April 10,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 26

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. Members of the

House and residents of the Province of my Department's plans to call tenders for

highway improvements and construction projects. The Provincial Capital Roads

program, totalling $25.5 million, includes the upgrading and paving of gravel

roads, the resurfacing of existing paved roads, and the construction of new

bridges and repairs to existing bridges throughout the island portion of the

Province and Labrador. All these projects are 100 per cent Provincially funded.

Mr. Speaker, the projects to be carried out under the

Provincial Capital Roads program reflect the priorities established by my

Department to improve the overall transportation infrastructure of Newfoundland

and Labrador. The approval of this $25.5 million Capital Roads program brings

the total budget allocation for highway improvement to $105.7 million for this

fiscal year. The Government realizes that the projects I am announcing today

cannot meet every demand for highway improvement throughout the Province.

However, given the measures of restraint that the Government has had to adopt,

the amount of funds appropriated for this purpose is significant and will be a

boost to employment for the highway construction industry this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, rather than read the long list of the $25.5

million, I am going to table it and let Members read it themselves, so I table

the report at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Kilbride, seated in the Speaker's gallery today is the Ambassador of Sweden to

Canada, His Excellency Hakan Berggren, and the Consul General Karin Ahrland. On

behalf of all hon. Members therefore I extend a warm and cordial welcome to both

the Ambassador and the Consul General, and his entourage, and trust that their

visit to our Legislature, capital city and the Province will be an enjoyable one

indeed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

to thank the Minister for laying a copy of this on our desk before the House

opened.

Mr. Speaker, make no wonder he did not want to read out the

list. Make no wonder he did not want to read out the list of 68 project, of

which four are in PC districts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: No wonder he did not want to read out the

list, Mr. Speaker. Here is some fairness and balance for you, $25.5 million

spent in this Province on roads, Mr. Speaker, and at a quick glance at this I

can identify four small projects that will be spent on Members districts on this

side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, do you not think that the road between Goose Bay

and Labrador West deserved a little bit more money than a bit of maintenance

money this summer? I think that road deserves much more money than a little bit

of maintenance money. Out of 68 projects that are listed in here there will be

four in districts that are represented by this side of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four too many!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Four too many says the Minister of

Environment, I believe it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Four too many!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I am not surprised by that, Mr. Speaker,

because the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Health, the Minister of

Social services all think the same way. That is the type of thinking they have.

They are too narrow minded to see beyond their noses.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Already, Mr. Speaker?

Oral Questions

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

Capes.

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

Minister of Education, and I wonder if the Minister can confirm that the budget

for substitute teaching has been slashed by another $2 million, reduced by

21,000 to 61,000 days, a 22 per cent cut in the amount of substitute teaching

days and that substitute training days have declined from 90,000 three years

ago, a decrease of 30 per cent since the Minister took office?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am answering the

questions simply because at this precise moment in time, it is a collective

bargaining issue and I am in the process of handling it, that is why I am

answering the questions. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple; in the

Budget, the amount of money we estimate each year which is used for substitute

teachers is in the Budget in an overall amount of some, over $400 million, that

is used for teachers salaries and a variety of other purposes, so the budgeted

amounts are estimated amounts and all I can say to the hon. Member is, he knows

the way the system operates; these are estimated amounts and whether or not

there is a reduction or increase depends in large

part in terms of the number of

days - depends in large part on the work of a committee which we hope will be

working throughout the summer preparing a report to present to Treasury Board,

Department of Education, NTA before school starts in September so, the upshot of

this is that we will guarantee the same level of services as before, however,

the exact expenditures over the next few years will depend very largely on the

work of this committee.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly,

it perturbs me and surely it perturbs the teachers; the same thing was supposed

to happen with the teaching aides, last year, if we remember. I will ask the

Minister of Education then, if it is factual that these cuts are in place, does

he agree with the conclusion of the superintendent of the St. John's Roman

Catholic School Board, that only sick leave requirements will be able to be met

out of the amount provided - forgetting about anything to be negotiated - that

out of the amount provided only sick leave requirements can be met?

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

MR. BAKER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: Just listen, just listen.

MR. BAKER: - do not agree with that statement.

Presumably, there will be money provided for obligatory substitute teacher

expenses which include replacing teachers who are sick or off for periods of

time; there will be enough money for expenditures in terms of special leave,

money for expenditures in terms of bereavement leave and all these other leaves

that teachers have access to, so, it is not correct to say that there will be

money only for the sick leave. I must comment on the introduction of the hon.

Member, who said something about the situation like teacher aids; well, I would

like to inform him he is wrong on two counts: No.1. It is students assistants he

was talking about, not teacher aides and No.2. The expenditure last year on

student assistants went way up over the year before.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister of

Education then, since he was the one who said that the education budget - and I

remember the first headlines - will not negatively affect students in the

Province. The Superintendent for Humber - St. Barbe says 'Governments commitment

is not being met, students will now negatively be affected?' Does the Minister

agree with that statement?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the measures taken in the Budget,

I will reconfirm, will not have serious effect on the students in the classroom.

I cannot answer for a statement made by somebody else. All I can do is tell the

hon. Member what the situation is, and I cannot answer as to what the

motivations may be for one individual or another individual in the Province

making the particular statement that he made. I do not know what his motives

are. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would have a better explanation of that than I

would.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I just say that the man like the

other is an educator.

I will ask the Minister of Education then, how does he

propose that the in-service needs of teachers and the extra curricular

activities of students, which often require the absence of teachers from the

classrooms, will be met? And will he now admit that this cut on top of all other

cuts will affect the quality of education provided to the children in this

Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, all I can repeat is that pending

the report of the committee, obviously any decisions we make over the next

couple of years are going to be based on the information obtained from this

committee made up of, we hope, equal representation from the NTA, the school

boards and from Government.

As to how to more - I believe the terminology is: to examine

the effect of an efficient use of substitute teacher work force. So the way that

the money will be used will depend in a large part on the findings of the

committee. In the meantime, things will carry on as normal and we will provide

the same level of service as last year.

MR. HEARN: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Capes, a final supplementary.

MR. HEARN: A final supplementary, this time to the

President of Treasury Board. Does he expect then, after waffling over the

answers to such important questions, the teachers of this Province to sign an

agreement when important issues like this are left up in the air?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in every collective

agreement there are some issues that are left up in the air. The hon. Member is

quite knowledgeable about the fact that sometimes letters are appended to

collective agreements that put issues off to committees and all this kind of

thing, so there are issues that are left up in the air. As to whether the

teachers would vote to accept this particular collective agreement, it is a

very, very complex collective agreement, certainly, and some of the changes are

very complex, and as to whether they would vote to accept it or reject it I

could not say, and I would not want to interfere with that process of the

teachers voting. The hon. Member apparently wants to interfere with that

process, wants to create some kind of uncertainty, and is attempting to

interfere in that process, but I would not want to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I wonder if the Minister is aware

of the serious occupational health and safety problems that have been

experienced at the office of the Social Services Department in Marystown as a

result of fumes from a piece of heavy equipment that has been located in the

building?

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible)

MR. SPEAKER: In view of the circumstances we ask the hon.

Member to start his question over because the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations says she cannot hear the question.

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

I wonder if the Minister is aware of the serious occupational

health and safety problems that have been experienced in the office of the

Department of Social Services in Marystown as a result of a piece of heavy

equipment, a forklift, that has been operating in the building? I wonder if the

Minister can confirm that tests conducted there by her Department have on one

occasion revealed that pollution levels were six times above acceptable limits,

and that on another occasion they were so high that the readings went completely

off the scale?

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

Labour Relations.

MS. COWAN: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if indeed I should

have stood on a point of order. I thought it would be a compliment to the hon.

Member to want to hear his question. I would expect that he wants an answer. I

am not aware of the matter that he brings before me but I will check into it at

my earliest possible convenience. Now just to continue for a moment, Mr.

Speaker, if it has not been brought to my attention then perhaps it is not as

serious as the gentleman implies, but I will not say that until I have had an

opportunity to look into it.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

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

I am very, very surprised that the Minister responsible for

the Occupational Safety Act is not aware of this particular situation. I am

wondering if the Minister could explain why the situation has been allowed to

continue for a little more than two years and has really adversely affected the

health of workers in the situation, and why no measures have been taken until

recently to alleviate the situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

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

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, clearly the question asked is

asked to the Minister who has jurisdiction over health and safety, and another

Minister is not permitted to answer a question not within his competence.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all it is very unusual

to bring up points of order during Question Period. It is not normal, and the

hon. Member should know that. Number two, he also knows quite well that when

questions are asked the Minister who has knowledge of that particular incident

may answer. There is nothing which says that when you ask a question to the

Premier, for instance, that some other Minister cannot get up and answer it.

That is normal procedure in every democratic institution in the world, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: It is not. It is absolutely not.

MR. BAKER: The other point, Mr. Speaker, is that the

Minister of Social Services obviously has particular knowledge. The question

centred around why this went on for the last two years. Obviously, this Minister

who knows his department extremely well would have the answer.

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) his department, and that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

To that point of order, I refer hon. Members to Beauchesne

page 123, clause 418. It says, `The Speaker has stated, "Hon. Members may not

realize it but questions are actually put to the Government. The Government

decides who will answer." Another one in support of that, 419, `The Prime

Minister answers for the government as a whole` - in this case, of course, it is

the Premier - `and is entitled to answer any question relating to any

ministerial portfolio and matter of policy. Likewise, he is entitled to delegate

this responsibility to some other Minister.' So the two together clearly

indicates that any Minister who feels confident can answer the question that is

put. I refer the hon. Member to Beauchesne's, 123, 418 which says, "The Speaker,

has stated, "Hon. Members may not realize it but questions are actually put to

the Government. The Government decides who will answer."

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have full knowledge of what is

taking place at the Marystown office. We are presently, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you are not responsible

(inaudible)..

MR. EFFORD: If the hon. Member wants an answer to his

question I am willing to answer. If not, I will take my seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh !

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, for the Marystown office we are

renting a commercial building in Marystown. Apparently the basement

part is

occupied by a business which have been using a forklift in that particular

basement. Two weeks ago, some fumes escaped from the forklift - they had some

mechanical problems with it - and they got up into the building. We took the

workers out of that particular building. Since then we have met with the owners

of the building and are now in the process of asking the company which occupies

the basement to move out to correct the matter. We are fully aware of the

matter. An inspection was done and there were some levels of concern. They were

five times higher than normal, the Member was quite right. But measures have

been taken by the Department of Social Services with the owner of that

particular building and it is now being corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a

supplementary to the Minister responsible for the Occupational Health and Safety

Act in the Province, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. Is the

Minister aware that a number of employees found the situation so bad they found

it necessary to refuse to work, under

section 43 of the Occupational Health and

Safety Act? Does she not support their right to do so? And does she not agree

they exercised their right in a very reasonable manner, particularly in view of

the fact that remedial action was not taken and this went on over a period of

more than two years? Remedial action was not taken until they had refused to

work in that environment.

