Port de Grave.

Anyway, there is a need for an arts and culture centre on the Burin Peninsula,

40,000 people or close to it on the Burin Peninsula and no arts and culture

centre.

AN HON. MEMBER: 40,000?

MR. TOBIN: Yes, sure you are never down there so you

would not know. 40,000, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is St. Pierre et Miquelon.

MR. TOBIN: Forty thousand or close to it and no arts and

culture centre. Now, there has been a request in there to the minister and to

others and I would like to ask the minister to look seriously at developing an

arts and culture centre on the Burin Peninsula to serve the people. It is very

important. There are other areas such as a golf course for the Burin Peninsula

that needs the support of this government as well as ACOA. I think it's very

important that it be put in place.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's Marble Mountain?

MR. TOBIN: Marble Mountain is not a golf course, I say to

the minister of....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What did the Minister of Justice say? Well

before there is one on the Peninsula?

MR. ROBERTS: I didn't say that.

MR. TOBIN: If that's what the Minister of Justice said

I'd tell him I have news for him. If that's what he said. I've news for him.

Anyway, I want to clue up, Mr. Speaker. What I say to the

minister is that he has an interesting and challenging department. The Minister

of Tourism and Culture has a very interesting and challenging department. I hope

that he'll look at this Island and treat it all fairly, and I would hope that he

will do something as it relates to the Bay de Loup heritage committee. Give me

the answer as to why you made a recommendation to ACOA not to fund a second

hotel. The other thing is, for God's sake do something to help out the tourism

industry from the numbers of people who travel the Burin Peninsula to go to St.

Pierre and Miquelon. As my colleague for Grand Bank said, they hardly buy a tank

of gas when they drive back and forth.

There's a reason for that. It's because there is really

nothing put in place on the Burin Peninsula to attract them to stay there. The

business community have a role to play on the Burin Peninsula as well. A much

larger role, I say to the minister, than they have played in the past. The

business leaders on the Burin Peninsula have to show some initiative to get

things done. That initiative has been shown in terms of a new hotel. It has been

rejected. That initiative has been shown in other area in terms of getting the

tourism thing in Goobies.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Tourist chalet.

MR. TOBIN: Tourist chalet in Goobies a couple of years

ago. More has to be done by business. More has to be done by this government and

this department. I ask the minister to get on and do it.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise

and have the opportunity to speak on Bill 3,

An Act Respecting The Department of

Tourism and Culture.

Tourism is indeed, as previous speakers have mentioned, a

very important industry in this Province. I'm not sure of the exact contribution

that the tourism industry makes. My understanding is that it's almost in the

vicinity of half a billion dollars, about $450 million annually, about 12,000

people employed in it, and 2,000 small businesses contribute to the economy very

substantially. The reason why I speak in favour of the Bill is that I think it

was a wise move by the government to set up a separate Ministry and to combine

Tourism and Culture. I think those two go very hand in hand, especially in this

Province, and I commend - and yes, the former minister deserves to be commended

for making that particular recommendation.

Quite often people tend to protect their turf when they get

into a certain office. That doesn't just occur in government. I'm talking about

generally speaking in the management of large corporations, or even small

corporations. People have a responsibility and they tend to think that if they

divide up their responsibility or give responsibility to someone else they think

it's giving up turf and giving up their so-called power. I want to commend the

former minister responsible for development for making the suggestion of

creating this new Ministry. If he had any input in selecting the new minister -

I can understand how the minister responsible for trade didn't always make very

wise decisions. They weren't always wise.

In all seriousness, it is a good Bill. Because I recognize

the contribution that tourism has made, more specifically to the Island portion

of the Province, and hopefully what tourism can do to add to the economy in

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, speaking just for a couple of minutes on

Labrador specifically, we are one of the gateways into this Province now. Since

the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway portion that is in Quebec we have

now become an entrance into this Province by road, which is probably one of the

biggest hindrances - and when I say `it` is, I mean `it` being transportation -

has been one of the biggest drawbacks to attracting tourists to this Province,

in my humble opinion - the fact that it is a very difficult Province to enter.

So tourists are finding it very difficult because of one, the expense, and the

inconvenience. The two go very much hand-in-hand,

whereas previously in my

portion of this Province where I live, Western Labrador, the only way in was

through a railroad that took a twelve hour trip. The railroad itself was a

selling point to some tourists who had a specific interest in riding a train,

but in most cases the average Joe or Josephine tourist looked at convenience of

travel, speed of travel and cost of travel, and a railroad, of course, was very

narrowly aimed at people who wanted to travel on a railroad, and it did attract

a certain number of tourists, but it was not able to attract the numbers

necessary to make it a very viable industry.

The other method, of course, into Western Labrador was air

travel and that was very, very expensive. The airlines operating in there found

that we did not necessarily get the amount of seat sales that were offered in

other parts of the country, and because of the monopolies that airlines have, I

would suspect, or a lot of people have suspected, that it was very expensive for

people to travel into Western Labrador and, of course, also Eastern Labrador.

But with the opening of the road into Western Labrador from the Province of

Quebec, and connected to the Trans-Canada Highway system throughout this

country, we found more people able to come in. Along with this - along with the

addition of these new people coming in and spending money - they also brought

some problems, so to speak, that this administration did not address.

Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why a lot of these

people come in is because Labrador is a specific attraction to people for its

wildlife. The opportunity to go hunting and fishing, and the opportunity for a

sense of adventure, the so-called `adventure tourist`. We must protect that

environment in Labrador specifically because it is one of the few untouched

parts of this Province. We have to properly supervise these people who are

coming in because we are finding that the proper amount of respect is not made

with regard to the throwing away of garbage, littering, and also these people

who are coming in hunting and fishing, because of the vastness of the size of

Labrador we are finding that the people cannot properly enforce regulations in

the hunting and fishing regulations that are within this Province.

