June 1, 1992                     HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS            Vol. XLI  No. 47


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments of the House's time to congratulate the St. John's Maple Leafs on their outstanding season this year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GULLAGE: I was asked to attend the final game and to be present on the ice when the Calder cup was presented. I was acting for the Minister of Sport, so I did see the final game, Mr. Speaker, and indeed, it was quite a contest and was won really in the last period - very competitive.

They have had a terrific season, Mr. Speaker, and I think this team really has fans all over the Island, it is not really just the St. John's team, even though Corner Brook is now pursuing an American League team themselves. At the moment, we have only one team and, Mr. Speaker, I think they have fans, as I said, throughout the Province and that was evident at the games, and at the games throughout the year. So, congratulations to the Leafs and the organizers, the people involved with the team and indeed, congratulations to the Mayor and the Council of St. John's for a fine effort in putting this team together. Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I support the sentiments of the hon. minister. I know that I and every other Newfoundlander and Labradorian certainly appreciated the play of the Leafs this year and we were also, I suppose, a little bit disappointed that they didn't take home the bacon. They put it in the pan but it just didn't fry, but, Mr. Speaker, that is this year. There are a lot of years left and with the new facilities coming up, God knows; maybe next year will be our year.

I would also like to take the opportunity now, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate Joy Burt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: I think she was perhaps proclaimed the strongest lady in the world -

MS. VERGE: Strongest woman.

MR. PARSONS: - strongest woman in the world and to that, Mr. Speaker, what can one say? Newfoundlanders have accomplished it all and certainly, Joy Burt is no slacker, when it come to accomplishments. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be improper of this House, if we did not send congratulations to Joy Burt. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have every reason to be both impressed and proud of the accomplishments of the St. John's Maple Leafs in its first season here.

In addition to the sports enthusiasm that was generated, and the economic spin-offs, I know from listening to the comments of people in the media who have attended games in the other cities where the AHL has representatives, that the knowledge of Newfoundland and this Province and this city is spread throughout the AHL teams in New York and other cities where they operate. I think it is a great accomplishment, and they ought to be congratulated.

I would also, while I am on my feet, join in the Member for St. John's East Extern's suggestion that the House offer congratulations to Joy Burt for her personal accomplishments as a world power-lifter.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't know whether I am in order or not, but I am sure you will tell me right away if I am not.

You will recall that on Thursday I made a statement regarding this week being Environment Week. I believe I called it Education Week, but it is Environment Week - twenty-two years of lifetime habits die hard.

I wanted to add to that, if I could today. Is it appropriate for me to do so at this time?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. COWAN: It is simply to say, Mr. Speaker - I have permission from the Opposition. Is that alright? May I go ahead?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may go ahead.

MS. COWAN: Thank you.

We have today some items to distribute to you, hoping that all will be good ambassadors for Environment Week. Items will be distributed to you shortly and will help you draw the attention of your constituents and others to the many concerns that we have in the environment.

I know that the Opposition share the concerns we have, as a government, because of the questions that were asked me during Committee hearings on the Budget, and that everyone will be doing their part to promote a more healthy world for all of us to enjoy and to live in.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Having been preempted by all sorts of other statements, I can now take the opportunity to inform the House that a writ has been issued for a by-election in Ferryland District, to be held on the same day as the by-election in Naskaupi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: As hon. members know, we were unable to announce it on the day when we announced the by-election in Naskaupi because the Member for Ferryland, of course, was still sitting in the House, and that would have been inappropriate. We have now taken the decision, and I am confident that the electorate in Ferryland will exercise good judgement in the matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement, obviously. We have been looking for it for quite some time, and I understand why the Premier couldn't announce the by-election for Ferryland on Thursday, but I can't understand why he didn't announce it after the members resignation took affect at noon on Friday. But I suspect they have now had an opportunity perhaps to have a look at what the results might be over the weekend, and they have decided now to instead of calling it four days later after Naskaupi they might as well do it and get it over with because they know what the results are going to be.

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

MR. DECKER: You shouldn't take people for granted.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform members of the hon. House and the general public of the Province of the coming into force today of the revised statutes of Newfoundland 1990.

The revised statutes consolidate all the statute law of the Province passed during the legislative sessions held between 1970, the year of the last revision, and December 31, 1990. As a result of the coming into force of this revision, those needing to know what the law says will find it easier to locate and easier to read.

The consolidation of the statutes eliminates the need to search through the annual statute volumes for amendments to the law as well. Ordinary English, Mr. Speaker, has been used wherever possible, and long provisions have been divided into shorter, more comprehensible ones.

Those wishing to obtain copies of the revised statutes may do so through the office of the Queen's Printers.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome this announcement. It culminates years of work initiated when I was Minister of Justice.

MR. SPEAKER: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people responsible for producing this consolidation of our provincial laws, first and foremost our Clerk who was chief legislative council, senior legislative council throughout most of the project, as well the other legislative council and their staff. Also I would like to acknowledge the financial contribution of the law foundation, funds generated from lawyer's trust accounts.

As the President of Treasury Board indicated the consolidation of the statutes will make it possible for the people of the Province to research provincial laws much more easily than is now the case. The last consolidation was done in 1970. That being so I would urge the government to make available copies of the new consolidation of the statutes to the large public libraries in the Province at no cost to the public libraries because their acquisitions budget was reduced this year from what it has been previously, and because of the effect of inflation, the public libraries aren't able to afford to buy sufficient copies of

the new consolidation of the statutes for the large public libraries in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands. I refer to the fact that she announced just a few days ago that this is the beginning of Environment Week. To quote from her own statement, I think, in part, she says: "If we don't take care of it, we stand to lose valuable resources that may never return and possibly do irreparable damage to our air, water and land. Protecting the environment is indeed 'up to all of us'." That is a quote from her own statement of last week.

As the minister would know, governments from all over the world, indeed, governments of the Third World countries, who are in desperate need of jobs and development, have rejected from time to time economic schemes that have involved the disposition or disposal of imported domestic garbage and industrial waste on their soil. I would like to ask the Minister of Environment: what is this government's policy on that question? Are you for or against bringing large loads of garbage into this Province from other parts of the world - the United States, New York, or wherever it might be - for the purpose of starting an industrial development project? Can you tell us what your policy is?

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really have nothing to add to what I said a week or so ago when I was asked the same question. We have not had anyone register a proposal in this Province for bringing in garbage from outside to destroy it. If and when that time comes, we will take a thorough analysis of the situation, taking into account the pros and the very considerable cons of such an event. Scientists and people with more expertise than myself or the Leader of the Opposition will examine every aspect of such a project, and then make a decision as to whether or not it is an environmentally viable project for this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking the minister about the registration of a proposal for - I am asking the minister - I mean, it really does not take much study, I suppose - is the government - I am simply asking her - does the government, does her Department, does she, think that it is okay to have New York garbage dumped in this Province to use to start industrial development? Surely that does not take a lot of study. Can she answer the question?

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

MS. COWAN: First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Opposition that my personal opinion is of no interest to them at this stage. I am not a scientist. I do not have an expertise in such areas. I have heard all the things. The same people who have brought the Opposition information have brought it to me, and I have read it all. I am in no position to evaluate it. I hear many conflicting things. So if and when, if and when I say again, this project is registered with us, the proper people will be brought in who know about such things and they will go over it with a fine-tooth comb, and if it is not appropriate for this Province then it won't go ahead. But we don't know if anybody even wants to do such a thing now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I have heard it all now.

I am trying to ask the minister if she can answer the question: Does the government have a policy with respect to the dumping of garbage, bringing garbage into this Province for the purpose of industrial development? That is what I am asking. Do you agree and support that policy? It has nothing to do with whether or not you have an application to do it. I am asking you: What is your policy? Do you have a policy on it? Do you agree or disagree with it?

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

MS. COWAN: I find the self-righteousness of the Opposition quite amazing under the circumstances, when they have left this government with litter scattered across this Province, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely horrendous.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: On Saturday afternoon I had the experience of being taken by helicopter, with one of our wildlife officers who is very well respected throughout this Province, to be shown litter that was left in the Salmonier River, that beautiful, beautiful river, one of the treasures of this Province. Mr. Speaker, when I saw what that Opposition had left this government with, how we will ever clean that up, how we will ever change the attitudes of people towards litter - these are the people who allowed Newfoundlanders to consume 80 million tins of coke per year and throw the can in the ditch. Then they have the gall to get up on their feet and ask me what our policy is towards garbage. I would like to know what their policy is towards garbage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Her last statement said she would like to know what our position is on importing garbage. I can tell her that I absolutely oppose it, and we made that clear today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SIMMS: I am surprised that the minister didn't blame the federal government. She blamed the previous administration for all the coke cans in the Province. I mean that is her answer to a serious question. Will the minister stand in this House today, tell the people of the Province: Do you agree with the importation of industrial waste and garbage for the purpose of industrial development in this Province? Do you agree with that policy or do you not? Can't you give a straight answer to the people?

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

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a member of a government that does not on whim dismiss or embrace projects. We are going to analyze the thing if we ever have it registered. The very fact that this group can make a decision of that nature without the proper scientific evaluation shows me, Mr. Speaker, that they are not fit to govern.

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

MR. SIMMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we made our decision based on listening to the people of the Province. That is the difference between us and that government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: And I am glad that the Member for Mount Scio just interjected, Mr. Speaker, and asked if we had asked the federal government to withdraw their funding. In fact we have. We wrote the minister this morning and asked him -

AN HON. MEMBER: This morning?

MR. SIMMS: Yes, this morning when we made our decision, and we have asked him to withdraw the federal funding for the feasibility study, Mr. Speaker. We made our decision today. So will the minister on behalf of her government do the same thing and ask the funding to be withdrawn?

Secondly, let me ask her this question. She would know that the Province has the ultimate right to approve or reject any kind of development in the Province. This is, after all, our jurisdiction not the federal government's jurisdiction. I want to ask her did the federal government consult with the provincial government, any department before providing the funding for the feasibility study? Did they consult with them at all? Was the Province even aware of it at all? I would like her to answer those questions as well.