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

MR. EFFORD: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the Member

knows quite well that this has not gone on for two years; it is less than two

months since it was first noted in the Marystown office. Secondly, Mr. Speaker,

the employees were allowed and were told to leave the building until we found

out the source of the problem. That was done by the Department of Social

Services, by the ADM responsible for regional operations. There were no

employees forced to work in those conditions. After the problem was corrected,

the employees returned to the workplace.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary,

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Social Services.

MR. RIDEOUT: This is one that was meant for you!

MR. MATTHEWS: Can the Minister explain why his Department

has taken disciplinary action against those employees who took action to protect

their health and which was provided for under the Occupational Health and Safety

Act?

MR. RIDEOUT: Legally entitled to do it.

MR. MATTHEWS: The action taken is they have been notified

they are going to lose one day's pay, and there are letters of reprimand being

put in their files. Is the Minister not aware that such discriminatory action is

illegal under

Section 47 of the Act?

AN HON. MEMBER: It certainly is, too.

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

MR. EFFORD: Let me tell the hon. Member who is either

being misinformed or is intentionally trying to mislead the House of Assembly -

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker! Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

It is unparliamentary to say that a Member has intentionally

or deliberately misled the House, so I ask the hon. Member to withdraw that.

MR. EFFORD: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to

the House. Action has been taken against two employees, quite right. We will not

withdraw that action taken. The normal thing for employees to do when asked to

return to the workplace is to do so. They were removed from the workplace

because of fumes. Two of the employees who have been reprimanded had work -

three employees - outside. Social workers do not only work in the building. If

they had visitations to a home or a child who needs the service in a community

outside the workplace, they must do it. Those workers refused to work outside

the building, and a reprimand was given by the Department of Social Services.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MR. MATTHEWS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I say

to the Minister of Social Services that people in that office had visited

doctors' offices consistently over the last two years; they were sick, they were

dizzy, they had headaches and so on. They regularly consulted a physician. Now I

want to say to the Minister that in essence what he has said in this House today

is that he is prepared to break his own Government's Occupational Health and

Safety Act. Workers have a right to refuse to work in those conditions.

My supplementary is, will the Minister put a stop to this

harassment which can only send a message -

MR. WINDSOR: Will the Minister of Labour enforce the Act,

is a good question?

MR. MATTHEWS: Well, no, but he is harassing them. Will he

stop this harassment which can only send a message to all Government employees

that refusing to work in unsafe and unhealthy situations will result in

disciplinary action by this Government? Specifically, will the Minister

reinstate the day's pay and will he tear up the letters of reprimand?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me take the last

part of the question first. No. No. I will not tear up any letters of reprimand.

Anybody who works in the Department of Social Services, in the Marystown office,

they were not forced back to that particular site. The only people who were

reprimanded were people who were asked to do a job they had to do in the

community, visiting families.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not know what you are talking

about!

MR. EFFORD: I know very well what I am talking about. I

have also visited that office. I sat down with the employees last year, Mr.

Speaker, and had a very informal meeting with the them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Last year?

MR. EFFORD: I asked them if there were any concerns but

no worker -

MR. MATTHEWS: That is a lie!

MR. EFFORD: - at that particular time brought up any

problems to me personally, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: That is a lie! That is a lie!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the word "lie", which he

just used, please.

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, the propane fumes have been in

that building for over two years. That is why I made the statement that the

Minister is telling a lie, the problem was not there twelve months ago. Having

said that, I withdraw.

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

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again that I have

visited that office personally. There have been regular visits by the regional

operations manager who is situated in Harbour Grace and the Assistant Deputy

Minister to all the offices around the Province. When it was brought to our

attention we immediately removed the employees from that place of work until the

problem was corrected. It was noted that the people who occupied the building

corrected it immediately - removed the forklift from that particular building.

But, Mr. Speaker, very clearly people who have a

responsibility to work must do their job. Otherwise, we have to reprimand or

take action against those employees. Nobody will be forced to work in unsuitable

working conditions. Now that is the position of the Department of Social

Services, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) 47, read the Act.

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

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

the Premier. Just a few months ago the Premier informed the House of Assembly

that the Economic Recovery Commission had created 1,535 jobs - created or

preserved 1,535 - in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. At the time the

Premier said and I want to quote him here directly, `Every one of those jobs is

attributable to the Economic Recovery Commission, and would not have taken place

merely by the normal routine work of the Newfoundland and Labrador Development

Corporation.' I want to ask the Premier, does he stand by that statement today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have not looked at the

material or the information on which that position was based since I delivered

it to the House. I can only say I believe it was totally and completely accurate

at the time I gave it. In order to assess whether or not there is any change in

that situation today I would have to go back and reassess the material, and I am

quite prepared to do so if the hon. Member feels the matter is urgent enough to

do it.

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

MR. DOYLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Premier should

go back and take a long hard look at the statement he made.

Now let me ask the Premier is he aware that eighteen of the

thirty-two companies who received funding also received funding from Atlantic

Canada Opportunities Agency, ACOA, twenty-six received funding from Enterprise

Newfoundland, and only six received financial help from the Economic Recovery

Commission, totalling approximately a couple of hundred thousand dollars? Is the

Premier aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: That may not be the case. I will certainly

check it and see. But, I mean, that is of no consequence to the issue. The

simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, the ERC runs and directs and manages and built up

Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador to what it is today. That was done by the

ERC and it is under their constant direction on a regular basis.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the ERC has a tremendously good

working relationship with ACOA. They work fairly well with Mr. Slade who heads

ACOA, and they are able jointly through their efforts with ACOA to promote ACOA

financing. And wherever they can they certainly do that. So this does not alter

the information that I gave the House in any way, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier

confirm that the companies assisted by the Economic Recovery Commission in

actual fact created ten new full-time jobs, thirty-seven part-time jobs,

maintained employment in another eighteen jobs for a total of sixty-five jobs,

rather than the 1,535 jobs the Premier claimed not too long ago? And in view of

the performance of the Economic Recovery Commission let me say to the Premier,

which is costing the taxpayers of Newfoundland $3 million a year, over the next

fiscal year and the twenty-two or twenty-three months which have gone by, it is

going to cost $6.5 million. So it is costing $3 million a year. In view of that,

will he now abolish the Economic Recovery Commission and take that money to

preserve employment in health and education? $3 million can preserve 100 jobs in

health and education instead of feeding that fat monster the Premier has created

which is sucking up money like a vacuum cleaner and showing little or no return

for the twenty-four or twenty-three months it has been in operation. Will the

Premier abolish -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - that fat monster and put the money in health

and education and justice in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will reassess those figures

and report to the House within the next couple of days just how wrong the hon.

Member is. I know now without even having to assess them that he is grossly out

of whack and is grossly misleading this House, Mr. Speaker.

But just assume for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that he was

correct and the expenditure of about $3 million last year resulted in the

creation of sixty-five new jobs. That would be infinitely more jobs than was

created by the expenditure of the $22 million they had in Sprung.

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

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

Minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation. The Minister said

in this House a while ago in debate the ferry fleet owned by the Department was

for the most part junk and in need of replacement. If that statement is true,

why did the Minister delay the construction of a new ferry for Fogo Island? If

the fleet is in such need of repair and given the urgency of the need for fleet

repair as witnessed by events of the past few days, does he consider it wise to

further delay the construction of new ferries for this island?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Service s

and Transportation.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I am very suspicious every time

I am quoted by Members on that side of the House. What I might have said was the

fleet that was inherited when we took over was bought by the Members in

Opposition and was possibly junk, like the Green Bay Transport we spent a couple

of million dollars on and which is now a barge down in Marystown.

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

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask the

Minister this then. Is he aware of the statement made on CBC Crosstalk by the

Premier when he said that a new ferry for Fogo Island would only alleviate the

situation that presently exists for a couple of weeks? Has the Minister been

given this advice by his officials, or is this the Premier taking on the role of

a ship designer, a naval architect, a marine engineer along with every other

responsibility in Government?

MR. SPEAKER: Is nobody answering?

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a

question for the Minister of Environment and Lands who is responsible for

wildlife. I would like to ask the Minister if his Department has made a decision

on the issuing of polar bear licenses in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador this year? If so, how many have been issued and to whom?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a timely

question and I compliment the Member for putting it forth. I would have liked to

be able to give him a specific and definite answer today, Mr. Speaker, but that

is impossible. I would anticipate we could answer that question in greater

detail either the last day of this week or very early next week. We are

currently discussing the matter with some people in the hon. Member's district

and with some other Government agencies to determine whether or not we can

proceed. The Federal/Provincial allocation, as the hon. Member knows being a

former Minister, would be at four bears. Whether or not we can allocate that

will be determined over the next couple of days in consultation.

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

a supplementary.

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary to

the Minister. Would the Minister confirm that his Department has suggested that

there will be four polar bear licences issued, and also the Department will be

issuing those four polar bear licences to a native association in Labrador?

However, the licences will be available on a first come first served basis,

which means there could be school teachers, RCMP offices, or other people,

non-native people, who could get those polar bear licences?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered the

question to the level I can at this point in time. I indicated to the hon.

Member that we are in consultation with a group, and only one group actually in

Northern Labrador. So I would assume if the Member has some information, as I

understand it was dealt with in confidential correspondence at this point and we

have suggested a number of different ways to approach the problem. As I said,

and as the Member well knows, the maximum allocation we could probably make

anyway is four bears. It would very likely be in the Torngat Mountains District.

We have no mandate to give exclusivity to any particular ethnic group at this

point in time, and we may not do so until following the conclusion of any land

claims negotiation which may impact on that particular question.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final

supplementary. Is the Minster aware that all throughout Canada the only people

who hunt polar bear are aboriginal people? Therefore, why is the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador opening an avenue that will give people other than

aboriginal people the opportunity to hunt polar bear?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member would like

me to tell him all about polar bear hunting in Northern Labrador I would be

happy to do it. Two years ago, when the hon. Member was a Minister, he put in

place such an ineffective and inefficient method of killing polar bear that the

Labrador Inuit Association inadvertently, through no fault of their own and

based on the incompetence of the Minister's system, ended up killing seven bears

when the allocation was four. Further, Mr. Speaker, he issued a permit, it was

not a licence, the hon. Member issued a permit on the scientific basis, and the

basis of that is that there would be a collection of Polar bears for scientific

reasons. He bent the rules, he bent them out of shape in fact, Mr. Speaker. Now,

I was ready to answer a question in a straightforward manner and I am trying to

do so.