So I would urge that the minister responsible for tourism

would work hand-in-hand with the minister responsible for wildlife, especially

in the enforcement and the enforcement regulations themselves, because it is

very important that we protect these resources that we do have and that will be

used to attract more tourists to the Province.

The Minister of Tourism is going to have to work hand-in-hand

with the department of wildlife to ensure that regulations are changed. I have

mentioned it to him several times before, to the ministry, in other

opportunities in speaking here in the House and in Budget Estimates, that we

have to in some cases change regulations with regard to the outfitting industry

as it specifically relates to the fishing in Labrador.

The Minister of Tourism spoke recently about how they were

hoping to be able to encourage the tourism industry to be able to expand their

season. He talked about going to the `shoulder of the season` I believe is the

expression he used which, what he was attempting to do, and his ministry is

attempting to do, is encourage more of these operators in the tourist industry

to be able to have things planned so they could extend the season to make it

more economically viable for specific attractions.

Mr. Speaker, I know people who have invested a lot of money

in Western Labrador into their outfitting businesses, and they specifically

started initially with the idea of catering to hunting and fishing during the

period of probably the end of June, mid-June, up until the middle of September

into hunting and fishing.

In the short span of four or five years they have found that

the industry that they were catering to seemed to have more attraction in the

Winter months. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the areas we have to sell in

Labrador, the mystique and the sense of adventure that is associated with

Labrador Winters is something that we should be selling and I believe we can do

very, very well in that market.

I think there is a market out there that we could have an

advantage because of the climate. We should use the climatic conditions and the

vastness of Labrador as an attraction in itself. I think it is something that we

have to promote and one of the methods of promoting that, I believe, would be to

encourage more the people who organize the Labrador 400 which is a sled dog race

organized out of Western Labrador. I believe we should be doing more to promote

this particular race because while specifically that itself does not attract,

and will not attract a lot of tourists, but as the (inaudible) did for Alaska in

promoting Alaska as a place of wilderness where you could go and view nature in

its vast untamed beauty, Mr. Speaker, I think we could do a very similar type of

thing in Labrador.

I do not believe there is any other part of the Province that

can cater to that specific narrow part of the tourism industry as well as

Labrador could do it. I think we should be using the Labrador 400 as a method of

advertising. If we could get one story in a New York newspaper, a Berlin

newspaper, or a London newspaper, on the front page, talking about some of the

things that occurred in the last Labrador 400, Mr. Speaker, I think it would

reap benefits to this Province a thousand fold. Because of the sense of

adventure that sled dog race would evoke and the sense of mystique that the word

Labrador evokes throughout the Western world, Mr. Speaker, I believe the

advertising value we would get would reap benefits to this Province in a

thousand fold. It could be a thousand times as much because we would have people

coming to visit and see some of the things that are here for the Winter.

I say we should be doing this because we have to move,

specifically in Western Labrador, because we have been totally dependent on the

mining industry and as we know the mining has had some problems over the last

couple of years. We should be doing this so that we can diversify the economy so

that we are not totally dependent on the mining industry for our total survival

in Labrador because we are so then tied to how the global economy goes.

We are resource based in the whole Province but more

specifically in the mining industry so if the steel industry slows down or has

some extreme competition we would then hopefully be able to pick it up. One of

the articles I read recently in a financial magazine suggests that while the

tourism industry is going to slow down this year one of things that is going to

occur within Canada is that the tourism industry is going to stay within the

country. Now, that should augur very, very well for this Province, especially

the part where I live in Labrador, because the more people who stay within the

country, and if we do some good advertising, good promotion, and good

development, we should be able to attract people in the Eastern Seaboard to move

into what I would hope would be Labrador. Indeed they could probably just make

the so-called circle route, the one that our hon. friend for Naskaupi has talked

about. The former mayor of Happy Valley, Goose Bay has probably been the

grandfather of the particular route, the circle route to attract tourists to his

part of Labrador and also down to the Island portion of the Province.

I think that could do very, very well for, not just Labrador,

of course, because it would attract people who would spend money in Labrador but

it would also benefit the whole Province because once the money comes in from

other places undoubtedly the Province itself would realize revenues from it.

But, Mr. Speaker, we as a Province, and you, as a government, Mr. Minister, you

have to ensure we do have a tourist chalet that could be used as an

interpretation centre, as a place to greet visitors when they come in, and the

other thing we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is - continue to operate that chalet of

course - to promote the improvement of the highway across Labrador, the

Trans-Labrador Highway. That highway has to be improved. I was disappointed that

this administration did not feel it necessary to participate in a 50-50

agreement with the federal government that was offered, a $20 million

construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway would do -

Now the Minister of Tourism and Culture is shaking his head -

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) give us some time.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, the minister will have the

opportunity to speak after I speak, or after somebody else speaks on this side,

but I would please ask him to allow me to finish what I am saying without his

interrupting.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize that $20 million is not going to

complete the highway from Churchill Falls to Goose Bay, it will not do it but it

will go far in making that highway more passable for people to move in. If we

had used the same principle that he is talking about, if the Quebec people, the

Quebec government had used the same principle, you now would not be able to

drive from Labrador City to Baie Comeau. I will refresh his memory, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) look what they are doing with the

link for PEI. Now come on, if you are going to do it, do it right, but do not

settle for nickels and dimes because you will never get an opportunity to get

the money again, so if you are going to serve your constituents, serve them

right, get the money that is needed to do the job completely.