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

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It really amuses me that they are writing a letter after the money has been spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: But anyway....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: But I guess when you are in that position in the polls you will do anything to cover your... posterior. Mr. Speaker, as far as the federal government approaching our government prior to this, I do not have that information. If it did it took place during my illness. I do not know the answer to that question. I can look into it.

MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Final supplementary. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister, since she is so knowledgeable on the amount of funding that has been spent, can tell us how much money has been spent under that project? Since she seems to know all the answers to all the questions. My suspicion is that not very much has been spent. Not a lot of it has been spent. Also, what I want to ask the minister is whether she is prepared to state in this House of Assembly here today, categorically, that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador rejects the Long Harbour incinerator project?

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

MS. COWAN: I wonder about this environmental process. Was it that past government that put it in place? They have such little faith in it. Why didn't they change it while they were there? I find that mind boggling. Here we have what appears to be a good environmental process. I think we need a bit of changing in it. Certainly we are looking at it, because of the fact that everything must be updated from time to time. But it has served the Province well to this stage. They seem to have forgotten about it.

It is a process, Mr. Speaker, that provides for a tremendous amount of public input which we, if and when this project is registered, will welcome. We will be delighted to get it. There are all sorts of time frames built into it which can extend it over any period of time. So that again we can give it the in-depth analysis - any project - can be given the in-depth analysis it deserves. That is it. We have their environmental process which I guess they now figure is useless. I am saying to them, as a compliment, it is not that bad.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The former PC government might have brought in the process but we also turned down the Kitts-Michelin mine because we thought it was the wrong kind of industrial development for our Province. My question is for the Minister of Energy. The first Budget brought in by the Minister of Finance cancelled the $30 million subsidy to the rural areas of this Province. It has already cost us one particular rate increase, and a recent one was turned down by Cabinet for rural areas. Is the minister and/or the government willing to go along now with the advice of its consumer advocate and reinstate that subsidy for rural Newfoundland?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the subsidy has been phased out and it is gone. We are not about to go back to it.

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

MR. HEWLETT: I would ask then, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Finance, would he be willing to cancel the payroll tax and guarantee fees applicable to the hydro corporation which drives up electrical rates in this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. A number of months ago there was a public meeting held in Davis Inlet, which included a number of representatives from this government and also from the federal government, with respect to the relocation of the community or the residents of Davis Inlet to a new location approximately eight to ten miles northwest. Would the Premier advise if his government has supported this particular relocation? If so, could he advise what it is estimated it will cost the taxpayers of this Province for such a relocation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no decision to support the relocation. What is in process at the moment is an assessment of it being carried out jointly with the Innu Nation, and in particular, with the leadership of the community of Davis Inlet. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member probably knows, they are coming in to see me this afternoon. Many of those items will be discussed during that meeting later this afternoon.

What we are doing, with the consent of the federal government and with the consent of the Innu nation and the community of Davis Inlet, we have agreed that certain housing actions that would otherwise be taken, the water and sewer project that would otherwise have been undertaken, and certain other things have been put on hold pending the making of that decision. We don't want to go into Davis Inlet and spend a lot of money only to find that the long-term interest of the community really dictates that the community should be moved. If that is the best and most suitable course of action and it can be reasonably achieved, then I have no doubt that is a conclusion to which all three parties concerned will come and action will be taken to do it.

As to what the cost will be, at this moment we don't have any knowledge of the specifics of the cost. It would undoubtedly be fairly expensive. But if we can't work with the Innu community and the Innu Nation to aid them in building a sound, secure community for the future, then whatever the cost may reasonably be the two governments may have to provide for it.

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

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

I listened with interest to the comments the Premier just made, saying that water and sewer and any further housing development would be on hold until we come to some decision.

Is the Premier aware that six compact houses that were delivered in sections last year to Davis Inlet by an arm of his government have now been moved to a new location and are ready to be constructed at the new location without any water and sewer infrastructure talked about at the new location?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware. I am not even aware that it is, in fact, so.

The hon. member has so many times in the past made allegations that have turned out to be unfounded that I am not prepared to express views on the basis of that at this stage. I will take a look at the situation and see what it is and whatever factual situation I find I will deal with tomorrow.

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

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

I would ask the Premier: If he doesn't believe the comments I just made, why doesn't he call a couple of the employees of this government who are presently living and working in Davis Inlet and ask them that question? Maybe he might believe them.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have an important question for the Premier, as the head of the provincial government. I am asking this question bearing in mind that the provincial government is the largest employer in Newfoundland and Labrador, and bearing in mind that the provincial government is an important provider of public services, as well as public housing.

My question is: Has the Premier directed that government departments and agencies not discriminate against gays and lesbians?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am not quite sure what the hon. member is saying, Mr. Speaker. I don't give day-to-day detailed directions to individual employees. The departments concerned and the President of Treasury Board do that. But, from my point of view, nobody should be discriminated against unfairly, nobody, no matter who or what they are. There should not be discrimination. So I would give that as a general direction, there should not be discrimination.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Premier give a direction that no department or agency of the provincial government discriminate, particularly in areas of employment, provision of public services and public housing, on the basis of sexual orientation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government will deal with issues as they arise. I will not stand in the House now and give a specific direction to government merely because the hon. member wants it done. I have no idea where that may or may not lead, and I have no desire to be irresponsible in any way. But I would direct people generally not to discriminate against any group, no matter who they are. There is no justification for discriminating against people because they are of a certain race, colour, origin or on any other basis. So no, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to issue the direction the hon. member speaks about.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East, a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am trying to get the Premier to address precisely the question of prohibition of discrimination against gays and lesbians on the basis of sexual orientation. Will the Premier issue a directive that no part of the provincial government discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier initiate an amendment to the Province's Human Rights Code to extend protection to gays and lesbians by prohibiting discrimination in the areas covered by the provincial Human Rights Code on the basis of sexual orientation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the policy of this government in respect to that matter is precisely the same as the policy followed by the former government when the member who just asked the question was Minister of Justice. The policy that she supported this government continued, and we have not altered it in any respect.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What about real change?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: We have effected it where it really counts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear you with all the noise.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. The situation in the Town of Belleoram, where they have been trying to get some activity at their fish plant, I believe they are entering into their third year now without any processing taking place at the plant. I am wondering, and I am sure the minister is aware of the situation; could he inform the House of what the situation is regarding the fish plant at Belleoram? I understand there is a lease/purchase arrangement with Daley's in place with the plant. I think that is causing some problems with getting another operator. Could the minister inform the House what is happening there?

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

MR. CARTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a lease/purchase arrangement in effect with the Newfoundland company; an arrangement, I should add, that was put in place I believe by the previous administration. It has and is still causing some problems with respect to attracting a new operator for that plant.

We have had several discussions with potential operators. I do not know just how serious they were, but certainly they have taken the trouble to come in and talk it over. In each case it appears that the potential operator has been unable to effect a satisfactory arrangement with the company concerned.

There are many other problems, of course, with respect to that plant. I guess probably the most serious problem is having to do with the shortage of resource. There is not much fish available to that plant, and given the fact that there are plants operating in close proximity to Belleoram, that is making it all the more difficult.

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

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

I am told there was some two million pounds shipped out of the area, I think. The winter fishery is the big fishery there, as the minister knows.

The company has the lease/purchase arrangement with the minister's department, as I understand it. Apparently it is in effect for another five years. Is the minister or his department considering looking at addressing that issue of the company having the facility tied up for another five years without any real intent to operate? Is he looking at that with a view to possibly breaking the lease with Daley's so that the town or the development association might do something else there?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the best advice that I have gotten from the legal people, the Department of Justice, is to the effect that it is not that simple a matter to break the lease. For example, in the lease I think it is agreed that the company would be reimbursed for any leasehold improvements to the property. I am told that the company is alleging that they have spent I believe in excess of $100,000 on that plant. I am told as well that the only way that the government could again get possession of it would be to negotiate a deal with the company, in which case then we would have to not only pay for other considerations, but certainly we would have to reimburse the company for the leasehold improvements that they claim they have made to the operation.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister then confirm for the House that there is a request from the community of Belleoram and the development association, Fortune Bay, North Shore Development Association, I guess to more or less get ownership, or a right to operate that plant? Is his department considering that, or is it a dead issue? What does the minister have to say to the people of Belleoram who are interested in having their plant reactivated so they can process some fish and create employment? Is there any chance that lease/purchase deal between his department and Daley's can be worked out or corrected so that the people of Belleoram can be given some meaningful employment? That is the question for the minister.

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I will need some time to check this out, but I seem to believe that maybe that lease arrangement was entered into by the Town of Belleoram with the former operator, the Daley Company. I will check it out and I will report back to the House tomorrow, but it seems to me that, that is not an arrangement; certainly not entered into by the Department of Fisheries since I have been there. There are many problems, Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago with respect to that plant. Several operators have moved in up there and stayed for a short period of time without too much success and it is not going to be an easy plant to re-activate. I do not want to create any wrong impressions this afternoon, but at the moment I do not see too much hope for it. Now that might change but for all of the reasons that I have stated here this afternoon, I am not aware of anybody at this point in time who is really interested in re-activating that operation.

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 Environment and Lands and also responsible for Wildlife in the Province.

I wonder if the minister could inform the House as to the health of the stocks of Ptarmigan or more commonly known as Partridge, in the Province, this year?

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

MS. COWAN: I think I heard him correctly. He is wondering how the stocks of Ptarmigan are this year as compared to other years, was that the question? Again, Mr. Speaker, let me check that out and bring the answer back to the hon. gentleman.

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

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the minister's commitment to check into it but I would say to the minister, that over the last few years the stocks have decreased tremendously as we know, and I ask the minister if she will consider, in areas where the hunting season is prolonged, if she will consider shortening the season. That recommendation basically comes from avid hunters, that southern Avalon for instance, where, I believe have from September until December, most people recommend that a thirty-day or a one month hunting season would be much better and certainly much better in order to protect the stocks. I wonder if she would look into adjusting the season rather than decimating the stocks.