The scientific collection of Polar bears was for scientific

purposes and the LIA was given the authority during the campaign, Mr. Speaker,

when the hon. Member went up to Torngat Mountains during the campaign of 1989

with an unsigned permit for scientific purposes in his pocket and when he tested

the waters in his District and saw his chances to get re-elected, he signed the

permit on the spot. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

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

I was about to suggest to the hon. Minister that I thought he

was getting into the area of debate. It is also a good opportunity to remind

hon. Members that Question Period is not for debate, it is for asking Questions

and soliciting information.

Question Period has expired.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to apologize

for the outburst earlier during Question Period - and I did.

Secondly, I realize also that Members do not have the right

to question the Speaker's ruling in Question Period, that is also a rule.

However, there are times when there are issues and matters that arise, as Your

Honour would well know, in the heat of everything that make people upset. And I

certainly was upset today with that particular reference and ruling in Question

Period, and I think it is important that we know what the rules are,

particularly during Question Period.

And one can infer from the ruling today - paragraph 418 that

Your Honour used - which says: "'Members might not realize it but questions are

actually put to the Government.'" We understand that. But I have a reference

here also on page 122, paragraph 410 (16) of Beauchesne, 6th edition, which

says: "Ministers may be questioned only in relation to current portfolios." Page

122, Beauchesne, 6th edition, paragraph 410 (16), up on top.

Now my point is this. The question that my colleague from

Grand Bank was asking was related to and asking questions about the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, in her capacity responsible for occupational

health and safety. Those were the questions. That is truly in relation to that

Minister's current portfolio. It is not in relation to the current portfolio of

the Minister of Social Services.

So therefore in my view, I mean, there can be all kinds of

rulings one way or the other, perhaps, and we find that too from time to time.

But it is important that we know, because from Your Honour's ruling I think the

inference can be simply - the Opposition need not direct a question to any

Minister. Perhaps the Opposition would just stand, ask a question, and whoever

wants to answer it could answer it, which I do not think makes much sense. So I

think for that reason -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: - well, I mean, why could we not ask the

Minister of Municipal Affairs about fishery?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Well, because of the Speaker's ruling today it

does not matter who answers the questions and that is my whole point. Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, I draw it to your attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will do further research on

this. From my long experience in this House and having asked probably as many

questions as any other Member here, I know in my own case I have directed

questions to Ministers and other Ministers have answered them - it sort of

rubbed me the wrong way, but that is what happened. I can assure the hon. Member

that it has happened in the past. I will research it further and if I need to

change the rule I will do it.

The hon. the Premier might want to advance - I will listen to

an argument from him.

PREMIER WELLS: Just to respond briefly to the comments

made by the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Speaker, our rules are clear and fair -

both. It is very simple. The Opposition can direct questions to whatever

Minister they want but basically the questions are to the Government, as Your

Honour has ruled. If the Government feels that one Minister or another has more

information or can better deal with or more adequately deal with the question,

then that is the Minister who should answer it.

In this case they were dealing with the manner in which the

office run by the Minister of Social Services was running. Now, there is an

aspect of it that has to do with occupational health and safety, that is quite

true. But it is still for the Government to decide which Minister will answer.

Now, all the rule - that the hon. gentleman just referred to - all that means is

that a Member of the Opposition cannot ask of the Attorney General or ask of the

Minister of Finance a question relating to the running of the Attorney General's

Department. He cannot do that. He simply cannot ask the question.

But if the question is asked of the Attorney General and the

Attorney General says: well, really, that is dealing with the way in which the

funds are expended and the number of people we have employed, and the President

of Treasury Board is more knowledgeable, I will ask the President of Treasury

Board to deal with it. It is for efficiency and fairness and sensible operation

and I would ask Your Honour to confirm the ruling you have already made.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not to prolong this

debate but I mean, clearly, the Premier is giving us his

interpretation of that

reference and I do not think that is important; what is important is Your

Honour's

interpretation, that is what I am seeking, and since Your Honour has

indicated he is going to do some more research, that is excellent, great, that

is really what I wanted to hear. But may I take this opportunity to offer him

one other reference that he can look at when he does his research, and that is a

reference from Hansard of 1984, March 15th.

Just to show how wrong the Premier was, it is that the rules

are not clear, that is the whole problem; for example, the Speaker of the day in

1984, who was not me, by the way, said: 'The matter of transferring the answer

to a question from one Minister to another: I did have some research done, blah,

blah, blah, blah. There has been a ruling that when an objection was made by the

Opposition to a second Minister, if you will, giving further information, it was

objected to by the Opposition, and the Speaker then ruled in essence that the

second Minister could not continue with answers'.

There were rulings, maybe, we could also make some kind of a

decision on this and perhaps the best way to do it, would be, if a Minister

wishes to transfer to another Minister, which is what happened in this case,

then maybe, if the Opposition is not willing to go along with it, so be it, and

if not, then it might have to be done by consent, so that Speaker said and

implied that if such a situation arose, it should be by consent, so I refer that

to Your Honour: Hansard, March 15, 1984, page 325 for whatever it might be

worth; and I realize that the Premier or the Government House Leader might not

think it is worth very much, but Your Honour is what is important and not the

Premier's ruling.

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

MR. BAKER: Just a very brief comment on the case put

forward twice by the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Speaker, the reference to

which he refers, was a reference whereby a Minister gave an answer to a question

and then decided to let another Minister give a further answer to the question.

Obviously, I agree, Mr. Speaker, with that

interpretation, however, Mr. Speaker,

also, the hon. Gentleman has a habit of making a statement that has shades of

truth about it, it is partially correct and so on.

He made reference to a Speaker indicating that the rules are

not clear and obviously, in our Standing Orders, they are not clear, Mr.

Speaker, so, when you leave the Standing Orders, you go to the traditions and

customs of the House which, as Your Honour knows, ever since I have been here,

the tradition has been that Ministers who are most competent in that particular

subject matter can answer a question, that has been the history of my stay in

this House.

Also, Mr. Speaker, if that itself is not clear then we go to

the House of Commons and Beauchesne. Now Beauchesne, as Your Honour has pointed

out, is very clear, is very clear on this issue, and all Members of the House,

if they wish to go home and turn on the Parliamentary channel, can look at the

Parliamentary Question Period in Ottawa, and they will discover that most of the

questions in every Question Period are answered by a Minister other that the

Minister to which the questions are directed, so, Your Honour, I think it is

very clear; the Opposition House Leader is in a bit of a pique about something,

I do not know what it is, maybe he should get back to smoking.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will do as it indicated.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I failed yesterday to provide an

answer to a question on the value of the assets of Harlow, a question directed

to me by the Member for Grand Falls.

The university informed me yesterday that the university does

not have an appraised value of the Harlow property.

AN HON. MEMBER: It does not?

DR. WARREN: It does not have an appraised value of the

Harlow property. I did find out in subsequent research that approximately

$380,000, 152,000 pounds, was borrowed back in the late 1960s to finance the

renovations to the campus and that is being paid off I think, at about $30,000 a

year, Mr. Speaker, over a thirty year period.

I have a lot of other information on Harlow; on who attends

and the students from Newfoundland and the fact the hon. Member might want to

talk with the former Minister of Education, who arranged major education

conferences at Harlow, so there is quite a bit of activity involving

Newfoundland students and Newfoundland professors and instructors at Harlow.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand to present a petition on behalf of several residents

from Branch on the Cape Shore. Actually, I should not say Branch on the Cape

Shore. People refer to Branch as being on the Cape Shore but it is not, it is

part of St. Mary's Bay actually, but tied in with the communities along the Cape

Shore so it is usually lumped in. It is to the hon. House of Assembly in the

Province of Newfoundland Legislative Assembly, and it is a petition asking

Government to get involved in the reinstatement of Memorial University

Extension.

Over the last few days I have been talking about the part

that Memorial University Extension has played in the Cape Shore area, and I

notice the Minister of Fisheries looking at me, a man who has served the area

for quite some time and is well aware of the remoteness of the area, and the

involvement, I am sure, of MUN Extension. Undoubtedly, he will support the

request of the people from this area to have the university extension

reinstated. Now, yesterday, after I presented the petition, the Minister of

Social Services responded and gave us a lecture on expecting Government to

interfere with what goes on at the University. He talked about academic freedom

and everything else. I have no argument with that to a point, as the Premier

would say, and the Premier probably has no argument with it to a point, but

there comes a time in the affairs of men when certain interferences have to be

run, whether it is in accountability for the funding used at the University - an

institution which seems to want nobody else to look at how it is spending its

money - or to dictate to them how money is spent.

After all it is from the public purse and the buck really

stops here in the House of Assembly, so consequently you do not go and say you

must do this, that, or the other thing, no, but in consultation and in the power

of the purse strings certainly we have to make sure that the services provided

by our institutions with Government money, and with public funds, are the best

that serve the people of the Province. Consequently, when we talk about

interference we are not talking about direct interference we are talking about

using our heads in making sure that the institutions that spend our money spend

it in the most appropriate way. Maybe one could question why Memorial University

decided to axe MUN Extension, and it might be the same reason, or along the same

lines why CBC decided to axe Land and Sea. Now, if you want to tie in two

institutions that are similar, Land and Sea and the type of work it did

throughout rural Newfoundland promoting the fishery, farming activities, mining

activities, and what have you, particularly the mining and fishery sectors, Land

and Sea was to the average outport Newfoundlander the half hour during the week

when he could sit back, relax and look at something that really hit home.

Memorial University Extension: the programs that they carried despite the fact

that they did not get the splash that Land and Sea got, because of its

involvement in prime time and what have you, but through Decks Awash, which they

produced for years and years and their general involvement in the areas, they

carried the same kind of message to the public of the Province and gave the

public of the Province the same kind of a forum. Now, I said maybe the same

reason they were cut. If CBC had cut some of the other foolishness they put on

there would be nobody upset, there would be nobody going back looking for more

money. If MUN had cut some irrelevant programs, or cut out some of the special

research that is done in areas of maybe non-importance, then there would be no

reaction, but they cut MUN Extension because they knew there was going to be

lots of reaction, and there will be lots of reaction, and fortunately, or

unfortunately, it is directed towards Government, because as I say the buck

stops there really. The same way with land and sea, the reaction is not against

CBC where it should be because they made the decision, but yet people opposite,

of course, would like for the people who are upset with the action of Land and

Sea to direct their hostilities toward Government. Once again the Federal

Government funds CBC and consequently has to share in some of the blame. So, it

is just not fair for a Minister of the Crown in particular to get up and say, we

are not going to tell anybody how to spend their money. Each Minister in each

Department is told how the money must be spend, you know the Premier is told how

the money in his office has to be spent and he has to live within those rules

and laws, but he is responsible to the public for every cent as is every one of

us. Other people around the Province, boards and institutions, can travel all

over the world, the union members can have the best kind of benefit packages and

big cars, way bigger than Ministers, nobody hears a word about it - they are

accountable to no one. Anybody over there or anybody over here who buys a hot

dog is accountable to the people as is only right, but we are accountable. We

will be held up publicly. So there are different rules in the game, but because

it is public money consequently the public should get the best bang for the buck

MR. SPEAKER: Order Please!