MR. A. SNOW: I believe the principle of what we should be

doing, Mr. Speaker, is, if we have the opportunity of doing something now, let

us not think up all the reasons why we should not be doing it. Let us think of

the reasons why we should be doing things. When this highway started

construction in 1983, and Bill Rompkey was in the federal Cabinet, he argued for

$16 million and got it and started it. People in this Province said it was a

waste of money and he should not be doing it. I remember that very, very well,

Mr. Speaker. I happened to be involved in Labrador West when it occurred and I

commended Bill Rompkey at the time for doing it, because somebody had to start

it and that is the same principle today.

Part of that highway, before the minister interrupted me, I

do not know if he knows the history of the construction of the highway, not just

in this Province but the part that connects us to the Trans-Canada Highway

system in Quebec, but part of that road, was built with volunteer help. Now if

they had waited for somebody in Ottawa to build it, it still would not be done,

we still could not drive from Labrador City to Baie Comeau but they did not

wait, they built the highway and now we are using it because they did not think

up reasons why it should not be done, they thought of reasons why it should be

done and dreamt up ideas of how it could be done and did it, Mr. Speaker. They

did not blame somebody else about it. I would love to see the federal government

spend $100 million and pave the highway, but recognizing that that is impossible

today, because, even as our Premier suggests -

AN HON. MEMBER: That money will not even scratch the

paving for Labrador.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, okay, I would like to see $200 million

or a half-a-billion, $500 million, but we are not going to see that, he should

look at what Bill Rompkey has suggested, that politics is the art of

compromise,-

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) to finish it will be over $2

billion.

MR. A. SNOW: - so it can be $5 billion, but if we think

of reasons why we should not accept $20 million and not repair a bridge or a

washout, it will never be built. The Premier has suggested -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: Pardon?

MR. ROBERTS: We are the crowd who kept it open.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, with $400,000 and I think that is fine,

but it should be kept open with the same standard that a road between Gander and

Grand Falls is kept open.

MR. ROBERTS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Again we are arguing about the reasons you

always suggest why we cannot do something. Start thinking of reasons why you

should. $20 million will go a long way in completing that road, $20 million is

better than no money, and when Bill Rompkey got $16 million for the start of the

highway, people like you, sir, were down here in the Island portion of the

Province saying, it should not be done, but he did do it and he should be

commended for it, because people like you, the naysayers, who come from the

Island, who come into Labrador and do not want to spend the money, you think of

reasons why you should not be doing something rather than the reasons why you

should be doing something.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Rompkey for doing that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, and I am proud to say that I have voted

for him at times -

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I have.

And he has this right on transportation too, Mr. Speaker.

It's very important that we continue with the development of

Labrador and using this particular part of the infrastructure within Labrador,

the highway, to continue with the economic development of that part of the

Province. It's an important part of this Province and it can contribute and

wants to contribute more economically. By the same token, we want to be treated

fairly as people who live there and we expect the government to make decisions

that will benefit not just the Island portion of the Province but that will

benefit the people who live in Labrador.

I would also just very briefly like to suggest to the

minister that he would work together with his Minister of Finance to ensure that

the business operators, the tourism operators, the people who operate hotels,

play on a level playing field with their competitors in the sister province,

Quebec. Because what's happening, Mr. Speaker, they don't have a sales tax on

hotel rooms in the Province of Quebec and that makes it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: But they don't do it in Quebec. So the

problem is we set up a - the minister interjected that it's refundable in our

Province. I realize that. What it does is still when a person looks at it and he

sees that it's going to cost ninety dollars a day or $100 a day in Quebec, and

it costs $112 a day - for simplification, the rates aren't that high, but for

simplification of the tax amount - but if it costs $112 a day down in Labrador

City or Wabush, Mr. Speaker, then they stay in Fermont. Because we have to

recognize they're only a few miles apart, and very similar quality lodging

places.

So to make it a level playing field what they should be doing

is in a border situation such as we have they should be saying that it's not

necessary to collect the provincial sales tax. This allows not necessarily a

benefit for the tourists. It should never be construed as that. This allows the

operator of that particular small business to have a level playing field with

his competitor in a neighbouring province, who, by the way, was given that

concession because that particular government in Quebec recognized that in

border situations they needed a competitive edge, because that goes right around

the Province of Quebec, because they're neighbouring competitor over on the

other side is Ontario.

So they recognized in the border situations in Quebec that

they do not have sales tax. My understanding is is that down in Southern

Labrador there is no sales tax collected on the hotel rooms. The hon. member

representing Eagle River suggests that I am correct. So what's good in Eagle

River should be good over in Western Labrador. The Minister of Finance - I hope

he's taking down notes on this - because what's good for the goose is good for

the gander. He should recognize -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, so he can hopefully get

together with the Minister of Finance and correct this process that's occurring

in Western Labrador that's not allowing the people who operate a business in

Western Labrador to compete on a level playing field. That's all we're asking

for, that's all I'm asking for, in asking the minister to check. I would hope

that he wouldn't listen to the right-wing zealot who sits to his immediate

right.

Again, to reiterate, I want to commend the government for,

and I will support the intent of this particular piece of legislation. It's a

good piece of legislation, and I would hope that the present minister would

continue his understanding and appreciation of what Labrador does to the

economy. He's been recognized as somebody who does participate with the people

of Labrador, and I must say he has been doing a good job of communicating with

the people of Labrador and I hope that he continues that. I would urge that he

would look into those aspects that I did raise with a special interest into that

Labrador 400 problem. Because I believe that's something we should be funding.