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

MS. COWAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult for me to hear a question as there is so much noise in the House. I believe his question was in the interest of conservation of Ptarmigan, and let me assure the hon. gentleman that that is first and foremost in our wildlife department, and I do appreciate what he says and know he says it with all sincerity. If there is a problem with decreases in Ptarmigan or any other wildlife that we ascertain then of course steps will be made to do whatever is necessary for that to regenerate itself.

It is quite possible, Mr. Speaker, that human activity can have an impact as well and of course having a look at ATV legislation and changes there I think, would probably be beneficial to all wildlife in the Province, and we are undertaking that at this time.

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

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, my old poll captain.

I would like to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he can, being familiar with the Burin Peninsula, tell me who owns the road from the Salt Pond Grand Bank Highway through the community of Winterland and to the airport? Can he tell us who owns that road and who maintains that road?

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

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times the hon. gentleman intends to raise this allegation that I was his poll captain. Although -

MR. TOBIN: You were.

MR. GOVER: No, no. That is not correct. I did spend a couple of years on the Burin Peninsula, at which time I had occasion to be in the hon. gentleman's company and his hospitality was much appreciated, but I never did assist him in any way, shape or form in getting elected to the House of Assembly. I was not a poll captain at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Everybody is entitled to one mistake in his lifetime.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) than anybody else.

MR. GOVER: I would hate to think, Mr. Speaker, that I am responsible for the hon. gentleman's seat in the House of Assembly, that I was that good a poll captain, but in any event, Mr. Speaker, to the question.

Offhand without checking with my officials, I would say that the road that he describes is owned and maintained by the provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West on a supplementary.

MR. MATTHEWS: A major breakthrough.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Does the government intend to operate and maintain that road again this year to the Winterland airstrip?

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

MR. GOVER: To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, any road of that nature and that length on the Works, Services and Transportation inventory, which is under maintenance, has not been removed so I would assume that it would be maintained.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I move that on tomorrow: Be it resolved that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador immediately reject any industrial development project that involves the importation for the disposal of garbage and industrial waste from any jurisdiction outside of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I will on tomorrow move the following resolution:

Whereas the prospect of shipping household garbage from the Eastern Seaboard of the United States of America for incineration in this Province leaves Newfoundlanders and Labradorians worried about the health, environmental, and political consequences, and the risk to the future of our Province's tourism and wilderness potential; and

Whereas already substantial public funds have been committed to the process of assessing the Long Harbour incineration project with the prospect of further expenditures before a decision is made; and

Whereas it is desirable to resolve any uncertainty and reassure the people of the Province that such projects will not be approved;

Therefore be it resolved that the House of Assembly go on record as opposing the importation of garbage and other wastes into the Province for incineration, and, in particular, direct the government to inform the proponents of the Long Harbour Waste through Energy incineration project that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will not approve their project to import and incinerate garbage.

Further be it resolved that the government be directed to place before the House of Assembly a comprehensive policy and program for solid waste management within the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl, on a point of order.

MR. WINDSOR: While we are on Answers to Questions, two weeks ago the Minister of Development promised to get some information related to Enterprise Newfoundland. Could he advise us when?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have most of the information. All of the regional stuff has been compiled. I think there are two or three missing from Central and some from Eastern. I am just waiting for the Western region to send in the concluding companies and I will have it all compiled. Then I can give all of that to the hon. member, no problem.

AN HON. MEMBER: Could you give us what you have?

MR. FUREY: Yes, I suppose I could do that. I will do it tomorrow, sure.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Finance to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Liquor Control Act, 1973, and The Liquor Corporation Act, 1973," carried. (Bill No. 34).

On motion, Bill No. 34 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Health to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Welfare Institutions Act," carried. (Bill No. 33).

On motion, Bill No. 33 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 5, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion was necessitated by a tribunal report that is required by legislation, and the conditions leading up to the bringing in of this motion are stated in the whereases. I am not going to go through these again, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out what we are suggesting be done in the 'Therefore be it resolved' section of the resolution. "In light of the provision of the Public Sector Restraint Act, 1992, it is recommended that the House defer consideration of the recommendations of this report until the expiry of the restraint period provided for in the Act."

Mr. Speaker, we have brought in restraint legislation that applies to the rest of the public service in the Province and we are simply putting the judges in conformance with that particular restraint legislation.

"It is recommended that the House accept or vary the recommendations of the report - this deals, Mr. Speaker, with what happens after the restraint period - "within 30 days of the expiration of the restraint period, or if the House is not then sitting, it is recommended that the report be considered and accepted or varied within 30 days of the beginning of the 1st sitting of the House immediately following the end of the restraint period." That deals, Mr. Speaker, with what happens to this report after the end of the restraint period when there will be, then, still two years left in terms of the recommendations.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: "It is recommended that the report as then accepted or varied be implemented within 30 days of acceptance or variance with effect from the 1st of April, 1994 for the then unexpired balance of the 4 year period contemplated by the report and the Provincial Court Act, 1991." Mr. Speaker, that, in summary, is what we are suggesting, that we defer consideration until after the restraint period and then setting the conditions under which we would, then, either accept or vary the report at that point in time.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, this resolution follows the procedure laid down in the Provincial Court Act consistent with the principle that the judiciary be impartial, consistent with the principle that the judiciary be removed from any direct connection with or any perception of connection with the political arm of the government. This is a process that we, in the Opposition, approve of.

In the case of public servants, the government has violated collective agreements and, by legislation, rolled back increases and benefits and decreed wage restraint. We have objected to that on principle because of the violation of collective agreements. In the case of provincial court judges, who are independent, we would support the principle that judges be subject to the same wage and benefit restraint as others paid out of the public purse.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we support this resolution. We support the process that necessitated this resolution, which recognizes, as I said, the independence of the judiciary and we support, through this resolution, the government subjecting provincial court judges who, though being independent of the political arm of the government, are paid out of the public purse, subjecting judges to the same wage policy as others paid out of the public purse.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

On motion, resolution carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, the continuation of the Concurrence Debate.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: My understanding is that at the last sitting day we ran out of time on the Social Services Concurrence Motion, and it is still listed on the Order Paper. I wonder if Your Honour could check into that?

MR. SPEAKER: Government Services.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RAMSAY: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, to introduce the concurrence motion on this. I acted on behalf of the Chairperson of the Government Services Estimates Committee, the hon. the Member for Humber West, who was exercising -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

May I interrupt the hon. the Member for LaPoile? The motion was not put to adopt the Social Services. We haven't done that so we would now do it.

On motion, Report of the Social Services Estimate Committee, carried.

The hon. the Member for LaPoile.

MR. RAMSAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Committee handled the Estimates for a variety of departments in the Government Services sector. The Department of Finance, under the stewardship of the hon. minister, was very interesting, albeit the somewhat brief session we had with the Minister of Finance. But the Minister of Finance has become known as a man of few words, when few words are required. He put across the variety of initiatives of his department, doing so in a very forthright and solid manner. The Opposition, I don't think, had much in the way of opposition to his specific Estimates. Therefore, that was passed in Committee without amendment.

Furthermore, we had the hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, a new minister to that portfolio this year. The minister handled himself very ably in the deliberations with Committee. He was very straightforward in his provision of information to the Committee members, both Opposition and government members, did quite a remarkable job of taking the reins of his department in such a short period of time, and is in no doubt, in charge of that department. The Budget Estimates for that department were also carried without amendment, I might add.

The Department of Employment and Labour Relations, the hon. Minister of Employment ad Labour Relations, the MHA for Exploits, was also extremely forthcoming with information provided to mainly the Opposition, in that debate. He provided the information willingly and answered the questions, some of which were fairly difficult questions. I give the Opposition commendation on their difficult task. Of course, the questions that they did ask were very forthcoming and pointed; equal answers to the questions were provided by the minister, and it did clear up some problems that the Opposition had. Those Budget Estimates also were passed without amendment.

I might also add that the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was a department which I did not chair. The Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I also understand, on reports from the Committee members involved, passed the Budget Estimates without any amendments. I might add that it was handled in a very prompt period of time. I did attend the meeting with the Department. Also, I might note that Newfoundland and Labrador Housing, a very important part of that minister's department, was also passed without amendment.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members who filled in for other members who were absent from Committee for a variety of reasons. The variety of members all co-operated, including Opposition members, who filled in for their own Committee members at times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Jack Harris (Inaudible).

MR. RAMSAY: No, Jack wasn't on this Committee.

The other thing I might add, Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Clerks at the Table and the Deputy Clerk of the House for providing the assistance that they did. The scheduling at times was difficult but members did co-operate, along with the Opposition and the officials concerned. We appreciate the co-operation on having gotten this important part of the Budget process passed, and look forward to new and better opposition in the future. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. RAMSAY: I am told by the Table you don't have to go three hours.

MR. MATTHEWS: You don't have to go three hours? No, you don't have to. Once we do not get up and speak and the question is put that will be the end of it, which won't be too long, I say to the member. The Member for LaPoile seems quite anxious to get this through. We want to have a few words on the Estimates of these departments as we have on the others, the resource departments, the social departments, and now, I guess, the services departments that we are debating here today and talking about.

It is quite interesting to hear that the first one the Member for LaPoile mentioned was the Finance Department, he said, under the capable stewardship of the Minister of Finance. When he was saying that the Minister of Finance was over there going on as if he were swinging a baseball bat. Of course, we saw the pictures where the Minister of Finance was down to the baseball field to open up the tournament or something and he struck out. The Minister of Finance struck out on the ball field as he struck out directing the financial direction -

AN HON. MEMBER: Four swings.

MR. MATTHEWS: Four swings was it? Well, he has had four Budgets now so he has the equivalent number of Budgets as he has had swings trying to hit the baseball, I say to the Member for LaPoile. I don't know what that means. Whether he will hit a home run next year in his Budget I don't know. Whether he will be around to bring in another Budget remains to be seen.