The hon. the Member's time is up.

MR. HEARN: - and by axing Memorial University Extension

we are not getting true value. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to rise in

support of the petition presented by the hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, and I want to say in doing so that I do on behalf of my constituents in

St. John's East, a rather urban district for the most part, Mr. Speaker,

although it does contain a couple of what might be considered fishing villages,

Quidi Vidi and the Battery. But I want to say this because I think it is

important to remind hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Eagle River

and the Minister of Social Services representing Port de Grave who stood in this

House and, I suppose, criticized me for being from St. John's and for

representing a St. John's district. Well I want these hon. Members and all

Members opposite to know that the residents of St. John's East, my constituents,

have petitioned me, have approached me, have asked me to support MUN Extension

and to ask this Government to do what it can do and has to do to make it

possible for MUN Extension to continue. Again, contrary to some of the comments

you hear opposite, I know what it is like in Branch in St. Mary's Bay. I have

been to Branch and to Point Lance, Patrick's Cove, Gooseberry Cove and other

settlements around that area that are isolated, although they are relatively

close to St. John's compared to other parts of Newfoundland in the Minister of

Health's district. These communities are relatively close to St. John's, but

they are very isolated. There will never be a university in Branch,

Newfoundland. But I do know that organizations such as MUN Extension have been

successful in bringing the knowledge and the facilities and the communication

about other communities in Newfoundland to the people of Branch in helping them

to organize in agricultural projects, community projects, town council projects.

The hon. Member mentions a program that CBC had on, Land and Sea, which was

another means of bringing parts of rural Newfoundland to other parts of rural

Newfoundland, a method of knowledge about how we in Newfoundland live and make a

living.

Mr. Speaker, extension services was a part of that process as

well because it, through its communications facilities, through its

communications efforts and use of video and television and film projects were

able to bring the voice of the people of rural Newfoundland to each other, to

enable them to communicate and understand what was going on in other communities

and try ideas that they might be successful with.

Mr. Speaker, there is an office of MUN Extension in

Placentia. I am told that the University is about to close it down on Friday

afternoon. I also hear that there is some hope because I understand that the

Premier has agreed to meet with the friends of MUN Extension some time in the

next day or so. I understand also that there is a meeting of the Board of

Regents that is taking place tomorrow, and I understand that the Minster of

Education has also agreed to meet with some of the friends of MUN Extension to

discuss what possibilities there might be. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard the

Premier and the Minister of Education say, quite rightly, that the Government

ought not to interfere with the academic freedom of an institution like Memorial

University, and I think it is important to remind the public and to remind

Members of the House that that is a very important fundamental principle. But

that is not what we are talking about here. That principle did not stop the

Premier and the Minister of Education and the Liberal Party, when they were

campaigning, talking about what they were going to do in terms of putting first

year programs in various parts of the Island, having degree granting

institutions in Corner Brook, and the Grenfell College was going to be fully

degree granting. How could they talk about that if the University was not going

to be influenced by this Government? How could they talk about a university in

Central Newfoundland if the university was not going to be influenced and

directed or assisted by this Government to develop or maintain programs? That is

the kind of two-facedness we have been hearing from this Government: oh we

cannot do that, because it would interfere with this great principle on the one

hand, when it suits them. But on the other hand, when they want to promote

themselves, their own policies or their own programs they can do it. All of

sudden they can do it.

But, Mr. Speaker, they cannot have it both ways. They know -

and they know on that side of the House and on this side of the House -and the

people of Newfoundland know that this Government can assist, can influence, can

persuade and can support programs of Memorial University to carry on. The

University did not say we want to destroy MUN Extension because we have changed

our minds, they said we do not have the money.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

I do not think his time is up, but it is Wednesday and it is

three o'clock. And when it is three o'clock on Wednesday we have no choice but

to call the Orders of the Day. We are into a private member's resolution, but I

do not know which one. Yes, it is the Member for Lewisporte.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. PENNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure

today to introduce the resolution that appears on the Order Paper under the name

of the hon. the Member for Eagle River. In my hon. colleague's absence, I will

do the honours for him. I would like to first read the resolution:

WHEREAS all residents of Labrador from Lodge Bay to Nain

depend solely on Marine Atlantic to transport all food and supplies to their

communities; and

WHEREAS costal Labradorians presently pay the highest cost of

living in Eastern Canada; and

WHEREAS 80 per cent of the people are on fixed incomes and

employment is seasonal; and

WHEREAS high operating costs prohibit the economic viability

of many fish plants;

BE IT RESOLVED that this Honourable House condemn the Federal

Government for allowing Marine Atlantic to raise its freight rates to Labrador

by 60 per cent this year; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House demand an immediate

freezing of the rates until public hearings are held and a full review of the

issue is completed.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably appropriate that I

be the Member who would introduce this in the absence of my colleague for Eagle

River. Although I probably could not display the passion for the coastal

residents of Labrador that we have become accustomed to from my hon. colleague,

Lewisporte is, in fact, the primary port of supply to all of coastal Labrador

and it has been known for many years as the Gateway to the North. That is a

title it justifiably carries, Mr. Speaker. Because in 1987 alone, of the fifteen

wharf ports from Red Bay to Nain, Lewisporte supplied 50 per cent of all the

freight. And in 1987, of the total of 29,000 tons of freight that went to the

coast of Labrador, 40 per cent of it came out of Lewisporte. Now that is

compared with 24 per cent that came out of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give an example of some of the

actual increases. Instead of just looking at percentage, I would like to give an

example of just how these increases will impact on the coast. For instance,

firewood going to Labrador from St. John's has increased from $2.83 to $3.70 for

100 pounds. That is an increase of 31 per cent.

Class B, Mr. Speaker, which includes appliances, chairs,

doors, desks, explosives, furniture, glass, gyproc, hardware, heaters, mirrors,

panelboard, increased from $2.83 to $3.70. Again, a rate increase of 31 per

cent.

Class C: Building materials, cement, concrete blocks, fish

meal, grain, an increase of 38 per cent, from $2.68 a hundredweight to $3.70.

Now these may be just figures on a piece of paper, but for the residents of

Labrador this is very important.

On automobiles, auto trailers, boat trailers, campers, motor

homes and vans an increase from $238.14 to $298.75, an increase of 25 per cent.

And for any vehicle or trailer over twenty feet in length it has gone up to

$424, which is a $94 increase, another increase of 29 per cent.

Now Class A: This is the class that includes fish, fish

products, food stuffs, groceries, juice, milk, vegetables. I think this is the

one my hon. colleague was most concerned about, and I understand why. In a

non-temperature controlled shipment the price has gone from $156 to $248. That

is an increase of 59 per cent, a 59 per cent increase in the cost of shipping

food supplies. That is just unacceptable. In a temperature controlled

atmosphere, and when you are talking about vegetables we recognize the need of

temperature control, up to $293 from $191. That is a 53 per cent increase.

And if we look at a temperature controlled shipment in break

bulk service - and that is practically all the service that is coming out of

Lewisporte to coastal Labrador, it is in what they call break bulk form, it is

not containerized - that has gone from $2 to $3.22, for an increase of 60 per

cent. So that is all the fish and the groceries and the potato chips and the

juice and the milk going to Labrador, increased by 60 per cent.

Allow me to give hon. Members a little background into the

coastal marine service in Newfoundland. The coastal marine service in the

Province was started in 1899, and it was designed to serve all the isolated

communities along the coast of northern Newfoundland, the southern coast of

Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador. In 1949 Canadian National Railway

assumed the responsibilities - April 1, 1949, when we joined Confederation. In

1950, just a few months after that, the Federal Government began the

subsidization of this service.

And it must be noted that from 1950 to 1979 the freight rates

did not change. They did not change one iota, not one cent. Since 1979 the rates

were to be adjusted to the consumer price index plus 1 or 2 percentage points.

But here is an interesting figure. Bear in mind that the rates were to have been

adjusted according to the consumer price index. But from 1979 to 1987 the growth

of the consumer price index was 49 per cent, while the growth in the rates was

113 per cent. CPI 49 per cent, freight rates 113 per cent.

Under the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada it

is identified that the Federal Government has a responsibility to take over and

relieve Newfoundland of the public costs incurred in steamship and other marine

services.

So there is a constitutional obligation not to mention a

moral obligation, of the Federal Government.

On top of the 113 per cent increase up until 1987, now as of

January 1 we find that Labrador is being faced with another 60 per cent

increase. I think come May or June, when the service opens to Labrador we will

see the impact of that additional 60 per cent increase, on the residents. My

hon. friend from Labrador, on the other side of the House, will acknowledge that

when the shipping opens in May or June there is going to be a tremendous

negative impact on his constituents because of that 60 per cent increase which

has been sanctioned by his colleagues in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, this is indeed an

unfair blow for the residents of this country whose cost of living is already 30

per cent higher than the average of Eastern Canada. And I do not believe it is

going to stop there; I think you will see an additional increase next year.

Mr. Speaker, the Chief Executive Officer of Marine Atlantic,

Mr. Terry Ivany, states in a newspaper

article dated March 27, "Marine Atlantic

representatives say freight rates were already so low that the 50 to 60 per cent

increases will not be high in real dollar terms." Well, that is fine for him,

Mr. Speaker. That is not what they say down in Labrador. "There is no question

the rates have gone up and rightly so, Mr. Ivany told the Evening Telegram" -the

rates will go up and rightly so. "Freight rates will likely go up again next

year, he said." Fortunately, the people in Labrador do not get the Evening

Telegram. But I am sure if this were sent up, would they not be pleased to hear

that?

In 1986 Marine Atlantic and Transport Canada assembled an

eight person task force called the Labrador Service Task Force, and the

objectives of the task force were to recommend immediate improvements to

operational procedures and then to review and update previous studies and make

recommendations to meet the forecast long-term needs. Now this was the reason

that task force was formed. I have read the report of that task force which has

completed over three years of study and I can assure all Members of this hon.