It shouldn't be just looked at as what we so-called spend up

front. Because it's a terrific investment that I believe we should - I've talked

to Mr. Crosbie about it and I've talked to the minister about it. I would hope

we could get together with the promoters of that so we can make that into a

better project than it is today. By better I mean larger and thus we will

attract more media attention and create a tremendous amount of advertising for

this whole Province.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to speak in support of this legislation at second

reading. I think it is a good piece of legislation on the whole. I am pleased to

see that there will be a separate Department of Tourism and Culture because it

is an area of the provincial jurisdiction that I believe we have a great

opportunity in this Province to develop and promote, and having it under a

single ministry is a very positive way to do that.

I say as well that I think the minister of this department is

a minister with a great deal of enthusiasm for his job - even if he does not

listen to the praise that he gets from time to time - but the minister is one

who has a great deal of enthusiasm for this job and I hope he carries it out

with a great deal of force and even aggressiveness in pursuing the mandate that

he has to the development of the tourism industry in the Province.

I do have one concern about the mandate of the department. I

have examined the legislation and I have a concern that the department is being

given responsibility for a couple of areas that should properly be in other

departments. The management of wildlife is one, and the management of wilderness

and ecological reserves as defined in the Wilderness and Ecological Reserves

Act. This is contained in

Section VI of the Bill. Clause VI sets out the various

powers and functions and duties of the minister.

I believe that it is not a good idea to give wildlife and

wilderness and ecological reserves to the Department of Tourism and Culture. I

think they are more properly looked after in the Department of Environment and

Lands. We are dealing with issues that have to do with environmental concerns,

the preservation of wilderness, the preservation and the development of

ecological reserves. While they may well have tourist potential, so do many

other aspects of our Province; but to put them into the Department of Tourism

and Culture, I believe, is to leave them open to a different kind of approach by

way of management and development than you would expect to find in a department

that was concerning itself with the management of lands, with the control of

land use, with the overall responsibility for environmental protection, and I

think that these two areas - wildlife and wilderness and ecological reserves -

really ought to stay with the Department of Environment and Lands.

I have a concern because I have raised this issue with the

Minister of Environment and Lands in the estimates committee, and I have been

given some assurance that there are committees that work in an interdepartmental

way, but I have a concern that the approach taken by a department under a

Ministry of Tourism and Culture would still be different - would still have a

different thrust - than it would have in the area of environment and lands where

officials in such a department are concentrating their efforts on the management

of environmental issues, on the management of the environment generally and

that, of course, provides expertise, experience, contacts with other departments

and similar departments across the country in inter-departmental meetings

between this Province and other provinces on a national level, that it would be

appropriate to have the management of these two resources, which is what they

are, under another department.

That is not to say that we do not have a tremendous amount of

tourism potential in our wilderness, but that is not why we are preserving our

wilderness, Mr. Speaker, to attract people from other lands. We are preserving

our wilderness because it is important for us to do so as a commitment to the

environment in general, as a commitment to our stewardship of the world, our

stewardship of natural resources and our stewardship of all living forms, which

we have the opportunity to have some dominion over within our Provincial

boundaries.

I see that, Mr. Speaker, as part of environmental protection,

part of an environmental commitment, one that we would hope we could promote,

one that we would hope visitors from other parts of the world will want to come

and enjoy. Certainly the promotion in a tourist way, the provision of

advertising, even organizing marketing tours, so called eco-tours would be very

much an interest of the Department of Tourism and Culture but the actual

management, preservation, control and protection of these wilderness and

ecological reserves ought to be the purview of the Department of Environment and

Lands. It is that department, Mr. Speaker, that ought to have the say over what

level of activity can go on in wilderness areas and ecological reserves, not the

Department of Tourism and Culture.

With that exception, Mr. Speaker, I can support the

legislation. I have no difficulty with provincial parks and the provincial

interest in national parks being treated as part of the Department of Tourism

and Culture, because once a park is established it is understood that that park

would have a recreational use and a recreational value within either the

Provincial Parks Act or the National Parks Act, which itself provides the kinds

of protection which I think are desirable in the area of park service, in the

area of preservation of wildlife and other life forms in the national parks or

provincial parks.

But the notion of having separate wilderness and ecological

reserves there to preserve an element of our living environment or other natural

environment, that is something I think, Mr. Speaker, should be left to a

department that is concerning itself with the whole issue of land use management

and an assurance that taken out of that land available for development are

significant examples of all of our unique ecological areas and made sure that

they are made into ecological preserves to make sure that we do have available

to ourselves and to the generations to follow, the maintenance of our natural

environment.

One of the many areas of concern, Mr. Speaker, that we have

under the management areas of the Department of Tourism and Culture is the

historic resources of the Province, the Heritage Foundation, the Provincial

Archives, the archaeology and ethnology of the Province are listed as part of

our cultural and tourism heritage.

Just to give an example of one of those that has a great

interest to many people and is also a way of promoting visits or visitors, and I

have just seen recent correspondence received from the Newfoundland and Labrador

Genealogical Society which itself plays a very interesting role in supporting

cultural and tourism activities by providing a source of information to

individuals from all over - not just Newfoundland, but North America and indeed

the world - of people who have connections with Newfoundland through their

ancestors or through their current relatives. This organization is a small

organization in this Province, and has 1,000 members internationally who

communicate their research interests in Newfoundland ancestors through a journal

produced by the Newfoundland and Labrador Genealogical Society.

A certain activity - a very specialist kind of activity -

that a lot of people at some point in their lives pay attention to - their own

personal family histories, some for egotistical purposes, I suppose, looking to

find some ancestor with a very high profile past -

MR. WOODFORD: Or a big bank account.