The Member for Menihek is so anxious to speak on this that he is interrupting me. He can't wait to get on his feet because he has so much to say about the Minister of Finance and the way he is leading this Province financially and fiscally. The Minister of Finance wasn't listening to me but I am hoping that when he brings in another Budget, if he gets that far for one reason or another, or whether the Premier will have him moved out of his portfolio or whether the people will remove him from the portfolio, or whatever, that we will see a little change in direction of fiscal policy for the Province because it hasn't worked with the payroll tax that the minister has applied to the resource industry and which is hurting, I say to the minister very seriously. It is hurting the fishing industry and the forest industry.

We have had a lot of correspondence from fish companies around the Province, from FANL, that fisheries association of Newfoundland and Labrador that have some very serious concerns about the payroll tax being applied to the fishing industry. We have concerns from companies, small businesses around the Province because of the lowering of the ceiling from $300,000 to $100,000, that it is affecting them in a very negative manner.

These are some of the concerns that are being expressed as a result of the minister's last Budget. I am hoping the minister will listen to the concerns of those people. We know there is probably very little he can do. Maybe there are some things he can do now to address them but when he starts putting together some projections and changes in direction for the new Budget, I am hoping the minister will take the very real and legitimate concerns that the people are expressing to the minister and to all members by telephone calls, letters and so on. I am hoping the minister will do that, take a look at that when he prepares for the next Budget.

Employment and Labour Relations - of course, what can we say about that? The minister has not undertaken much employment generation this year. As a matter of fact, the biggest increase this year we see is in the number of people going on the social assistance rolls of the Province, tremendous increases. Of course, we haven't felt the full brunt of what is happening out and about the Province yet, because with what is happening in the deep-sea fishery now and with the uncertainty with Fishery Products International, and National Sea, with the couple of plants they have left around, we really haven't seen all the problem. It hasn't fully unfolded yet because we don't know what the future of a lot of those fish plants will be. Then there are a large number of our people who are on unemployment insurance, receiving unemployment insurance benefits that are going to expire in the next short while. As a matter of fact, last week there was some kind of demonstration somewhere on the Northern Peninsula, I believe, where a number of people had exhausted unemployment insurance benefits and were wondering really how they were going to survive and get by. Their only recourse is to go visit the welfare officer.

The Minister of Health wrote something once, I believe, a little book. Was it a book he wrote, the Minister of Health? What was it called?

AN HON. MEMBER: 'The Welfare Officer Will See You Now'.

MR. MATTHEWS: 'The Welfare Officer Will See You Now' - a very interesting piece of work, I must say. There are going to be more and more people up in the minister's district over the next few weeks who are going to wait outside. They are going to be waiting out in that office - waiting for the word that the welfare officer will see you now.

A lot of those people all over the Province are very, very reluctant to go visit the Social Services office. A lot of people with a lot of pride do not enjoy that very much, and are very apprehensive. This year we will see thousands of them who will have to go visit the welfare officer for the first time in their lives.

I have not experienced it yet, and I pray to God that I won't, but who knows? Maybe, one of these days, it will come down to that, where you will have to go and put your pride aside, swallow your pride and go in and knock on the door and say, 'I am down and out. Can you help me?' But there are a lot of people in this Province who are already at that stage, which the Minister of Social Services has been talking about over the last couple of weeks, the drastic increase in the number of people who are now receiving social assistance, and the thousands more who, over the next few short months, are going to have no other recourse but to go visit the Social Services offices around this Province.

It is very, very sad that we have reached that crisis. The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is probably the one minister who could do something about it if he took his job seriously; but he doesn't take his job very seriously, because if he did, he would be listening to every word I am saying now. But the minister is over there cracking a few jokes with his pals, telling a few jokes and laughing and smirking. And here I am, trying to give him a message on behalf of the unemployed in this Province, telling him that it is his responsibility, as the minister responsible for employment, to come up with some money for employment generation for the Province.

The more I say that, the more the minister laughs, so I don't know if he has the money in his pocket that he is going to announce later on this afternoon when he speaks to this. Perhaps he has another $25 million or $30 million that he is going to announce for the people of the Province, and he thinks it is funny that I am up here talking about this, not knowing what he is going to announce.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps he doesn't care.

MR. MATTHEWS: That is the other thing, maybe he just doesn't care about the unemployed of this Province.

I say very seriously to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that we have a crisis in this Province. We have a crisis. It is going to get worse over the next number of months, and it is incumbent upon the minister to have his officials, particularly in the Employment Services Division, I believe it is called -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Development doesn't care either.

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Development hasn't developed very much, I must say. I thank the member for reminding me. The Minister of Development hasn't developed too much in the three years that he has been Minister of Development. He hasn't developed too much. The thing he has developed most, I would think, is an extensive travel itinerary. the Minister of Development puts a lot of time into that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Expensive (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, expensive and extensive, I say to the minister - an extensive and expensive travel itinerary that takes him all over the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, he certainly couldn't have been - not that member. He could not be, not travelling enough. Well, all I say to the Minister of Development then, is we won't see him at all if he ever gets to travel enough, if that's the case.

I realize that with that particular portfolio there is a significant and substantial amount of travel required. You look back over the years of Development ministers and they are, of the Cabinet minister, the most travelled or certainly in the top number of travelled ministers.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: For the most part. The minister over there now is talking about having to go to Ireland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A project for Port au Port.

MR. MATTHEWS: A project for Port au Port in Ireland. Well, that is good. That will be development, and he is going to take the member with him.

AN HON. MEMBER: To grow french shamrocks.

MR. MATTHEWS: French shamrocks, yes.

Anyway, these are some of the things that we want to talk about. Municipal and Provincial Affairs, you could speak for hours on that if you wanted to, and what has happened to that department; the hardship that the department has imposed upon municipalities throughout this Province, and consequently, upon taxpayers, with the downloading scheme they have put in place. They have changed the grant structure of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Communities out there now are being literally strangled financially by the actions of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

I am sure members opposite realize how serious it is; there are letters coming in, as well, from all over the Province from municipalities that can't make ends meet because of the drastic change, particularly in the debt restructuring formula, where, a lot of communities went in - getting particularly water and sewer systems and projects based upon 20 per cent of fixed revenues, and then the department changed that very quickly and radically, and now, a lot of those communities are left with partially installed systems in the ground and need millions more dollars to finish it and it has caused a lot of hardship. With property assessments, increased poll taxes, increased property taxes, a lot of those communities are unable to make the budgets balance to take care of the debt charges they had to pay back to government.

So these are some of the problems that are being encountered about the Province, Mr. Speaker. I am going to sit down. I will have more to say about this later on because it is a very important topic. There are a lot of problems with finance, a lot of problems with employment in the Province, a lot of problems with the municipalities, Municipal and Provincial Affairs, Works, Services and Transportation, with the minister not sure if he is really responsible for that road leading to the Winterland airstrip and other things, the Burin Peninsula Highway, that we are looking forward to having some improvements done, I say to the minister, and I am sure we will.

As a matter of fact, I was going down over it yesterday; I drove back down to Fortune yesterday, and a gentleman with me, we were doing a little bit of bouncing around and he said, 'It is almost as bad as on the Grand Banks, isn't it Bill?' and I said, 'Yes, it probably is, and I say there is just as much fish here too,' was my comment to him. So I say to the minister, the highway is in bad shape. It has gone back a bit now because the frost has come out of the ground, but it gets worse every year and there is supposed to be some twenty-eight kilometres I believe, of upgrading done this year in the worst section of that road.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What's that?

AN HON. MEMBER: You need a new Liberal federal minister (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, another Don Jamieson. Who was that, by the way? I ask the Minister of Finance. Who was that? Who remembers now? Who really remembers?

As a matter of fact, I drove to Swift Current this morning, I say to the Minister of Finance -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: What is the man pointing his finger about over there? Thank God, for Don Jamieson.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: Mr. Jamieson was no doubt - good members. They are all overthere now, Mr. Speaker, trying to convince me that Don Jamieson was a good member. Now, can you imagine, they are all over there trying to convince me that he was a good member.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) know that already, (inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: The Minister of Education says I know it already. Yes, he was a good member. He was a good Member of Parliament for our area of the Province. That is what I was saying, I drove to Swift Current this morning and, of course, the sign for Kilmory and I looked at the Jamieson property and I thought about Mr. Jamieson, you know, and all the good things he did, particularly for our riding in the Province. He had great influence in Ottawa, as we all know, and looked out for his riding but, of course, what you have to remember is that you reflect - and I am just saying this to reminisce a bit; because you look back at the 1979 election when he came back and led the Liberal Party provincially in that election, the rest of the Province didn't feel the same way about him obviously, as we thought about him in Burin - St. Georges.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind the hon. member that his ten minutes are up.

MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry. I will speak again.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

I am pleased to see the Minister responsible for Employment and Labour Relations applauding my standing to speak and giving a critique on his particular department and their lack of delivery of programs to this Province that is going to create employment.

Of all the departments that have been a dismal failure in the Wells Administration, I guess you would have to point to the Department of Employment and Labour Relations as the biggest failure of any particular department, and, I mean, that is quite an accomplishment for a former labour leader, to be in there and now he is perceived as one of the people most lacking in support of the labour movement, who has viciously spear-headed the attack against the labour movement, in contract promoting, contract stripping, freezing wages, and it has done absolutely nothing with regard to job creation while he has been minister.

His attack on the ordinary working individual through Workers Compensation where there has been absolutely no concern whatsoever given for the right of the worker in the workplace. It has all been given to the employer, and to blame all the ills and the failures of the Workers Compensation system or the board on the injured employees, the people who have been injured and killed in the workplace, Mr. Speaker. The same minister who would not respond to a day of morning on April 28, a memorial to those injured and killed in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, his department has been a terrible failure of this administration. That is quite colossal when you think of all the failures that has been over in the Wells administration in the last three or four years.

The down loading of provincial responsibility brought on by Municipal and Provincial Affairs has affected every taxpayer in this Province, and the fact that this government has passed along responsibilities that were ordinarily incurred by the Province have now been passed on to the municipalities. We have seen that example come forward here in St. John's with the amalgamation issue and the tremendous tax burden that has been passed on to the municipality to pay for the increased service cost with regard to fire-fighting and the delivery of other municipal services to regions that were amalgamated in St. John's. Now the Province is expecting the St. John's municipal taxpayer to pick up this burden.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the voters out there are going to be reminded in the next provincial election in St. John's that what caused the high taxes is the fact that this administration and what they are going to be doing is showing their distaste and dissatisfaction -

MR. DUMARESQUE: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Member for Eagle River is saying that ten people have decided to vote Liberal in Naskaupi.