House that it is thorough, it is comprehensive, and every member who sat on that

task force is to be complimented. One could not read it and see the indepth

study that went into it without being impressed.

Mr. Speaker, after they had completed their three years of

study this is what they recommended - this is the recommendation of the Labrador

Service Task Force.

AN HON. MEMBER: What page are you quoting from?

MR. PENNEY: Page 97. The hon. Member wants to know what

page I am quoting from. I quote from Page 97. Recommendation number one: It is

recommended that a new vessel be acquired to operate from Goose Bay to the North

Labrador Coast. The vessel would replace the MV Tavenor, the MV Marine Packer,

and the MV Terra Nova. This would be a vessel with a capacity for 90 twenty-foot

containers, capacity for sixty passengers, with forty berths and would be a

vessel with a maximum length of 270 feet. The estimated cost of that vessel

would be $50 million.

Number two: It is recommended that the MV Sir Robert Bond be

replaced, and a new vessel to operate from Lewisporte to Goose Bay would replace

the MV Astra. Specifications: capacity for at least 255 twenty-foot equivalent

units and trailers, with adequate head room for modern highway trailers,

capacity for 600 passengers with 400 berths. The estimated cost by the officials

of Marine Atlantic, $120 million. Now this is what was recommended by the people

who sat on this task force to improve the services to Labrador.

Recommendation No. 3, and I must support this recommendation,

Mr. Speaker. This one is of supreme importance, I suppose, to residents of my

District. It is recommended that a new passenger service building be built

between Station Road and Main Street in Lewisporte, with a passenger vehicle

marshalling area closer to Main Street. It is recommended that a new freight

receiving shed be built north of the new passenger service building, capable of

accommodating fifty tractor trailers at a time. The total cost of the

development is estimated to be $4 million, designed to accommodate the new and

improved modified rationalized service from Lewisporte to Goose Bay.

Further recommended the construction of a large new vessel to

service Goose Bay directly, and the development of the port as a transshipment -

MR. WARREN: (Inaudible).

MR. PENNEY: The hon. Member for Labrador, Mr. Speaker,

will have an opportunity to speak in this debate, I am sure.

MR. PENNEY: The task force is recommending the

construction of a large new vessel to service Goose Bay directly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PENNEY: - and the development of the port as a

transshipment point for north Labrador freight.

Now Goose Bay then would be the primary port of supply for

all the coastal communities in northern Labrador, and the cost of performing the

necessary renovations and improvements to the facilities at Goose Bay, which

would include the passenger building, the ramp, the containing yard and the

marshalling yard, will be an additional $2,100,000.

Mr. Speaker, another recommendation was made, and this is the

one I would like hon. Members to pay attention to.

MR. WARREN: Page?

MR. PENNEY: Page 108. `It is recommended that in line

with the significant improvement and capacity and service levels, changes be

made in the freight services provided and the tariffs charged effective with the

introduction of the new vessels which could be as early as 1990.' In line with

the significant improvements and capacity and service levels I have just

outlined, in line with that, the new tariff changes would come into effect as

soon as the vessels came on the run, which could be as early as 1990.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what have we seen? We have not seen any of

these new vessels. I am sure my hon. colleague will attest to that. Those new

vessels have not been put on the run. All these new and significant improvements

in capacity and services we have not seen. We have seen some changes in the

facilities in Lewisporte, and I believe there has been some improvement in the

facilities in Goose Bay. I acknowledge that. There was some dredging done in the

harbour at Lewisporte only last year, and the construction of part of the

infrastructure will begin in Lewisporte this year.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the other recommendations that

were going to so dramatically improve the service from Lewisporte to Goose Bay,

I could support the recommendations. And for the most

part I could support the

increase in the fees,. as well. To a large extent I could support the increase

in this fee structure because of what we were going to get. Mr. Speaker, to

refuse to provide the vessel improvements but to implement the increases anyway

is an absolute insult to the residents of Goose Bay; to have implemented the

freight rate increases without providing the additional service is an insult to

the people who have to live in Mary's Harbour.

MR. MURPHY: You got that right.

MR. PENNEY: And it is an insult to the people who live in

Rigolet and Davis Inlet and Black Tickle.

MR. MURPHY: And Battle Harbour.

MR. PENNEY: And Battle Harbour. And it is an insult to

the people who have to service those vessels and stock them and supply them and

work them out of Lewisporte. And, Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to everybody who

sits in this hon. House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Canada is made up of ten provinces, Mr. Speaker, ten which are equal,

and the residents of all ten provinces are to be treated nothing less than

equal. This Province is Newfoundland and Labrador, and no resident of this

Province should be given less service, a less quality service of transportation

of freight or passengers than any other resident in the entire Dominion of

Canada. They deserve to be treated equally.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

There is too much conversation going on in the House. I am

having difficulty hearing the hon. Member, and I am sure there are other hon.

Members who are having difficulty as well. I would ask hon. Members, if they

have to confer with some of their colleagues, to do so outside.

The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has an

obligation, Marine Atlantic as a Crown Corporation of the Federal Government

also has an obligation, a legal obligation, a constitutional obligation, and a

moral obligation to the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. And I see what

is happening. The attempt to introduce a total cost recovery system, a cost

recovery system in marine freight, that is the first step in the total

elimination of the service that is so invaluable to the residents of northern

Labrador.

Let me quote to you what they say in this report. They say

the rate levels for freight to coastal communities are so low as to encourage

irrational shipping decisions which, in the long-term, will impact negatively on

local industries and the availability of freight services to coastal

communities.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PENNEY: By leave for one minute?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave to finish..

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for

Lewisporte.

MR. PENNEY: I thank hon. Members. I acknowledge I do have

another twenty coming. I would like to quote as well from another portion of

this same report. Page 75, for my hon. colleague. `The very low tariff results

in low cost recovery and a high subsidy which causes difficulty justifying

expenditures for needed vessel and terminal improvements.' So what they are

saying is they need the tariff increases so that they can justify providing the

improvement to services. But they have not given us the improvement to services

and they have given us the freight rate increases anyway. Mr. Speaker, that is

just unacceptable.

I will have another twenty minutes later in this debate to

clue up, Mr. Speaker. I thank hon. colleagues.

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

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

begin by saying I appreciate the Member for Lewisporte speaking on behalf of my

friend for Eagle River. I say with all due respect to my hon. colleague that I

would just like to know what is happening. Because nearly three weeks ago my

hon. colleague brought this resolution into this House. This resolution could

have been debated two Wednesday's ago, but the Government decided not to debate

this resolution at that time.

Now, unfortunately, my hon. colleague is not here today to

present the resolution he brought forward. I know where my colleague is at the

present time, and that is understandable.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is having meetings in Ottawa.

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just said I understand

where my colleague is. I am sure my hon. colleague would like to be here. But I

know another thing, too. My hon. colleague could have been here if he had wanted

to, because I am sure when he made arrangements for Mr. Rompkey to set up these

meeting, the meetings could have been arranged so as to give him an opportunity

to at least discuss this resolution in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WARREN: Yes, Mr. Rompkey has arranged a meeting with

Mr. Lewis for him to discuss transportation issues in Labrador.

MR. RIDEOUT: So they brought this resolution on today so

he can put out a press release (inaudible).

MR. WARREN: That is right. Exactly.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, let us have the question now.

MR. WARREN: I am ready for the question now, if the

Members are ready.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague for Lewisporte

is missing one very, very important aspect of this whole resolution, because, in

fact, I said to my hon. colleague, if he would agree, and this is why I would

ask the hon. Speaker's indulgence in this, but this resolution is incorrect. I

ask my hon. colleague, would he not agree with this, that there are a lot of

irregularities in this particular resolution. I want to go through it, Mr.

Speaker. I say to my hon. colleague who introduced it that the resolution is not

factual. To begin with, 'whereas all residents of Labrador from Lodge Bay to

Nain depend' - the next word, Mr. Speaker, is not correct. They do not depend

'solely' on Marine Atlantic. That is the first thing. 'To transport all' - the

word 'all' should not be in there. That is incorrect, so these are two words

that are completely incorrect. 'Solely' should be erased from the resolution and

the word 'all' should be erased. That is the first

whereas, Mr. Speaker.

In the second

whereas: 'whereas coastal Labradorians

presently pay the highest cost of living in eastern Canada.' That is incorrect,

Mr. Speaker. That is completely incorrect. Coastal Labrador residents pay the

highest cost of living in Newfoundland and Labrador, but definitely not in

Eastern Canada, because northeastern Quebec and Baffin Island pay much, much

more, and that is in Eastern Canada. So that is completely incorrect.

Now, the third

whereas: 'whereas 80 per cent of the people

are on fixed income and employment is seasonal.' That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

The word 'most' should be added there, most employment is seasonal. So that is

three

whereas's, and the three

whereas's are incorrect. So with those three

corrections, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling. I would agree to continue with

the debate on the resolution if the hon. Speaker would agree that those three

corrections should be made. I leave this to the mover of the resolution before I

continue.

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

MR. PENNEY: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member for

Torngat Mountains now be prepared to continue with the debate and we will give

him an answer on this shortly?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member realizes, of course, that he

can amend the resolution.

MR. WARREN: No problem. I just wanted to throw it open.

In fact, I would hope that my hon. colleague who will conclude the debate will

take the necessary advice that I just gave him because the advice that I am

giving him is correct. That is the one thing about it, the advice that I am

giving him is correct.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me continue. I find this most

interesting because on March 25th I asked a question of the Minister of

Transportation and here is the simple question that I asked the Minister: 'Could

the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation table the correspondence he

sent to the Federal Minister of Transportation objecting to the 60 per cent

increase in ferry rates and freight rates for Marine Atlantic to coastal

Labrador.' That was the question I asked the Minister. He went off with his

jumble as usual, but the next day on March 28th the Minister tabled this

information, and I find what the Minister did most distasteful. In fact, the

Minister said, 'Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned with the situation that is

involved. My colleague from Pleasantville brought in a resolution and so on, and

he said, 'we have been in constant contact with the Federal Government.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is constant contact with the Federal

Government? So the Minister tabled the letter on the 28th. The Premier wrote to

Terry Ivany on December 29th objecting to the 18.2 per cent increase. He

objected to the 25 per cent increase and ends off his letter by saying great

increases of 18 per cent and 25 per cent are unfair. So the Premier objected to

those two increases, but what did the Minister of Transportation do? Mr.

Speaker, as of today, unless the Minister has done something since yesterday,

the Minister of Transportation has not corresponded either by telephone or by

letter to the Minister in the Federal Government about the 60 per cent increase.

All he did was write to Doug Lewis on November 23 and what did he say, Mr.