MR. HARRIS: Or perhaps a big bank account, as the hon.

Member for Humber Valley says. More often than not they find some fellow with a

scoundrel in the background, or a skeleton in the closet, or some generation,

two or three generations ago, that runs you into some dead ends of past

research, but nevertheless it is an area of great interest to a lot of people.

Certainly at some point in their lives most people wonder where their ancestors

came from and where they may find other relatives, just out of interest or

excuses to travel to other places and do a little bit of research or a little

bit of checking. So it is the kind of activity that I think the Department of

Tourism and Culture can hopefully find ways of promoting and assuring that

organizations such as that keep alive.

In the area of the historic resources and the heritage

foundation, both of whom are listed in the legislation as being important areas

of responsibility of the minister, I think the minister can start a process,

even without costing money, that can have a salutary effect on the maintenance

of historic resources in this Province.

We could develop, and we do now have, a system of voluntary

registration of buildings. It gives them a certain amount of status to others

within the Province, but I think that we can do more in following perhaps the

British system of what they call `listed buildings` where buildings that have

been identified as historic resources, and on a list of qualifying properties

established by some jury board of disinterested people - not those who would

have a property interest in particular historic resources or historic buildings

that might want to be on this list, but someone who can establish criteria and

objective criteria to develop a method of identifying significant buildings for

either architectural or historic reasons that ought to be preserved.

There may develop a way of providing, over the long term, a

fund or a trust fund of some kind that the public may wish to subscribe to, that

the government could add to from time to time, that could be used and accessed

by owners of these buildings under certain conditions to maintain significant

properties so that as time goes on we are not losing significant properties to

development or to just a change in the decisions by the owners as to what they

want to do with them.

We had, in the last couple of years in St. John's, a very

significant property on Freshwater Road. I believe it was the Kelly home - one

of the oldest and earliest and longest surviving examples of an

Irish-Newfoundland cottage in St. John's, Mr. Speaker, that was taken down by

its owners to put up a more modern house on the same property.

In that circumstance there was quite a number of groups and

individuals who wanted to see something done about that. In the absence of any

legislation or legislative scheme that would allow actions to be taken to save

this property, the owners were able - or attempted - in fact, it was suggested

at one point in time that there was almost a form of blackmail going on. Where

the owners were prepared to keep this if someone was prepared to pay them very

significant amounts of money - far more than the market would value a property

of this nature - to stop it from being destroyed.

Surely that's not the kind of scheme we want to have. Where

if I as an owner of a particular property which is regarded by many as being a

significant historical building, and I say to government bodies: I will tear it

down or I will destroy it unless you pay me what I say I would like to have for

this property, and the public or the government or city councils are required to

either meet the demands of these individuals or see an important historic

resource destroyed - that's not a very happy situation. So I ask the minister,

when he's looking at ways of promoting and protecting the historic resources of

our Province, that he put in place a legislative scheme that would allow such

properties to be maintained. There are many ways it can be done. I'm not going

to provide an answer right now. It's something that I think is important.

While the minister is listening, I don't know if the minister

heard me when I started my speech, I wanted to say that I supported the

legislation and I supported the minister in his role. I think that the minister

is a very enthusiastic and energetic minister who likes his job. I guess that

means he's going to work very hard to keep it. I encourage him to be very

aggressive in the pursuit of the development of the tourism industry. To work

very hard in the pursuit of the development of the tourism industry and to

pursue the protection and enhancement of all of the tourist resources of this

Province. If he does that he will receive my support.

So I say in closing that I do support the legislation. I do

have very serious concerns about the Department of Tourism and Culture being

involved in wilderness and ecological reserves and wildlife, other than making

use of their tourism potential within the limits established by what I believe

should be another department. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, the legislation

receives my approval and commendation, and I commend it to all hon. members.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could speak

just for a few moments on this particular piece of legislation. It's an

interesting piece of legislation. The first thing I would have to say is that

nothing tremendously changes here except that we now have a Department of

Tourism again. I remind the hon. members of the House that -

MR. ROBERTS: Where's Doyle now that we really need him,

eh?

MR. WINDSOR: I remind the hon. the Government House

Leader that it was this government that took the name Tourism away from the

department. It was the Department of Development and Tourism when my friend

first took over, and it was changed to the Department of Development. The name

Tourism was taken out of it.

That may not seem very significant. I'm sure my friend the

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology learned during his time in being

responsible for tourism that the name Tourism in the title of a department is

very important in the tourism industry. It was precisely why we put the

Department of Development and Tourism together - originally it was the

Department of Development. I recommended after about a year, on the advice, and

on the submissions from the tourism industry, that we add the name tourism

there, because many tourists who are seeking information will look for tourism.

One real advantage of having the Department of Tourism and

Culture is that now in the telephone there appears the Department of Tourism,

even when it was the Department of Development you did not find it, and when it

became Development and Tourism you probably found it, but Tourism and Culture

makes it that much easier. That is a small point but when people from out of

Province, out of country, are looking for information they will look under

Tourism, they will look under `T', so it is important to the industry from that

point of view. The drawback in what is happening here is that now it is a junior

portfolio

whereas before it was part of the Department of Development with a

senior minister, a member of planning and priorities, and with all due respect

to my friend the Minister of Tourism and Culture he is a junior minister, he is

not a minister of planning and priorities, and he does not have the same impact

that his predecessor had, and that unfortunately is a simple fact of life.