But, Mr. Speaker, those two departments have been dismal failures with regard to the delivery of services and assistance to people with regard to what governments have been doing in this Province for years and years, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Finance, who should be by now accustomed to delivering a budget that would outline a path of recovery for this Province out of the economic doldrums that we are in, instead of that, he has made countless mistakes with regard to bringing in a budget. The only thing in the last budget that you could see that was of any positive light whatsoever was the fact that they did away with some fees, the cost of issuing fees, Mr. Speaker. We find all that is applicable this year, it is next year they are going to be done away with. So even the good news is postponed for a year, Mr. Speaker.

The fact that they have increased the taxes, a 4 per cent increase in individual income tax announced in the last Budget, and a 2 per cent increase announced in the previous Budget. That is 6 per cent increase when every other taxing jurisdiction in this country led by the federal government have been suggesting the complete opposite. What should be done is that taxes should be lowered on individuals and corporation.

As a matter of fact the Premier in his speech on Friday suggested that is what this government should be doing. Yet, in the four Budgets that have been brought down, they have increased taxes on corporations and individuals and paper burden on corporations. The complete opposite of what the Premier is out telling the business people of this Province. When speaking to the Newfoundland Manufacturers Association representatives, I believe, on Friday he suggested that is what this government should be doing. They should be easing the tax load on companies and easing the tax burden on employees, on individuals because that would create more economic wealth out and about, if you will, that would create more money within the economy.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance didn't see fit to put that in his Budget. What he did was the complete opposite, he raised the taxes. Increased the paper burden, increased the corporate tax, increased the personal income tax and that is one of the reasons why this Province finds itself into a depression rather than a recession that is occurring in other places in this country.

Another department that government services encompasses, Mr. Speaker, is Works, Services and Transportation, a department that really should be out there providing an infrastructure to allow more economic activity. Without any communications, without roads, railroads, highroads, without the method of communicating or transporting goods and services around this Province you cannot do business. If you measure the economy of any area you will see that they are very much related to how effective their transportation system is. If you tie the economy in East Germany, if you look at that as an example, to how efficient their transportation system was in Eastern Europe or in Eastern Germany, compared to that of Western Germany, you will see that they are very directly related.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: There are going to be enough people parachuting into Naskaupi as it is. We will not be looking for a parachute candidate from the air force. There are enough parachuting candidates coming into Naskaupi now. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that that parachute candidate will have a very rough landing when he reaches the ground in Naskaupi.

Mr. Speaker, our Department of Works, Services and Transportation has been a dismal failure, too. I can remember asking the minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation about Winter maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible)

MR. A. SNOW: He is the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, the deputy minister, I think. Mr. Speaker, that minister suggested that he was going to give the town council in Happy Valley - Goose Bay $400,000 to do the winter maintenance on a highway that is 600 kilometres long across Labrador. Now, can you imagine how naive, no wonder the people in Naskaupi district are laughing at the minister. He was thanked today for being a poll captain for the Member for Burin - Placentia West. The Member for Burin - Placentia West thanked the minister responsible for Works, Services and Transportation today because he was one of his poll captains in a previous election. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation for helping out the Opposition parties, because of his dereliction of duties he has helped out both parties in Naskaupi, in his coming in and offering the town council in Happy Valley - Goose Bay $400,000 to do the winter maintenance on a highway. Can you imagine the audacity, the simplicity of a minister to come in and offer a town council that?

By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member does not have leave.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have a few words to say on the Estimates. I was not a member of that committee, Mr. Speaker.

MR. TOBIN: You should have been.

MR. DOYLE: I would have liked to be a member of that committee because I heard some of the answers that some of the ministers were giving were not very forthcoming at all. I did go to one of these committee meeting, as a matter of fact, and questioned extensively the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. While that is a very big department of government, and while we kept the minister fairly busy during these committee hearings, I cannot say that we received a great deal of information from the minister. There were some very, very important issues discussed with respect to that department.

I was expecting, as a matter of fact, to see the Minister of Environment and Lands at the Municipal Affairs hearings, because I know there must have been dozens and dozens of questions that she had to ask about the municipality of CBS. So I was expecting to see her there, maybe to ask some questions on cost recovery in Conception Bay South.

I asked a few questions on her behalf, as a matter of fact, about the cost recovery -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Well the minister did his best to offer some information. I cannot say that I got a great deal out of it. I questioned him extensively, as a matter of fact, on the cost recovery program for Conception Bay South as it pertains to the legality of that whole cost recovery program that Conception Bay South has. There seems to be some disagreement, as a matter of fact, as to whether or not the cost recovery program is legal. I have been trying to get that information now for quite some time because I am given to understand, and maybe the Minister of Environment and Lands, who is undoubtedly better well versed in this whole process than I am, because she is a member of the Cabinet, maybe she can get the information for me. Maybe she can give me the information, because there are several constituents from the minister's area who have been in to see me, as a matter of fact, on this particular issue as to whether or not the cost recovery program - pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) spends so much time (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Well, that is what it is to be a popular member. I mean I represented the Bell Island area, and reams and reams of calls - the reams of calls that I get from the people of Bell Island is just phenomenal, asking me to help keep their hospital operating; asking me to get their transportation system upgraded, which I did, of course, before I left that area, as the Minister of Transportation, put in place a pretty decent but yet not perfect transportation system for the people of Bell Island.

I am glad the member mentioned that, because I was grappling, as a matter of fact, to try to think of something to say with respect to the transportation department. Now the Member for Bell Island has given me a full hour to talk about the Bell Island ferry system, and that is a very, very important thing to the people of Bell Island. I will not dwell on that quite yet. I would still like to pursue, with the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, through the Member for CBS, the cost recovery program for Conception Bay South.

I have not been able to get a great deal of information on that, as to whether or not that whole process is a legal one. I remember when the cost recovery program was put in place, I believe the Department of Justice, or the Department of Municipal Affairs, said it was not legal. The council wrote back and asked the minister for a ruling on it, and I do not believe he has given his ruling - yes, I believe he has. I think he got back to council and told them that it was legal but they were waiting for some information from the Minister of Justice.

Now unfortunately the Minister of Justice is not sitting in the House of Assembly, and quite possibly will not be sitting in the House of Assembly for a long, long time. This is the type of information that the Member for CBS should be getting for the Town Council of Conception Bay South so that they will not have to put up with this continuous uncertainly about whether the cost recovery program is legal or is it not. Recently I had a couple of the member's constituents come in to see me with regard to that program. Of course, I could not really give them an accurate reading as to whether or not the program was a legal one. Simply because I did not know. The council are waiting for the Department and the Department of Justice to get back on it, but I do not know if the Department to date has gotten back to council on it.

So these were some of the thing I was hoping that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs might be able to tell me, but he wasn't -

MS. COWAN: You supported the council (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: No, no. I did not.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Did you? Did you? You forced it on them, sure.

MR. DOYLE: What I said to the people of Conception Bay South, and I think my remarks are on the record, was that while nobody wants a cost recovery program in CBS, that the town really has been forced over the last couple of years in particular, because of the downloading of responsibility from the government on to the council, that they are pretty well backed into a corner. We were hoping that the Minister of Environment and Lands who represents that area in Cabinet might have been able to get the $1.5 million. That is how much Conception Bay South, that is how much their funding has been reduced this year, $1.5 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: No no, I am talking about on current account, not capital account. On capital account they got $3 million for water and sewer. I am saying, on current account their funding, because of the downloading of responsibility -

MR. R. AYLWARD: She doesn't know the difference.

MR. DOYLE: - the debt charges that they have to pay -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: No, what I am saying is, that the government -

MR. R. AYLWARD: What you are after doing to them has caused this. Don't you understand that? It's your government that caused this. When we were in there this problem was not in Conception Bay South. It is only since you got in there that this happened in Conception Bay South.

MR. DOYLE: I do not know if the Member for Conception Bay South is aware, and I am not being critical of the member at all -

MS. COWAN: (Inaudible)!

MR. DOYLE: What I am trying to say to her -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Be critical, be critical, I'm telling you, be critical. It's their fault.

MR. DOYLE: - is the new grants program that the government has brought in, meant in terms of dollars and cents for the Town of C.B.S., $1.5 million per year. That is on current account. When it is per year. I am not talking about the capital account. I am talking about the current account of CBS., it has gone down by $1.5 million.

Now what the town was hoping, and what everyone was hoping, is that that policy would be reversed for CBS so that they would not be forced, which they have been forced by the government, to bring in this cost recovery policy. Nobody wants a cost recovery program in CBS I do not want to see a cost recovery program, the council does not want to see it, the minister who is the member for the area is on record as saying she does not want it. We're all on record as saying we don't want it, but still, nobody is on record as saying to the Town of CBS: look, this is why you are not going to have to do it. We are going to reinstate the $1.5 million that we have taken from you. That's the whole problem with the cost recovery program.

This can be multiplied many times over with other municipalities in the Province. That the Department, that the government, has downloaded so much of its responsibility onto the various towns that they are being forced to come up with some very draconian measures.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. MATTHEWS: By leave.

MR. DOYLE: They are being forced, Mr. Speaker, to come up - by leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DOYLE: They are being forced to come up with some very draconian measures to try and make ends meet in the town. In the various towns around the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Draconian measures.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, draconian measures, is what they are. Here we have CBS., which is currently the largest town in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, CBS has now become the largest town in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It cannot cope with what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Well, a few people more, yes. It cannot cope with what is happening.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mount Pearl.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, so it is time that the government had a very close look at that policy because it is extremely difficult for the towns to live within their budgets.

I am really surprised when I think of the Member for Fortune - Hermitage who is the former President of the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. MATTHEWS: No he was not.

MR. DOYLE: Well he was a member when I was minister.

MR. MATTHEWS: He was a member, yes. He was a member but (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: He was a prominent member of that -

MR. MATTHEWS: No, not prominent.