Speaker? I find this so interesting. He wrote to Doug Lewis on November 23, and

that is dated right here, you can see for yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year is that?

MR. WARREN: In 1990, and he attaches a letter written by

the Premier on December 29, 1989. Here is the Minister who wrote to Doug Lewis

on November 23 and he said: I am enclosing a copy of correspondence the Premier

wrote to Mr. Ivany eleven months ago. Now, that is what the Minister of

Transportation did about the 60 per cent increase. There it is, Mr. Speaker. He

wrote to Doug Lewis in December and sent him a copy of the letter that the

Premier wrote eleven months ago. That was his correspondence to Mr. Lewis. Mr.

Speaker, while my colleague was going through the Labrador task force I wanted

to throw out some interesting figures for all my colleagues on both sides of

this House, even my two colleagues for Grand Falls and Grand Bank. I am sure my

two colleagues for Grand Falls and Grand Bank will be interested in these

statistics. I say to my two colleagues for Grand Falls and Grand Bank, and other

people in this House, I want to give a couple of statistics about the freight

that goes to Labrador. It is ironic, by the way. Last year 17,457 tons of

freight went out of St. John's. Now, of this, as per page 104, commodities

shipped from St. John's - now this was in 1987, page 104, now of that 17,457

tons, have a guess what the majority was: soft drinks, 2595 tons, beer 1731

tons, liquor 214 tons, roughly 26 per cent was in these three commodities alone,

three luxury items. Mr. Speaker, let me continue because as I keep going it gets

most interesting. Last year in this Legislature what the Minister of

Transportation did was, he said I will table it for the hon. gentleman, so what

he did was go back to his office and pick up a letter he wrote to Mr. Lewis on

the 23 November.

MR. SIMMS: Is the Member for Lewisporte happy with that

kind of representation from the Minister of Transportation because he did not

protest it?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WARREN: On 23 November the Minister of Transportation

sent off a copy of the Premier's letter to Mr. Ivany, sent eleven months before

that, and that was the only representation that the Minister of Transportation

made to the Federal Minister. My hon. colleague mentioned the recommendations

and I would hope that the Member for St. John's South were here. The Member for

Kilbride is here and the Member for St. John's North, the Minister of Education,

the Member for St. John's Centre, the Minister of Finance, the Member for St.

John's West, the Minister of Mines and Energy. What other Members are here from

St. John's? The Member for St. John's South, of course, and the Member for Mount

Scio - Bell Island. Do you know that the Member for Lewisporte - I wish my

colleagues would listen to this because this is very, very important because I

want to show how the events took place. My colleague for Harbour Main, I asked a

question there about a year ago to the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and he asked the question which was, would the Minister advise if

he supports Marine Atlantic in having their main terminal either in Lewisporte

or in St. John's? The question was asked and the Minister got up - I suppose I

cannot say it in this Legislature but I will try, and if the Minister asks me to

withdraw, I will withdraw. But I have a feeling that that day, when that

Minister gave us the answer, it was the most deceitful answer that could ever be

given to any Member in this Legislature, it was the most deceitful answer that

was ever given because the Minister said no, we are not lobbying for any one

particular place.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic today that my colleague

for Eagle River is not here and my colleague for Lewisporte is here. When my

colleague just spoke for twenty minutes, he left off recommendation No. 4. So my

colleague for Eagle River is not here but my colleague for Lewisporte is here,

and he went through the recommendations but he left off recommendation No. 4.

Now, I suppose, a fellow has to look to see what recommendation No. 4 is!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hurry up. You are wasting your time.

MR. WARREN: Oh no, no. I have fifteen to twenty minutes

yet. In fact I will have lots of time, because we gave them a leave so -Mr.

Speaker, I have too many minutes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Now, Mr. Speaker, what did the task force

recommend in recommendation No. 4? And I would hope the media from St. John's to

Port aux Basques and from Port aux Basques to Nain is listening, because the

task force, in recommendation No.4, recommends the closing of the St. John's

Terminal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. WARREN: Recommends the closing of the terminal in St.

John's. And what is it going to cost for the Lewisporte terminal? $4 million my

hon. colleague said. In fact, my hon. colleague is up on this one as I am - $4

million is right, Mr. Speaker. Now why the increase in the freight rate?

Naturally to absorb the cost of building a new terminal in Lewisporte. Now I

have to give credit to my colleague for Lewisporte. Because here we see two

colleagues fighting, my hon. colleague for Eagle River and my hon. colleague for

Lewisporte, and the one who got the most support from this Government was the

Member for Lewisporte.

The Member for Lewisporte got this Government to lobby,

because missing from this correspondence - it is impossible for the Minister to

say on November 23, including a letter from the Premier eleven months earlier,

about the Marine Atlantic and not doing one other thing, because the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation and the Premier were, behind the scenes, and

I have this from very reliable sources, supporting Lewisporte as the main

Newfoundland Terminal for Labrador freight.

Now, Mr. Speaker, recommendation No. 4 recommended it, they

are already doing work in Lewisporte as the main terminal, and they are going to

close down the St. John's port. I am surprised that the member for Mount Scio -

Bell Island, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Mines and Energy, the

Minister of Finance, all those St. John's Members, have not been up along

shooting and calling and bawling at the Minister of Transportation to make sure

that St. John's remains one of the terminals for freight to Labrador. Because,

let me say to my hon. colleague for Lewisporte, not only will their freight from

Lewisporte to the Coast of Labrador be increased by Marine Atlantic by 60 per

cent, not only that, but let us keep one other thing in mind, and my hon.

colleague from Carbonear will realize this because a couple of his constituents

send a lot of freight to Labrador, to my district, to the Government stores and

so on, and they go from Carbonear to St. John's. But if they have to go from

Carbonear to Lewisporte, the cost is going to be much greater and it is going to

have to be absorbed by the consumers themselves.

So let us forget about - not forget about it, let us keep

something else in mind. Besides the 60 per cent increase there is going to be

another 10 per cent or 15 per cent, because we have to pay for the freight to

travel overland from point A to Lewisporte. And that is the concern I have.

I agree with my hon. colleague - it is too bad I only have

five or six minutes left - in that I believe Marine Atlantic has moved too fast.

If they are going to increase their freight rates, they increase them when the

services are in place. And the services are not in place yet. As my colleague

said, there is no new boat on the go this year. But I should say to my hon.

colleague I believe there will be, yes. There will probably be one large ship

going to the Labrador coast this year to improve services. I believe that will

be. But they could have increased it a little less than they have now.

It is going to have a cost effect on many of my constituents.

It is going to have a cost effect on many of the constituents of my colleagues,

the Membres for Eagle River and Naskaupi. And I would think for my hon.

colleagues the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Humber Valley, and the

south coast to a certain degree, there is probably going to be a cost effect.

However, I want to say at the same time I find it interesting

that at every opportunity - and I do not usually say this in the absence of a

Member, I say it when a Member is here - but I noticed recently, and I think

this is a fair assumption, and my hon. colleagues opposite will agree with this,

in the last year or so, that my hon. colleague for Eagle River -

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

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. WARREN: One minute, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying

that my hon. colleague for Eagle River for the past year or so, and justifiably

so, in a lot of instances has condemned, kicked and everything else at the

Federal Government. But I cannot remember if he ever got up on one or two

occasions and said thank you to the Federal Government for the Labrador

Comprehensive Agreement which gave him a new road in Fox Harbour last year. And,

on the other hand, not once has he condemned his own Government for the

increases in the last Budget which have cost Labradorians.

With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I

will support this resolution because I believe the people in coastal Labrador

have been given an increase that is unjustified at this time, until the services

are better in each and every community. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in

the debate this afternoon in support of the motion placed on the Order Paper for

the Member for Eagle River and presented by the Member for Lewisporte.

There is no doubt that the same concern expressed by the

Members for Lewisporte and Torngat Mountains for the people of Labrador is

equally applicable to the people on the south coast. I refer specifically to the

isolated community of Rencontre East, which is served by CN Marine, along with

the McCallum and Grey River and Gaultois and Franois and Ramea and Burgeo, all

up the coast, Petites and Grand Bruit, as well.

As of January 1, 1991 CN Marine drastically changed its rate

structure for what it considers freight. There is no doubt that even the word

"freight," the terminology, is out of focus. They have initiated a scheme

whereby a person travelling on a CN Marine boat who carries more than four

packages is charged $28 extra for every additional package put on the boat.

Let us look at what happened recently on the CN boat when a

passenger in Rencontre got on with four packages, or suitcases, and was asked by

another person in the community to take a package for her son attending a

post-secondary institution here in St. John's. When the lady got on the boat she

was told by the purser that she had one extra package and if she wanted to take

that one extra package aboard the boat, it would cost her an additional $28.

Needless to say that package which was meant for a student here in town, who

desperately needed the essentials that were in the package, was not put on board

because the mother did not have the $28 at her disposal at that particular time.

That, to me, is totally unwarranted. And the question has to be asked, how can

CN Marine justifiably charge exorbitant rates for these isolated residents in

the area?

Let me illustrate another example. An individual who orders a

gallon of paint, or four litres of paint I would think, from a Home Hardware

paint or the four litres of paint for $15. When that gallon of paint is put on

the CN Marine boat they are automatically charged an additional $28 freight. So

that four litres of paint then becomes $43. That is outrageous, and there is

just no way that can be justified.

Recently an individual went to Bay d'Espoir, brought home

three beams or three timbers to repair his boat. The three timbers were put on

the deck of the boat by his son and when he got to the purser's office he said,

$28 freight for the three timbers. I mean, what in the world is CN Marine trying

to do to people along isolated parts of the south coast and into Labrador, as

well? There is just no way they can justify that.

The suggestion given by CN Marine when one of the residents

of the community of Rencontre East complained about the freight charges was, I

would suggest you buy co-operatively. Now can you imagine an individual taking

his order and going to fifty or sixty houses in the community and saying, do you

want a gallon of paint? Do you want a sheet of plywood? Do you want a bolt of

blackjack? Then when you get an order you place it so that you can save the

freight to the residents coming into the community. To me, no one in their right

mind could suggest such a solution to the problem.

The philosophy here I believe of CN Marine is totally

unrealistic. I believe what we have is CN Marine saying that the people are not

going to use the system. And obviously they are not going to use the system at

such exorbitant rates. Then what is CN's rationale for that? They are going to

say the need is not there and so we can justifiably eliminate the system. But,

again, the question needs to be answered, how can anyone use a system that

causes such unfair taxation on these people who are isolated along the coast?