MR. WALSH: (Inaudible) no signs on my lawn for you -

MR. WINDSOR: There were no signs on the hon. member's

lawn for me the last time, although I was close, but I can assure the hon.

member that when he looked out his window all he saw were signs for me because

every one of his neighbours certainly had them, all his next door neighbours. On

the street he resides on, I think, there are thirteen houses and I believe there

were ten signs in the windows for me. The only red sign was the ministers and

there were two undecided and I put them down as doubtful. That was a rather good

cul-de-sac that I visited on a very pleasant, actually, Saturday afternoon, a

very hot afternoon. I had a good chat with his next door neighbour, Mr. Head, a

long-time friend of mine from Mount Pearl, Jack Head.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got a good reception at my house.

MR. WINDSOR: I got a good reception at your house.

Actually, I did not personally go into your house. One of my campaigners was

next door. I did check to see if you were home and I was told you were not home,

that you were out in your own district as you should be. Mr. Speaker, I want to

get back to what I was saying on tourism here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you win my street?

MR. WINDSOR: I won every street.

AN HON. MEMBER: I was the only one on that street.

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Not only that I say to the

Premier's press secretary that I visited her street and she had a picture of the

Premier about that big in her front door. I spoke with every one of her

neighbours and I tell her she was all alone on that street as well. They were

delighted she was not around because they were friends and neighbours and were

found in a difficult position.

Mr. Speaker, I only have about two minutes and I do want to

talk about tourism here. After having made that point on the name of the

department and the power that particular minister has within Cabinet. I am sure

he will do his best, but we must recognize that he is not a member of planning

and priorities and that certainly carries a lot of weight with it were he a

member of planning and priorities.

My friend for Labrador West, I think, made a tremendous

speech in dealing with tourism in Labrador. It is not very often I watch

television but I happened to be watching last night and I saw a couple of

commercials, a couple that were placed by the Tourism Department which I found

to be quite good, I say to my friends opposite. I found them to be quite good.

There was one there that I think was placed by a Labrador agency. The address

was in Labrador City, so clearly it is some kind of a tourism organization

stationed in Labrador City and it was specifically on Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: `Destination Labrador.'

MR. WINDSOR: `Destination Labrador' is right. It

specifically was Labrador and it was one of the best tourism commercials that I

have ever seen. I was very impressed with it and I thought it showed Labrador in

an extremely good light and was very attractive. I have no idea who did it. It

was extremely well done. The photography was absolutely superb.

AN HON. MEMBER: M-5 did it.

MR. WINDSOR: M-5 did it. I congratulate M-5. It was

extremely well done and it put Labrador in the light that I know Labrador to be.

It showed all aspects of life in Labrador. It showed hunting, it showed fishing,

it showed the natural scenery, the wilderness, it showed the dog sled races, and

it showed the native peoples. I thought it was an extremely good commercial to

attract somebody to Labrador, and if I did not already have the great affinity

that I do for Labrador, it certainly would have enticed me to visit Labrador.

The point that my hon. friend from Menihek made is that there

is a tremendous opportunity. I have spoken in this House many times about the

opportunity to develop tourism in Newfoundland and Labrador, but he was speaking

specifically about the unique experience Labrador has to offer, and indeed it

does. It is a different part of the world. I have not been to Alaska but I have

been to the Yukon and I have been to the Northwest Territories. I have been to

Tuktoyaktuk Inuvik and I have seen the tourism industry they have there.

We always think of the Yukon Territories as having the great

gold rush. No doubt there were millions of dollars of gold came out of the Yukon

Territories, but that does not hold a candle to the amount of money that the

Yukon has received from its tourism industry, and on an ongoing basis. The

tourism industry in the Yukon today, as remote as that is in comparison to

Newfoundland, makes our tourism industry look like child play - very highly

developed, very seasonal, unfortunately - very seasonal - a very short season,

but a tremendous tourism industry that offers a tremendous range of activities

dealing with the culture and the heritage of the people, all based on the gold

rush. I do not think there is any one of us who came away from the Yukon without

purchasing a piece of gold jewellery of some sort made from natural gold nuggets

- and they are not all very, very expensive. In fact, the price of gold in the

Yukon is quite reasonable. It is not a fire sale by any means, but it was quite

reasonable, and the fact that you are there at the heart of it, and some of the

gold mines are still operating there.

Mr. Speaker, there is a tremendous opportunity in Labrador,

but we have to get away from the traditional package concept of tourism.

Labrador has a different thing to offer. It has the hunting and the fishing and

the backpacking and the hiking and the wilderness and the nature trails. These

are the things that Labrador have that are unique, that are different from any

other part of Canada, perhaps indeed any other part of the world. I have seen

most of Labrador, and there is no more magnificent scenery to be seen anywhere

than can be found in Labrador, and the hunting and fishing is unmatched.

Now we often criticize ministers if they take people in to

entertain them. Well I say, and I say without any apologies whatsoever, that I

took a fishing expedition to Labrador about eight or nine years ago, when I was

Minister of Tourism, and the people that I took - I took five people with me -

they were the top five fishing writers in North America. The editor of Field and

Stream Magazine, the fishing editor for Sports Week - these types of people -

the five top editors. We were very fortunate to get them here. We only had them

here because there was a North American conference of hunting and fishing

writers and promoters held here in St. John's, and we took advantage of the

opportunity to take those five people - to invite those five people - to

Labrador for four or five days I think we spent up there.

We visited, I think, four different camps during that time.

We went to the Minipi camp. We were down at Sand Hill, or Michaels River, I

think, and we were at Osprey Lake and I think one other. We saw salmon. We saw

some of the trout. We saw some arctic char. We were at Char Lake as well, and we

saw the full range of fishing in Labrador. My friend a moment ago said if we

could get one good article... Well I tell him that we got twenty good articles.