MR. DOYLE: - and the member for Carbonear who was president of that federation.

MR. MATTHEWS: Who?

AN HON. MEMBER: Vice-president.

MR. DOYLE: You were vice-president.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was president?

MR. DOYLE: The Member for Carbonear -

MR. MATTHEWS: The most expensive president they ever had too, Art Reid.

MR. DOYLE: - was the president of the federation. I am surprised that these people have not spoken out a little bit more forcefully than they have with respect to what government is doing because I believe one of the platform planks of the government in the last election campaign was that municipalities have to be treated more fairly, Mr. Speaker. That was one of the platform planks, that municipalities have to be treated more fairly. Instead what we are seeing is municipalities are driven to the ground because of the policies of this government, Mr. Speaker.

You know it was the smaller municipalities in the Province that were supposed to benefit more because of new structure, because of new grant structure it was the small municipalities that were supposed to benefit most from it, and here we find exactly the opposite has occurred because the smaller municipalities in the Province, have had their funding reduced by 13 per cent. By 13 per cent they have had their funding reduced.

You know, Mr. Speaker, at least the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs did say one thing which gave me some encouragement that morning when we examined his estimates. He said one thing that gave me a great deal of encouragement, if he follows through on it, and that was that he has a committee in place who are currently looking at that whole grants structure. Quite possibly it could be scrapped. I think, hopefully municipalities if it will be scrapped -- well it would have to be an improvement anyway because the funding to the various small municipalities in the Province has been reduced to such an extent that they are finding it very -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: I am wrong?

I am being quite sincere in what I am saying here. I am just not trying to make any political points on this. I am trying to be as sincere as I can about it. Small municipalities in the Province are being driven into the ground because of this change in the new grants structure, and I think that is common knowledge even though some members opposite are shaking their head and saying no. But I think it is common knowledge.

I think that the federation -- well the federation has made its views known on this new grant structure. I don't think they have been strong enough. I don't think they have been strong enough in their criticism of the government and in their criticism of that grant structure. I believe they have to stand back from this for a few minutes and reassess what they are doing. I think they have to be a little bit more strong because when times get difficult financially in the Province, very often it is the municipalities who will suffer. That is not good enough in my view, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the town councils, while they receive an awful lot of criticism from people, are the people who are on the front lines.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Pardon me?

MR. R. AYLWARD: You are stalling. You don't want to vote (inaudible).

Are you withdrawing leave?

MR. MATTHEWS: You are stalling.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Are you withdrawing leave?

MR. DOYLE: Well I will only be another half an hour or so.

MR. MATTHEWS: You really don't want the (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, these are the people on the front lines -

MR. R. AYLWARD: I think I am going to withdraw leave.

MR. DOYLE: - and they deserve some consideration from the government and they deserve to be recognized for the fact that they are volunteer people who receive an awful lot of criticism. They receive more criticism very often than the government members or the opposition members do, because they operate right in the community, so I believe it is incumbent upon the government to recognize that and to do what they can to make life a little bit easier for the town councils who are finding it so very, very difficult to operate right now.

As I said, the people who should be defending the municipalities in the Province, people like the Member for Carbonear, who is the former president of the federation; the Member for Fortune Hermitage, who served for a number of years on the federation; these are the people who the federation looks to to make their case for them, to support them, just as they would look to the Member for Exploits, just as the NTA and the teachers would look to the Member for Exploits to plead their case on occasion - which has not happened, incidentally. The smaller municipalities in the Province are finding it very, very difficult to live within their means today.

Also, another area of concern that I brought up to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs was the whole amalgamation process. Quite a number of amalgamations, groupings, in the Province are still up in the air - have not been dealt with yet. That is very, very important, that some of these groupings be dealt with. Up in my own area, in Avondale, Harbour Main, Conception Harbour, Colliers, Chapel Cove and Lakeview, these people, these municipalities, are still wondering what the amalgamation process will do to them, because nobody, even though the public hearing process has gone on, and gone on, and gone on, and the recommendations made to the minister, still no decision has yet been made. The Minister of Development should be looking into that, as a former resident of Avondale.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Furey. He and I were born in Avondale.

MR. R. AYLWARD: What?

MR. TOBIN: He is not from Avondale?

MR. DOYLE: Born and raised.

MR. TOBIN: I thought he was a mainlander.

MR. DOYLE: As a former resident of Avondale, he should be looking into what is going to happen with the amalgamation process in Avondale and Conception Harbour and Harbour Main and those areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Yes, he should.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: To the what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: To the cross in Holyrood? I would imagine the Minister of Development, who has a brother living in Holyrood, will want to look at that issue as well.

MR. TOBIN: Does his brother support you?

MR. DOYLE: Oh, he is a big supporter of mine.

MR. TOBIN: Good.

MR. DOYLE: Yes. He said he will be campaigning for me in the next election, in fact.

MR. TOBIN: If I had a brother like Chuck, I would campaign for you too.

MR. DOYLE: The people up in that area are wondering what is going to happen with respect to the amalgamation issue, because it has been up in the air. The public hearings have been held. The minister, the former minister, who is now the Minister of Social Services, went out to Avondale and met with people out there. We had the public hearing process. All the recommendations have been now made to the minister months and months and months ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: The department included those groups of communities in there in the amalgamation process, and did some public hearings a year ago. They still do not know what is going to happen, because the minister, the former minister and the present minister, have yet to tell the individual councils: Look, you are going to be amalgamated; you are not going to be amalgamated; we are leaving you as you are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: It is Avondale, Harbour Main, Conception Harbour and Colliers. Those four -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: The department included that grouping, and went out there and had some public hearings on it. We all presented our briefs on it and what have you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: The reaction -

MR. R. AYLWARD: Fifty/fifty.

MR. DOYLE: - was fairly positive. The reaction was fairly positive.

AN HON. MEMBER: To do it?

MR. DOYLE: To do it. The councils, for the most part, agreed. There were some members within individual councils who did not agree so I have been after the minister to make a decision one way or the other. Say to them, look, we are not going to amalgamate you, and that is fine if they do not, or say, yes, we are going to.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. DOYLE: Exactly. That is the question I have been asking now for a year. I could not say with any degree of accuracy that there are 100 per cent in favour of it. I do not know what the percentages are.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. DOYLE: Sure. The towns could have maintained their own identity. But I have been asking now for a solid year for somebody to tell me. I went to the minister and I have gone to his officials. I have gone to this minister and asked him to simply make a decision: Look, if you do not want to amalgamate them, that is fine, they can live with that. They will be quite happy if you do not amalgamate them. I say to the Minister of Development, just for a second, they would be quite happy if you did not amalgamate them. A lot of them would be very happy if you did amalgamate them but the problem right now is that the various individual councils do not seem to be able to make decisions on anything simply because it is governed by - well, we could be amalgamated tomorrow or we may not be - so they are in a state of flux right now. They do not know, they are in limbo. I have been after the minister for some time to make a decision and I cannot get to first base on it. I am not asking him to amalgamate them or not to amalgamate them, I am saying simply to make the decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. DOYLE: About thirty-five minutes now. That is all I have been asking him to do, is to make a decision so that they will be in a position to get on with their lives. That is all we want and if it happens one way or the other we will live with it but it is very, very difficult to do anything when you do not know. I would appreciate it if the minister would check on that because I have not been able to get to first base on it. I have been dealing with the former minister and his officials, and now the current minister and it is just frustrating trying to deal with the issue. I questioned the minister about the amalgamation issue back during those public hearings and again I have not received a whole lot of information on it.

The capital allocations were of concern to me as well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the various municipalities. I believe one of the questions I asked the minister was if he could make available to us some information with respect to the amount of capital monies that were actually spent last year by the various municipalities. The minister indicated to me, he said: all of the money last year was spent with the exception of, I believe, $100,000 or $200,000. Now, I am giving the minister the benefit of the doubt on that but I think quite possibly the minister may be mistaken. I find it difficult to believe that the $50 or $60 million that was allocated last year was all spent with the exception of $100,000 or $200,000. I find that really, really difficult to believe, given the fact that we had some preliminary information which indicated that there was about $13 or $14 million that had not been spent, and that is very, very important, if you are making capital monies available that the municipalities you are making the money available to are in a position to spend that money. A lot of municipalities could not accept the money because they could not afford the repayment on their capital debt. A lot of municipalities who received money had to give it back because they could not afford to use it, Mr. Speaker, and that sometimes is a very, very important source of employment in small municipalities as well.

I am concerned this year, as I was last year, about the calling of tenders. The tenders this year - I think you are going to find that a lot of municipalities won't be able to start their projects this year because the tendering, again, is too late. Even though the minister indicated that we were into early tendering, I think, again this year, it is too late. You are going to find that a lot of the contracts are not going to be awarded until September, possibly. Then, by the time you get started, and a lot of the contractors are not going to want to start in September, because we have an early winter, and you can't get the best bang for your buck from September onward. So there must be a way. There must be a way that we can get these tenders called sometime in March or April and have the projects ready to go when May and June rolls around so that the construction industry can be assured of having four or five good months in which they can get these projects started and completed.

So, I am very, very concerned that an awful lot of communities are not going to get their projects started, and that we are going to wind up with millions and millions of dollars not spent again this year. That has a lot of implications for construction companies. It is a very, very difficult year, this year, for construction companies around the Province. An awful lot of them are going bankrupt. An awful lot of them are not going to have a lot of work on the go. So it is imperative, I believe, that we get as many of these contracts out and tenders let as quickly as possible.

It is a very important source of employment for a lot of people who are seasonally employed. We have a lot of seasonal workers in this Province who depend on these small projects because they have no choice in order to qualify for Unemployment Insurance. That is very, very important for a lot of small communities around Newfoundland and Labrador. They don't have any source of employment within their communities. Their fish plants probably will give them five or six weeks work, and then, if you can get onto a municipal project you will get enough work to qualify for Unemployment Insurance for the winter.