I believe it borders on being morally criminal, if not

economically criminal, to use these boats to charge these people exorbitant

amounts, over and above what people who have roads pay for transportation. And

there is no justification. I believe that philosophy, the concern for the

disadvantaged and deprived areas like we have in Newfoundland and Labrador, when

decisions are made in Ottawa, these communities are not given their fair share

so, therefore, we will see these inequities continue as long as people do not

realize where these people live along the dotted parts of the coast.

I was talking to the school principal only recently and he

said for every small package we have to order to come into the school - I mean,

a small school like St. Stephen's in Rencontre, and there are a number of them -

we have to pay $28 freight on every package that comes on the boat, and that

package can be one, two or three pounds, or 300 pounds, it is the same charge.

Let's look at, for example, the excessive amount of freight

charges that the people who buy groceries in this small community would have to

pay. No doubt these excessive rates are built into the prices that are given to

these people by Lewisporte Wholesalers, IGA and people in central Newfoundland.

These excessive freight charges no doubt are passed on immediately to the

consumer. Only recently I was talking to a lady in the community who complained

about social services, the fact that she did not have enough money to do the

things she wanted to do, and she said: people must remember that here in this

small community things are excessively expensive. Two point two kilograms of

sugar, she said, costs $2.72. Now if you were to go to any supermarket in any

one of the larger urban areas you can get that 2.2 kilograms of sugar for half

that price. So really, what we are saying then is that in these small

communities these social service recipients would need twice the amount of money

in order to be able to share in the same groceries, the same standard of living,

that people in the urban and larger rural communities would be accustomed to.

We must remember also the excessive rates that are put on,

for example, fuel oil. I will give you another example. I was talking to a

person only a couple of days ago who says that they had twenty barrels of fuel

oil delivered to the community and 100 cases of beverages. And it cost them $500

in freight over and above the regular price of the fuel and the beverages.

Now that in my opinion just cannot be warranted, is totally

unjustified, and I believe that the Minister, who has taken a firm stand and has

refused to offer any solution to the problem, just is not in touch with reality

for the people in the isolated communities. Their buying power as I said is

drastically reduced by the excessive freight charges and totally unwarranted and

unjustified.

Now, the people say - and I think the Member for Torngat

Mountains said earlier - that these particular increases could be brought in at

(Inaudible) steps and increased gradually. The guy said this morning: we could

understand $5 or $10 a package, but $28? There is just no question. We just

cannot survive with these particular types of rates.

Now, these particular rates as I said were arbitrarily set

without any concern for the old or disadvantaged people along the coast. I am

sure there are some people in the House who understand what isolation is. First

of all we must remember how the people live in the smaller communities. I grew

up in a community that was completely isolated, and it is only a person who

grows up in an isolated community who can understand the feeling that one had

when the coastal boat moves off from the wharf. There is just no way to describe

that. When you see the only contact with the outside world move away -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you feel lonely?

MR. LANGDON: Lonely? Lonely is just not the word for it.

There is something here in the pit of your stomach that you cannot really tell,

and I experienced that for my whole lifetime. I can remember many times as a

young person in school coming out of the three-room all-grade school looking off

and seeing the coastal boat and realizing that was the only contact that I would

have with the outside world. And it is only isolated people who realize that.

And I think that can be really further emphasized by the fact

that I remember when I was about seven or eight years of age, and we were having

supper this night - and I think I might have mentioned this in the House before,

I am not sure - and a small fishing boat, a twenty-foot boat, left the community

with a lady who was pregnant and had developed complications, and that small

fishing boat had to go to Harbour Breton which was twelve miles away. I can

remember about a half an hour or three-quarters of an hour after, my mother said

something must have happened because the boat had turned around to come back

home. I can see now in my mind's eye the people from the community gathered

around the gut area, down toward the breakwater, and the feeling was that this

lady had died, I was not very old, but I realized the impact of it. And sure

enough when the boat came in the mother and the child both had died in the

fishing boat on the way to the hospital in Harbour Breton. That is what

isolation is all about and I do not want anybody to look at isolation, in a

sense that isolation is beautiful, because it is not. The Member for Bellevue

realizes also about isolation as he grew up in Woody Island, in Placentia Bay.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: It is all right to go back for a day or two,

but to live there is quite a different situation.

Aside from all that, Mr. Speaker, and talking about the

problem along the south coast: recently there was a petition delivered, I am

sorry, a letter written to Doug Lewis and a letter to the Premier and to the

Minister of Transportation supported by all the communities on the Burin

Peninsula and the Connaigre Peninsula asking to have the road connected between

the Harbour Breton Highway and the Grand Bank Highway, the Burin Peninsula

Highway. The letter came back from the Minister of Transportation saying that it

was low priority.

All right. Now obviously that means that the people from

Rencontre East will continue to be in isolation, along with Grey River and along

with MacCallum and along with Ramea and these particular communities. Now then

if that is the case and there is no particular plan to put the road into

Rencontre East particularly, then I think the Minister should realize the

situation that these people are in and should immediately, without any

reservation whatsoever, reduce these particular rates so that people can use the

dollars and have access to them in the same way that we do.

There is no doubt, as I have said, that these rates are

causing extreme hardships to the residents served by CN Marine and they should,

as I have said, without delay, freeze them or roll them back until they can be

investigated and have hearings to see what affect it has on these people.

Also, when we look at the motion that was presented here

today we realize that there are a number of people who go from the Carbonear

area of Newfoundland to fish in Labrador during the summer. Looking at the

increasing rates since 1988 it has been astronomical, and really I believe it is

possible, if I have done my calculations right, that CN Marine has changed the

rate from footage to tonnage. And by changing it from footage to tonnage, a fare

that was approximately $130 in September 1990 would be in excess of $400 in

1991, and that is a 300 per cent increase in that particular rate.

Also a fare from Lewisporte to Nain in 1989 was $155.10

compared to $197.00 in 1991. So what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is that there

have been dramatic increases in CN Marine's fares both for passengers and for

fishermen and for residents along the isolated areas of the Province, and I

believe that these people deserve something better. They indeed should be

considered to have gradual increases in the freight rates, as the Member for

Torngat Mountains suggested earlier, and it would show, I believe, some

sensitivity toward these people who live in isolated areas and do not have the

access to the outside world or access to the other parts of the urban and city

parts of this particular Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that I again support the motion put

forward by the Member for Eagle River, supported by the Member for Lewisporte

and by the Member for Torngat Mountains.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: My gosh, he has a heart after all!

AN HON. MEMBER: A heart but no conscience.

MR. WOODFORD: I would like to make a few short comments

on this particular resolution. One of the things I would like to say from the

outset is that both speakers from the other side of the House, the hon. the

Member for Lewisporte and the Member for Fortune - Hermitage, dwelled on the

fact of what the Federal Government was doing with regard to user pay when it

comes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. While doing that, Mr.

Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. In this case I agree with a good part of

the resolution, but at the same time, we have to look at what is happening

provincially. I rose in this House and spoke on user pay pertaining to airports

and I condemned the Federal Government for what they did - or what they are

trying to do, because it is not done yet. The decision is not yet made and I

hope it will not be, because it is going to be detrimental to Atlantic Canada,

and it is going to be detrimental to Newfoundland in particular because of the

smaller aircraft we are using in Atlantic Canada and in Newfoundland as a

Province.

And we are going to carry it right through when you talk

about Newfoundland and Labrador, especially Labrador. It is going to hurt the

people of Labrador just as much as this increase will hurt the people of

Labrador when it comes to groceries and so on, the basic commodities of life,

the things we take for granted on the Island portion of the Province. Mr.

Speaker, the philosophy of the Federal Government today demands that all Federal

Government Departments pay for their services, and that is what they call user

pay. What is the difference in what the Federal Government is doing and what

this Provincial Government is doing when it comes to user pay? Let us just draw

some analogies and just make some comparisons.

The Federal Government with regard to the fishery: we know

what happened with the boats on the coast this year with regards to the payment

of fees for fishermen all over the Province, but more specifically on the South

Coast because of the Winter fishery. We look at the airports, the user pay for

terminals in this Province and the effect it is going to have on this Province

as a whole, and more specifically on the communities in which the airports are

situated. We can go on and on because of other recommendations made by the

different departments in the Federal Government, but let us stop and look at the

Provincial Government and what happened in one year.

Just in the last Budget alone, and I will not mention the two

previous Budgets, albeit it is only the second year - I think in another couple

of weeks we will have the second anniversary of this administration, but it will

be the third Budget which will take them through - unless they bring in another

one - until the end of the third year. The hon. Member for Fortune - Hermitage

dwelled a lot on the small communities in this Province and how people are

treated in small communities when it comes to the delivery of services by

ferries, small fishing boats and what have you. The same thing applies though,

Mr. Speaker, when you talk about health care in this Province. He mentioned the

pregnant lady who was left to go on a fishing boat. Well I can mention cases in

Corner Brook, at the Western Memorial Hospital, where we have ambulances lined

up at the same door waiting to get unloaded because there is nobody inside to

handle them. Is that any different? Is the cut in the health care system in this

Province any different when you pass the burden and tell the administrators of

hospitals that they are not getting any other money? What do they do? They have

to cut services. They have no other alternative, because they cannot raise it.

And that is one of the differences.

Municipalities: What has the Department of Municipal Affairs

done with municipalities in the Province? They told them, Look, you do not get

any services unless you start paying. Mr. Speaker, there is no more blatant form

of user pay than what was done through the Department of Municipal Affairs when

it comes to amalgamation, regional service boards, and especially the new grant

system. Absolutely none! In fact, it is catastrophic. The hon. Member mentioned

in this debate about having hearings and a full review of the issue before the

price increase is instituted. Where was the review on the new grant system?

Where was the review on the cuts and increases to health care? Where was the

review, Mr. Speaker, on school boards in the Province? It comes right down to

the students, and more specifically now with the new cuts when it comes to

substitute teachers in the Province and school boards. Where are they going to

make it up? How many extra chocolate bars and how many extra calendars will they

have to sell in order to make up the short fall in funding for school boards in

this Province over the next few years?

Now, Mr. Speaker, just today I was talking with a school

board in my area and there is absolutely no way they can have any professional

development days this year, none whatsoever, despite what Members opposite say.

Absolutely none. Not one can they have because of the cutbacks.

Mr. Speaker, I say this publicly today, I said it when I

spoke on user pay. When it comes to the difference in user pay, new terminal

fees and landing fees and so on at airports, I spoke against it. I wrote the

Federal Minister against it, and I say the same thing today and I say it

publicly. When it comes to standing up for something I think is right I will do

it regardless of who is in Ottawa and regardless of who is the administration of

this Province. I think we have to do that as Members, and today is no exception.