They are on file in the department - beautiful articles in Hunting and Fishing

Magazine, in Field and Stream, these sorts of magazines, with good colour

photography, very complimentary to Labrador. We could not have purchased that

kind of promotion through normal commercial advertising channels for a hundred

times what we paid for it. I would say the total cost of that trip was $6,000 or

$7,000. That might seem like a lot of money, but when you're talking about

chartering aircraft, hiring these commercial established lodges to look after

you - in fact, a great deal of it was donated by these people. Because it was an

honour for them. They were delighted to get these type of people come to their

lodges and write about their particular facilities. The advertising we got out

of that was worth millions, absolutely worth millions.

If ever the minister can get an opportunity to do that again

I encourage him to do it. He should stand up proudly and defend it. Because that

is the kind of thing that is good advertising. That's getting to the people who

have an impact. Bring in your tourist promoters. We've done that in the past.

Bring in the people who are putting together packaged tourist plans. There are

many trips that are offered to eastern Canada. Many of them are Nova Scotia, New

Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Invariably. There's a trip to Newfoundland,

but it costs $200 or $300 more because,

A) of the cost of getting here, and

B) because of the increased costs once you get here.

Because in a package tour such as that all of the costs are

wrapped in there. The cost of accommodation, with the taxes that we have here

that go on hotel rooms, that again makes us uncompetitive, or less competitive,

with our maritime neighbours; the costs of alcohol, the taxes on alcohol here

that go in; the cost of gasoline; and the fact that you don't have the same

rebates on money spent by tourists in this Province that other provinces offer.

We have some but not nearly enough.

So a commercial agent or a travel agent in the United States

offering a package to eastern Canada can offer a comparable package to Nova

Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to one in Newfoundland for about

$300 less. That is a matter of concern. The point I wanted to make to the

minister - if he was interested he might be listening - is that be very wary of

tax harmonization. Because we have the highest retail sales tax. If that becomes

harmonized with the GST so that it is now spread over all of the services that

are provided, that will make us even less competitive. Because again, it's a

higher tax in this Province than anywhere else. Even if all the other provinces

harmonize as well - which I would hope that we wouldn't even consider tax

harmonization alone, that we would only do it if the rest of Canada were doing

it. That if we do that, again we're taking our highest tax and applying it to

those items that are so important in tourism, and we're making ourselves far

less competitive.

If we were truly interested in the real, true, raw tourist

dollar we would find a mechanism to eliminate most of those taxes from the pure

tourist. We can't eliminate it from all travel, because commercial travel and

local travel is all involved here. But the pure tourist coming into this

Province, even if it's just package plans, if we were to eliminate that. If it

were for hunting and fishing outfitters, to eliminate taxes being paid on those

types of things. It would make them more competitive and would give us an

opportunity to develop those resources even further than they already are.

We've made a lot of strides. My friend talked about some of

the developments on the Northern Peninsula. I've often used the Northern

Peninsula group - and I've forgotten the name of them now - but the Northern

Peninsula had a tourist group that formed back about 1979. They showed a

tremendous amount of leadership. They had tremendous support from government

during those times. As a result, the Northern Peninsula has developed into one

of the more prosperous tourism areas, more frequented tourism areas, in this

Province. The tourism industry has developed and grown tremendously over the

past decade. That can take place in all areas of the Province. Government's role

in that regard is not to simply go down and develop the tourism industry itself.

Government's role is to create a climate, to provide some incentives and some

seed money for agencies such as that to develop the tourism industry.

As we did on the Northern Peninsula. Where when you hit Deer

Lake you saw a sign talking about the Viking Trail. That was the first area, and

it was their initiative largely and they asked government to designate the

Northern Peninsula Highway as a Viking Trail based on of course the L'Anse aux

Meadows discovery with the Viking settlement. One of the greatest tourist

attractions we have by the way. That is what you call a major travel generator,

something like L'Anse aux Meadows, Red Bay and the Straits. Those facilities,

those assets are real travel generators.

I think I have said in this House before that one time, when

as minister, when I was visiting L'Anse aux Meadows, there was a family there

from California and I asked them what enticed them to come to Newfoundland and

specifically to come to L'Anse aux Meadows. The answer was: I read about it in

National Geographic. National Geographic had done a story on L'Anse aux Meadows

and that is the greatest - I guess that sort of advertising which cost us

nothing - but that kind of advertising is the greatest advertising we can get.

There is a huge market out there of people that have seen all

the normal tourist trap type things and they are not interested anymore in that

but they are very much interested in history and culture, in something new and

something different. They have money to spend and they are prepared to go to a

place like the northern tip of the Northern Peninsula to visit L'Anse aux

Meadows.

I mentioned the Yukon, while I was in Inuvik in the Yukon

Territory, constantly there were bus loads of senior citizens from California.

Now the Labrador Highway is not a pleasant highway to travel on. It was not

paved in those days. I believe now that it is, if not all paved, not totally

paved, certainly most of it is paved, but bus loads of senior citizens from

California in Inuvik to see something different. They have the time, they have

the money and they are prepared to travel to those extremes to have a new

experience and I have no doubt that we have seen them here. We have seen bus

loads of senior citizens coming to Newfoundland. One of the biggest industries

that we have. More package plans, more bus tours contain senior citizens coming

out of this Province than anybody else, there is a huge market there.