So that is a very, very important source of employment for these people, and it should be important to the government, as well, simply because, if these people don't get the required number of work weeks to qualify for unemployment insurance, they will probably have to - through no fault of their own because they will be forced onto the welfare rolls and they will become an expense on the government, as well. So it should be incumbent on the government to get these projects moving as quickly as possible.

I can't understand for the life of me, given the Premier's statements a couple of months back - three months ago, I believe, when he was on the First Minister's Conference somewhere in Atlantic Canada - making the point that the federal government should get their tenders out as quickly as possible so we can boost ourselves a little bit out of the recession and provide more employment. I agreed with the Premier 100 per cent. I agree with him. This is exactly what we should be doing, but I thought it should follow over, as well, onto the provincial end of it, because we are not getting tenders out on the municipal end of it as quickly as we should. By the time these tenders are awarded it is going to be September or October and you will see council saying to the contractors: 'No, we don't want to start it now. Wait until next spring, because we are not going to get the same bang for the buck and we are not going to get good quality work when you have to do it in November, December and January in Newfoundland and Labrador, because we have a winter that sets in very, very early.

So it is important that the government have a very close look at early tendering, and May is not early tendering. I would say, the right time for the government - and they don't have to wait for the Budget to come down in order to have their capital program prepared and dealt with in Cabinet, and the announcements made. They can do that in January. They can do it in December. They can have the tenders called in January and February. All that can be done.

MR. R. AYLWARD: They don't want them called. All the money will be spent then.

MR. DOYLE: You know, that is the impression you can get, that they don't want the tenders called because they won't have to spend the money, and we are hearing that $14 million went back to the government again this year, because the municipalities, for one reason or another, were not able to spend that money. Some couldn't spend it simply because they couldn't afford to take the money, others didn't spend it simply because it was too late in the season when tenders were finally called.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many of them (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: How many what?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Fourteen million dollars, we are hearing. Now, I mean, that could be accurate and it may not be. We are hearing that $14 million last year wasn't spent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Most of those projects are starting up again now already.

MR. DOYLE: Well, it still follows over because out of the $50 million or $60 million that you got approved this year, tenders are so late that you are not going to be able to spend $10 million or $15 million out of that and it will be carried over until next year again, so it is a never-ending cycle. That is $15 million that should be placed into the economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Exactly, exactly. One year, I remember, we had a $40 million capital program, but you know times are very, very difficult right now and people are finding it very, very hard to find employment, so every single penny of that money should be utilized, because the $15 million that is not spent could mean 300, 400 or 500 jobs, granted, ten or fifteen-week jobs, short-term jobs, but very important jobs. When it comes to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, finding that fifteen weeks, sometimes, or twenty weeks can be a major, major problem in order to qualify for unemployment insurance, and what makes it even more important this time around, still a lot of people are not going to be able to qualify for unemployment insurance because of the failed fishery and companies going bankrupt, and construction companies going out of business, so it makes it even more imperative to have that money spent this year, to have those capital monies spent. A lot of people depend upon that, Mr. Speaker, and I am hoping that the government will give it some serious consideration.

Now, I remember when I was Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I think one year we brought down the capital program sometime in November or December, and we had our projects called sometime in January, the tenders going out periodically and no big rush to do it, because you have all winter to put them in the paper and they have to be advertised in the paper for about a six-week period, and by the time it is awarded and the engineers then have to do the engineering work, all that takes about a three-month period, so it should be done and ready to move by the time May or June rolls around.

Now another - that reminds me, and I would again say to the Member for Carbonear, ask him if he is aware that so far, this year, not one penny has yet been approved for the local service districts around the Province. That water service program has not yet been dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Budget (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Exactly, and here it is, the first of June today and we don't have - the Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island has a local service district in his district, as a matter of fact, over in Bell Island in Lance Cove. We all have local service districts that -

AN HON. MEMBER: Waiting for the House to close.

MR. DOYLE: Yes, because people are waiting for that $2,000 to get the well drilled or what have you, and it is time that that was done, time that that program was dealt with. That is very, very important, as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs will take to heart some of the questions that I have asked him, and some of the criticisms that were offered in a constructive way, not in a destructive manner, but that were offered in a very, very constructive manner to him. I hope he will take it to heart and do something about it, because while we try from time to time to make political points, as we all do, because of the business we are engaged in, I think we have to realise that the people most directly affected, namely, the town councils, are the people who are volunteers and doing a very, very good job, for the most part, within their own respective communities, and we have to help.

Another department that I wanted to have a few words on - I wanted to be at the Committee hearings but I could not be there - was the Department of Employment and Labour Relations, which is a department right now that is presiding over - what is the unemployment rate for Newfoundland and Labrador right now? I think it is around -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: About 20 per cent, I guess, in most areas of the Province. So the Minister of Employment has to be very concerned right now about the... yes, almost a 45 per cent, I suppose, or 50 per cent unemployment rate in a lot of communities in Newfoundland. Only for the Hibernia project up in my own area, that great Tory initiative, I would probably have an unemployment rate of around 50 per cent in my area right now.

Because, Mr. Speaker, we passed that Hibernia project over to the government on a silver platter. I sincerely hope that the government is paying very close attention to what is going on at Bull Arm. I hope they are on top of the issue. I hope they are not just sitting back and hoping that an investor will come along to pick up the slack. I hope the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is playing a pro-active role and not a reactive role. I hope he is being pro-active, and is out and about with the Minister of Energy looking for another investor to take over.

I would be very interested in hearing what the minister has to say and what he has been doing, what efforts he has been expending to secure the future of that project. Because it is a very important project for this Province. It is not just Hibernia. It is not just an oil well out there, but this is the beginning of an oil industry for Newfoundland and Labrador. The security of that project, let me say to the minister, will affect an awful lot of construction companies in Newfoundland and Labrador, companies that have sprung up over the last two or three years simply because of Hibernia, no other reason. They would have never been in existence if it hadn't been for the Hibernia project. So, a lot of these companies right now are beginning to hurt because of the slowdown at that project. A lot of these are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and hoping that the government is taking a very pro-active role in trying to attract investment where the other companies have left off.

The project, as I said a few minutes ago, means an awful lot to my district. It means an awful lot to the numerous construction workers I have in my area. I have an awful lot of ironworkers, boilermakers, electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, labourers and carpenters, and a lot of tradespeople, up around the Conception Bay central area who, right now, would be in dire need of employment opportunities if it were not for that project, Mr. Speaker.

So, I am certainly hoping that the government is taking a very active role in trying to secure that project, because, at this time of year, inevitably - and I guess it is the same all over Conception Bay, maybe in most areas of Conception Bay - a lot of my constituents have to take off to Toronto, New York, the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. in order to get work, or out in Alberta somewhere. Now, that project has given them a little bit of hope. It has given them the opportunity to work close to home, which is very, very important for people who have been travelling around the Province and the country for years and years looking for work.

Mr. Speaker, that is very important for them, because construction workers in my area have been leaving home for years and years. A lot of them, actually, rarely see their own children growing up because they have to travel so extensively looking for heavy industrial work, iron work, boilermaker work and what have you. So they very often have to go down around New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Toronto, Alberta and other far-flung areas of the land in order to make a living for themselves and their families. Very often they are gone to such an extent, as I said, that they sometimes don't see their own families growing up around them.

So, when you have a project the magnitude of Hibernia at Bull Arm, fairly close to home around the construction activity area of Conception Bay Centre, when they saw that project moving it gave them an awful lot of encouragement, because, as I said, it wasn't just the project, itself; but it gave every indication that we were possibly getting into an oil development time in our lives, that we would have this going on for maybe twenty, twenty-five or thirty years. So, when you are a construction worker and you can look forward to even a couple of years work, it is very encouraging for these people, Mr. Speaker, that they know they can work a little bit close to home.

Very often, of course, you hear construction workers say - no criticism of them intended, and I am sure they don't intend to criticize either. But very often you hear them say when construction activity is down: 'Look, whenever there is a problem in the fishery, whenever there is a problem in the forestry sector or the farmers have had a failed crop, governments are always moving to try to help these people out by getting projects on the go for fish plant workers when the fishery fails or what have you, but nobody -' I hear that comment so often from them - 'But nobody worries too much about the poor old construction worker.' Nobody worries if a construction project is on the go that he is automatically expected to pack his backs, jump on a plane and go to Toronto, Alberta, New York, or somewhere in order to feed his family. Nobody seems to attach the same degree of help or assistance to these people as goes into the resource areas like the fishery, the forestry, farming, and what have you.

So when you get a project like Bull Arm, Hibernia, on the go, it offers an awful lot of encouragement and incentive to these people, knowing that they are going to be able to stay around home for a couple of years to work instead of having to jump on a plane and take off. Mr. Speaker, that is extremely important and I sincerely hope that the Premier and the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and the Minister of Mines and Energy are being pro-active in securing that project. I get a little bit worried about it sometimes because it appears to me that everything is a little bit too quiet. It is a very, very large project. As a matter of fact it is the only megaproject right now operating in Canada. There is not a bigger project anywhere in Canada than the Hibernia project. It is the only megaproject that the federal government has on the go right now and I am very, very worried that everything is a little bit too quiet. The project has slowed down, it has not stopped, and we have our fingers crossed that it will not stop, that it will continue on and that additional investment will be found but it is uncomfortably quiet right now.

You never hear too much being said and I sincerely hope that there are investors waiting in the wings ready to come in and pick up about 25 or 30 per cent in order to secure the future viability of that project. It is a major development in terms of employment opportunities and especially now when you have a failed fishery, where people are being thrown out of work hand over fist because of the downturn in the economy and the downturn in the fishery. It is very, very important that Newfoundland has that alternate employment opportunity, and it is very, very important as well in terms of establishing some kind of a good industrial base in Newfoundland and Labrador because we have very little industrial base here so it is very important from that point of view as well, to have a new resource base, to have the oil industry operating in this Province. We will not need incinerator projects and we will not need to take advantage of the first cockamamy scheme that comes along. God knows we need the employment in Newfoundland and Labrador but when you have alternate employment opportunities like the Hibernia project then you can afford to walk away from schemes like the importation of US garbage which we are hoping that the government will walk away from.