But while we do that, I as an Opposition Member can criticize the Government in

Ottawa and can criticize the people on this side of the House today, the

Government of this Province, I think that should stand on the other side of the

House as well. Not only criticize the feds, fed bashing every week and every

time we get up, resolution after resolution against the feds for this and

against the feds for that. Yes, when it is in place do it, but the same thing is

applicable here in the Province. When this Government makes a decision that is

going to affect and hurt the lives of each and every individual in this

Province, I think every Member regardless of what side of the House they are on

should stand up and be counted.

I realize the situation Cabinet Ministers are in. I realize

that. They cannot very well get up and criticize a decision which came out of

Cabinet. I know all about that. You are either in or you are out, there is no

half way. And I can understand some Members opposite coming out of the Cabinet

room and having reservations about something. I can see that as well. But, in

any case, making decisions is not easy. It is not easy to not only please

everybody in Cabinet, but to please the people who elected us. It is not easy. I

realize that as well, but I think we should all stand and be counted, especially

the backbenchers. When it comes to criticizing something that is going to have a

drastic effect especially on the sick, on the elderly, on the students and the

young people of our Province, I think you should stand up and be counted.

Mr. Speaker, the Member in his resolution mentioned in one

whereas about the high operating cost prohibiting the economic viability of many

fish plants and so on. That pertains to pretty well every community in this

Province, not only to fish plants. But I can understand why it is there, because

of the importance of it to the hon. Member's district.

But in any case, it applies to pretty well every municipality

in this Province, on whether a community or a business is economical or not. The

so-called vital links in services, and the one that comes to mind, especially so

in this case, with those increases, is, as the Member for Lewisporte has already

stated and I will not go over it again, the Class A rating, the one that

pertains to - well, I agree with the alcoholic beverages. They do not have that

up enough as far as I am concerned. They should have put that one up, it would

have probably prohibited it from going in there. That is where they make their

mistakes. They have that included with fish, fish products, food stuffs,

groceries, juice, milk. Potato chips is another. I cannot see why that should be

all-important. And vegetables. I mean, the rest of it are the basic things of

life, the basic commodities of life and, as I said, the things we take for

granted here, when we can run out to a store and get absolutely what we like any

time of the year.

I think it is wrong. Not wrong in the sense of increasing the

rates altogether, but I think it should be done in a more gradual way. And I

think if it was done over a two or three or four year period, this would have

been acceptable to anybody, even the people in Labrador, because realistically,

Mr. Speaker, Marine Atlantic has some of the lowest rates - the lowest rates -

in Canada, if not the world. And we realize that you just cannot operate like

that forever. There has to be some recovery.

The options for Marine Atlantic to gain any more money are

very few; the Federal Government has told not only airports - the airports in

this country, Mr. Speaker, are really subsidizing the other two main modes of

transportation, especially the boat when it comes to the sea routes in regards

to the marine sector and the rail and road sector.

Approximately 80 per cent of the $1.4 billion that are spent

on airports in this country is recuperated by the Department of Transport. If

this user pay fee goes in now, by the rates that are recommended they will

recuperate any where between 80 per cent and 86 per cent of the total cost of

all terminals and airports in this country. But at the same time, when we are

talking about the marine sector we are talking about the funding spent on the

marine sector. Of the 58 per cent of expenditure in the marine sector in this

country, they recuperate and get back only 20 per cent. And when you see another

example of what upper Canada and how upper Canada feels about Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, some of the comments made, in particular pertaining to this

subject, said that Ottawa has to collect this year at least $25 million from the

marine sector. That will only cover a small part of the cost. We realize that.

It is only vessels exceeding fifteen net registered tons that will have to pay

that.

The comparisons they make are the commercial fisherman and

the pleasure boaters; they are not paying enough. That is what they are saying,

those people are not paying enough. They took up 80 per cent of the budget in

coast guard costs last year, the fishermen and the pleasure boaters in the

Province and the so- called - in this particular

article (inaudible) from

Aviation and Aero Space says that they should pay more.

This is another example. Maybe he is from Ottawa, I do not

know, and not in touch with the way of life in this Province, especially the

Labrador section. This is another prime example of what happens when we get

people who are not close to the source and not close to the situation making

decisions which are going to affect all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

But having said that, Mr. Speaker, the people opposite are

close to what is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador. They see every day of

the week what is happening in this Province, and they realize full well that

some of the decisions which have been made over the last couple of years are

going to hurt every Newfoundlander and Labradorian - not altogether with regards

to food. We talked about the food and the freight rates going into Labrador. We

are going to hurt, another prime example, the social assistance recipients in

the communities around this Province because of the social services component

dropped from the Department of Municipal Affairs.

Who pays now? They may not have to get food shipped into Deer

Lake, they may not have to get food shipped into Port aux Basques, or they may

not have it come into Port Rexton or anywhere else by water or by sea, but they

still have to buy it; they still have to go to that store and buy it, and they

have less and less and less to buy it with. The most things those people have

and the only things they can buy are their groceries. In this case, where we

have as high as a 60 per cent increase to the residents of Labrador who are

isolated, away from the main wholesalers in the Province, as far as I am

concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong. As I have said, if it could be done

gradually, yes, there is no doubt in my mind it could be done.

So what happens to all this when we are talking about the 60

per cent increase on food stuffs to Labrador? Those people down there are also

people who are going to be affected by the so-called social assistance

component, for instance, from Municipal Affairs. It is not only on the Island.

Those people are affected as well, and hit hard. Because before the Department

of Municipal Affairs would pay the fees in the municipalities for all social

assistance recipients. But not only will the recipient now have to pay his share

of the taxes in that particular community, he is also being told by the same

Minister and the same department that the councils in the area, who govern the

people in the constituencies, were told they have no choice but to raise taxes.

So to add insult to injury, we have the burden of responsibility shifted from

the department to the recipient to pay the municipal jurisdiction in their area

whoever it might be, whether it is a town or community, or whatever. At the same

time, that particular council has to put up the rates or else cut the services

to those people. Now if that is not user pay, Mr. Speaker, a direct example of

user pay, then tell me what is not. Now, if that is not being hypocritical. And

any Member opposite, I suppose - on this one they cannot tell me I am wrong,

because I am right. It is factual. There have been press releases on it. And I

can go on into other areas, but I will not.

I mentioned earlier about the students, about the school

boards.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: No, there were the cuts announced last

night. I watched television last night, and after a Budget just being brought

down, and after numerous statements in the House, I was told by announcers on

television that there would be another cut to substitute teachers in the

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. WOODFORD: It is not the substitute teachers in the

Province, it is the school boards which have to deal with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You cannot believe everything you read in

the newspaper.

MR. WOODFORD: I did not read it in the newspaper. I

challenge the Minister right now, if the hon. Member does not want to do it for

him, to stand up and tell me that there is not going to be any difference

between last year and this year with regards to substitute teachers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Treasury Board said?

MR. WOODFORD: I heard what he said. I will have some more

questions for the President of Treasury Board tomorrow, questions which I know

are different. That is going to hurt every student in this Province. They have

nothing left. They have 14,000 days left after they get their cuts now, all over

the Province. You tell me what they are going to do for professional

development. What do they do, Mr. Speaker? They send the children home. They

have no choice but to send them home. Get out! Get home! We have to have our

professional development days and that is it. Now is that not shifting the

burden of responsibility right over completely onto the boards and the

municipalities and the health care sector in this Province? Mr. Speaker, you

cannot get a better example of user pay. They will have to sell some bars and

draw up some new calendars this year, I can assure you, if they are going to

have extra in the classroom or in the board office.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Pentecostal (inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: You are going to see some changes I can

assure you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to mention those few things because I said we

would go against the Feds when they do something wrong, and if that is every day

of the week I will do it. But at the same time I will go against any decision

made by this Administration when it is going to hurt each and every individual

in my constituency and my District.

AN HON. MEMBER: Will you praise us if we do something

right?

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, I certainly will praise you when you

do something right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Okay.

MR. WOODFORD: When you do that you let me know and I will

be the first one to praise you if it is right, right to the hilt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time has elapsed.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief

comments this afternoon on this particular resolution, because even though the

resolution does not name other places in the Province that will be affected by

the changes in CN Marine as it relates to charges for fares and for freight in

this Province, I do support the resolution. It is too bad I did not have a

chance to talk to my hon. colleague for Eagle River before he presented this

resolution because I think I would have also, as my hon. friend for Labrador

recommended a few minutes ago, have recommended some changes in this particular

wording, even though I do support the resolution. I guess everyone in this House

supports the residents of Labrador from Lodge Bay to Nain, as it mentions here,

but I am sure everyone else in the House also supports those people who are

living on the south coast who have to face higher freight rates, as well as

people who travel back and forth to Labrador each year.

In the first part of the resolution it talks basically about

the residents of Labrador from Lodge Bay to Nain. As I said, what about the

other people living along the coast of Newfoundland who travel to Labrador each

summer, those are the people I am interested in and that is what I hope I will

be able to address this afternoon.

I do agree that Labradorians have probably the highest cost

of living in Newfoundland. One Member mentioned a few minutes ago what the cost

of living in Baffin Island is, and I do not know what the cost of living is, I

guess, outside of the Province, but I really do not see anything wrong with that

comment:

whereas coastal Labrador is presently paying the highest cost of

living. It is basically making a comment, making a statement. It relates to, I

suppose, the extra cost that people on the coast of Labrador or anywhere in

Labrador have to pay over and above what we pay, say, in St. John's or even in

my District, Carbonear.

Whereas 80 per cent of the people are on fixed incomes and

employment is seasonal: Well I do agree with my hon. friend who spoke previous

to me, when he said: a lot of jobs in Newfoundland are based on seasonal work.

Most all of us, I suppose, have fish plants and people who are dependent on the

fishing industry in our Districts and we all know that if you are involved in

the fishery or almost in any industry in the Province related to the fishing

industry in recent years they are basically seasonal, other than those few

people who work in the service sector and hold on to their jobs. Most people in

my District are, I will not say most, but a large percentage of the people in my

District are seasonal workers.

The comment he made about the viability of many fish plants

on the Labrador coast, I do agree with that. I want to get into some comments as

it relates to the resolution and Marine Atlantic and so on. But I also want to

talk a little about, if I am allowed, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is all

relevant, about some of the things that are happening as it relates to the

demise of the Saltfish Corporation, and I thing the demise of the Saltfish

Corporation in Newfoundland has a direct impact on what is happening as it

relates to our coastal rates. Now that may sound a little off but it is a

feeling that I have, when we look at what has been happening in the fishing

industry in Newfoundland over the last few years, and the number of times we

have run into roadblocks as it relates to the fishery, I wonder sometimes if the

Federal Government does not have a plan to downsize