My friends may recall that back in 1983 we had an exchange

program with Pasadena, California, which twinned Pasadena, Newfoundland with

Pasadena, California. For the first time then, we had a caravan of some

seventy-five motor homes, driven mostly by senior citizens, that started in

Pasadena, California and came all the way, collected people as they came and

there were around seventy-five of them when they arrived in Pasadena. I

participated in some affairs in Pasadena and welcomed them. I was actually

screeched in. I was the guinea pig for the night and if you have ever been

screeched in let me tell you, they screeched me in that night, in Pasadena. The

senior citizens got away lightly.

AN HON. MEMBER: They twisted your arm.

MR. WINDSOR: They twisted my arm. They twisted more than

that that night, I can tell my friend.

A very enthusiastic group and they have been coming back

every since, not as many of them, but they still come back every year. I took

the opportunity when I was in Los Angeles in fact, to visit the mayor of

Pasadena and to exchange greetings as part of that whole exchange procedure and

it was a very worthwhile thing. That is the kind of promotion that can have

lasting benefits because when those people, those seventy-five families, go back

to California, they talk to hundreds of more families and spread the word and

that is how tourism can grow.

I started to talk about the Viking Trail and that whole

concept, Mr. Speaker, of developing regions of tourism, and my friend from

Fortune or Grand Bank when he spoke talked about some work that I had initiated

on the Burin Peninsula in speaking with people down there about developing the

Burin Peninsula as a tourism region. I did the same thing on the Bonavista

Peninsula and they have now named that I believe the Cabot Trail, on the

Bonavista Peninsula. We did the same thing in the Gander Bay loop from Gambo all

up around Wesleyville and Carmanville and back around the Gander Bay and out

through Lewisporte and back to Gander, that whole loop makes a tremendous

tourism area. There is the strength, Mr. Speaker, in getting those areas

together to form a comprehensive tourism package

To market that and to say: look, here is an area, here is

what is available, we co-operate together, we are an organized group, we are

offering you a package here. We are offering you a whole range of activities and

it is pretty nice in the Northern Peninsula when the Viking Trail was in its

heyday, in any restaurant that you visited and you sat down, your place mat was

a map of the Northern Peninsula with all of the tourist destinations, all of the

hotels and facilities marked on that map, and I saw many, many tourists sitting

down in Rocky Harbour at the little restaurant in the corner, I do not remember

the name, it is just down from the Parsons' home -

AN HON. MEMBER: Fisherman's Landing.

MR. WINDSOR: Fisherman's Landing, one of the finest

restaurants in Newfoundland, the best, fresh cod tongues you can get in

Newfoundland, bar none. But I remember sitting there and seeing tourists sitting

next to me, taking their place mats and planning their trip because they could

see the whole map of the Peninsula and all of the major attractions, and all of

the motels, and all other facilities that they needed, and on their place mats

they could plan their trip, we will go here and will stop at this place this

night and then we will go here and then we will go here, a tremendous thing and

we should have that for every area of the Province.

You go to Prince Edward Island, you have the Blue Heron

Trail, you have Pink Lady Slipper Trail or something like that, I am not sure

what they are, but they have three or four areas like that as well; and Nova

Scotia is done that way. And it provides a focus for a tourist, let us go look

at this area; you probably do not have time to cover the whole Province, but the

tourist who comes here and visits the Viking Trail one year, and really enjoys

himself, may very well come back the next year and do the Cabot Trail and the

next year and do - do we have a name on the Burin Peninsula yet?

AN HON. MEMBER: I suggested Smugglers Alley.

MR. WINDSOR: Smugglers Alley. Do not laugh, there may

indeed be a big market for that, a big attraction, but the Burin Peninsula has

many things to offer from a tourism point of view, and again, a package of

events and attractions can be put together to make that extremely attractive to

tourists.

Again I say to my friend, it is government's role to create

the climate. Government has to be prepared to finance these agencies, not to

build all the facilities, there are not a lot of facilities needed, it is

organization and marketing. We have for the past fifteen years been

concentrating on building up the tourism plant, because fifteen years ago when

you looked at attracting tourists, you said: if we attract them where are they

going to stay, what do we have to offer them, what is the point of bringing

thousands of tourists into Newfoundland if we do not have anything to offer

them?

How many times have I said to the staff in the Department of

Tourism when I was there: what is the good of bringing them here, if they go

back out of Newfoundland with just as much money in their pockets as they

brought in? Unfortunately, fifteen or twenty years ago that was often the case.

Many of them came and they camped and there was a lot of benefit of course from

having people here who were camping, but by far, in those days the majority of

people who came were staying in camps, they were bringing a lot of food with

them - they might buy a bit of food and a bit of gas, not a lot else, there was

not a lot of things for them to spend their money on and few of them stayed in

commercial accommodations. We have changed that.

A lot of federal/provincial money has been spent over the

last fifteen years in building up the tourism plant so that today, we can, in

most areas of the Province, offer a reasonably good level of service, and the

whole concept of hospitality homes is an area that is growing and that makes a

lot of sense in this Province, because one of the problems of developing a hotel

or a motel in rural Newfoundland is that the season unfortunately is all too

short, depending on how you look at the season, in some areas of the Province

that may well be true, but for too long we have talked about the tourism season,

as July and August.

For twenty years I have been saying I do not believe you.

What is wrong with winter tourism, what is wrong with snowmobiling, cross

country skiing, downhill skiing, winter camping, ice fishing?... all of the

things that can be done in Newfoundland and Labrador in the wintertime. There is

a whole range of activities that people are just starting to discover and our

winter tourism has grown in the past ten or fifteen years tremendously, but we

have a tremendous amount of room to grow.

Now I do not know what is happening. I asked the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation - he was listening to me a second ago - I

would like for him to listen again, if I could get his attention. If I could get

the attention of the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation who had been

listenin