Mr. Speaker, as I said it is getting uncomfortably quiet with regard to that project. It seems that the government have - and I am hoping that I am wrong about it, but it seems that government is taking a hands-off approach. We do not hear too many statements coming from the Minister of Mines and Energy with respect to that development out there and how close we are to possibly getting investment. I sincerely hope that we are not taking a hands-off approach and that government is making an effort to ensure that the project is secured. I hope as well, Mr. Speaker, that we will have some further discussion on that. I know the Member for Burin - Placentia West is dying to have a few remarks now on these estimates. I want to thank the members of the House, the members on the government side for giving me leave. I have been speaking now for about an hour and I was only entitled to ten minutes so I want to thank the government members for their consideration. I will sit down now and give it to the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The same as other members in the chamber I have been enthraled by the speech of the Member for Harbour Main. He is the strong silent type and we have not heard him speaking in the House for quite awhile, but he certainly made up for lost time here this afternoon.

He was, in the first part of his speech, trying to motivate the government to make a decision on their three year old proposal to amalgamate municipalities in the district he represents. Since we are looking at the estimates and policies of the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, I would like to say something about the way this administration has approached municipal government.

It has been three years now since the government announced that they wanted to carry out wholesale amalgamation. The former minister decreed that well over a hundred municipalities would be combined into larger units. That regardless of what the people living in those communities thought, the whole process would be accomplished before the municipal elections in November of 1989. As we all know, since then there has been a series of retreats, retractions, delays. The Premier actually early on cut the legs out from under the former minister and made an announcement that no municipality would be amalgamated against its will.

People hearing the Premier's words took them at face value. Much later, however, after the furore had subsided, when the Premier was put to the test he gave a rather amazing interpretation of those words. He said that no municipality would be forced to amalgamate against the wishes of the people there, in the sense that the Cabinet would make no such decision in private. He said any such proposal would be brought to the House of Assembly where there would be open debate. The Premier really did not fool anyone. Because everyone realises that the Cabinet - actually, in this case, the Premier, one man - controls the voting results in the House of Assembly.

The legislation requires feasibility studies of amalgamation proposals, but this administration deviated from past practice and I believe contradicted the spirit of the law by appointing government officials to carry out the feasibility study. These government officials, of course, have their jobs at the pleasure of the Premier, so they were hardly in a position to bring in conclusions differing from the stated objective of the Premier and the Cabinet. Over the next couple of years feasibility studies - at least, the form of feasibility studies - were carried out.

Some of the proposed combinations of municipalities, prior to this administration taking office, had been proposed, talked about, by the municipalities affected. In some cases preparatory work had been done. One such example is Grand Falls - Windsor. Another such example, so I am told by the present minister, were the municipalities in the district that he represents - Placentia, Dunville, Freshwater. But the approach of this administration basically set back progress where amalgamation was already in the works. People got their backs up because government was setting about forcing amalgamation, regardless of what they thought.

In many other instances amalgamation had never even been thought about. The government failed to do any research to justify the merger proposals, and the government to this day has failed to resolve the confusion that has resulted. In the district I represent, the government made such a proposal. The government proposed to combine the municipalities of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah and Corner Brook.

It has been three years since that prospect has been the official policy of the Wells' administration. There was a feasibility study carried out by an assistant deputy minister of the government, along with a nominee of the three municipalities affected. That was done in the winter of 1990. The feasibility study consisted of public hearings in Corner Brook.

At the public hearings there was no support expressed for the amalgamation proposal. There were serious objections voiced, and the two commissioners were left to do a report. Now, over a year later, the government official wrote a report concluding that amalgamation should proceed. He purported to do a financial analysis, but he completely ignored the expenditure side of the financial implications. He made revenue forecasts, but he ignored expenditures.

The independent commissioner, who had been chosen by the three municipalities, while not giving a written report, wrote a letter saying that he was not satisfied that a case had been made for amalgamation benefitting the whole.

At the public hearings the City of Corner Brook said, in its presentation, that the proposed amalgamation would cost a considerable sum for the enlarged municipality. After that, staff of the City of Corner Brook did rough estimates pointing at a net additional cost of $600,000 a year. I understand that was later reworked, at the request of the mayor, and depending on how you read the revision, the net additional cost might be as high as $800,000; but there is no doubt, from the information that has been generated within the City of Corner Brook, that there will be diseconomies of scale. That merger would result in a higher overall cost of providing municipal government.

The reason is quite obvious. We are talking about one relatively large municipality, Corner Brook, which has a population of about 23,000 and two comparatively small municipalities, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, with populations ranging from 500 to 800.

In Corner Brook, municipal services are provided by paid staff. In the smaller municipalities, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, the councillors first of all serve on a volunteer basis, but apart from that, important municipal services are also provided on a volunteer basis. Fire protection in Massey Drive and Mount Moriah is provided entirely by volunteers. The recreation programs in Massey Drive and Mount Moriah are run by citizens who donate their time. There are other community functions in those smaller municipalities which are operated at no cost to the local taxpayers.

If merger is to come about, first of all there would be no incentive for the citizens of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah to continue to volunteer for the fire departments. Secondly, the unionized City of Corner Brook Fire Department would object to volunteer departments operating within the territory of the enlarged municipality.

We are seeing something very similar in the Goulds, which is now part of the City of St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, this is a time of economic decline, of economic depression, in our Province. The government has adopted a host of drastic measures to reduce provincial expenditure. The government has consistently downloaded responsibilities and taxation burden to municipalities and school boards. So you would think, given that situation, that the provincial government would do everything in its power to reward the volunteer services that exist. In this particular instance, you would think the provincial government would be quite thankful that Massey Drive and Mount Moriah are operating so well, to the satisfaction of the vast majority of citizens, drawing on so much volunteer labour.

I have mentioned that the spectre of amalgamation has been present for three years now. It is difficult in these circumstances for the volunteers who take part in the fire departments of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, to carry on. It is difficult for them to plan, it is difficult for them to spend the required time for training and for the other functions that fire departments sponsor, without knowing whether they will be in existence in six months' time, twelve months' time, or a year and half's time. To the credit of the people of Massey Drive and Mount Moriah their fire departments overall have not suffered. People have continued to volunteer their time and energy. The Massey Drive Fire Department observed its 10th anniversary earlier this year. The members of the fire department, present and past, were able to note with pride that they have had ten good years, ten years when there has been no loss of life or personal injury due to fire, ten years when there has been no significant property loss in the municipality.

Prior to the formation of the Massey Drive Fire department, protection was provided by the City of Corner Brook department. In those days there were significant fire losses in that municipality. So because of the Massey Drive Fire Department there has been an improved service and that service has been provided at minimal cost to the provincial government. The provincial government has been involved in providing subsidization for the fire truck and other equipment, but a considerable amount has also been donated by the community for equipment. All the labour is provided without any cost to the taxpayers.

Earlier this year as well - actually, I'm talking in terms of school year now. It was in September of 1991 the municipality of Massey Drive observed its 20th anniversary as a municipality. Massey Drive had a dinner to mark that occasion, and the council issued invitations to present and past Members of the House of Assembly, as well as Members of Parliament, and others who have been involved in working with the municipality. It was interesting to see that one of the politicians extended an invitation was the Premier, because twenty years ago, when Massey Drive was incorporated, the present Premier was the MHA for Massey Drive. Massey Drive was incorporated as a municipality when the present Premier was the Member for the district of Humber East.

Now perhaps at that time it might have made sense for Massey Drive and Corner Brook to have been merged. But evidently -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS. VERGE: Evidently, the political leaders of the time did not see any merit in that. At any rate, Massey Drive for twenty years has been a separate municipality and it has prospered and progressed.

The leadership of the council has been exemplary. As an MHA I have worked with several municipalities, and I can say without hesitation that none has surpassed the town council of Massey Drive. The people who make up that council give unstintingly of their time. They have on occasion had to make tough decisions, but they have made good decisions, and on the whole, the people in that community are quite satisfied with the results.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in a small municipality such as Massey Drive the councillors are not only performing the traditional functions of levying taxes and spending revenue on basic services such as garbage collection and road maintenance, in Massey Drive the councillors pitch in and get involved in road maintenance. Massey Drive has quite high local tax rates at the moment, and the council are working very hard to prevent another tax increase in the next year or so.

Earlier this spring the Massey Drive town employee who does road maintenance work and a variety of other jobs took three or four weeks vacation. When the utility employee was gone on vacation, instead of hiring a relief worker, the volunteer members of the Massey Drive council did the work of their employee. The councillors collected the garbage. The councillors looked after the road.

Mr. Speaker, in a larger more impersonal municipality such as Corner Brook, you just don't find that kind of voluntarism. In the City of Corner Brook, where I live and pay taxes, if there is a problem with a slippery road or if the garbage is not collected on time it would never occur to a member of the city council to do it himself or herself. It would never occur to most of the citizens as individuals to pitch in and help themselves in Corner Brook, because of the size and because of the history of the place, people don't feel that sense of duty or responsibility.

In Massey Drive by contrast, because it is a small close knit municipality, because people have had to resume responsibility for running their own community, if there is a problem in great likelihood one of the councillors or one of the other citizens without hesitation will get involved and solve the problem. I recall before Christmas the Massey Drive main road hill became quite slippery one Friday night after two or three rapid temperature fluctuations. Now until October past the provincial government looked after maintaining the Massey Drive main road, but abruptly last October that responsibility was turned over to the local government, and that is part of the policy of the Wells administration of downloading responsibilities and costs to municipal government.

Well that Friday night in December when the road became slippery, the volunteer councillor responsible for road maintenance called two or three of his friends, and three or four men went out quickly and looked after the road problem. They spent a couple of hours from 10:00 p.m. until midnight sanding and salting, and ensuring that the hill on their main road was safe. The councillor who was recounting this told me that at midnight he went home feeling good about what he had done for his community.

Now, Mr. Speaker, Massey Drive as a separate municipal unit can be better run and provide more satisfaction to its citizens by keeping municipal autonomy. Now if there were a conflict with the City of Corner Brook, or if Massey Drive were getting some advantage that neighbouring municipalities were not getting, then perhaps some alteration might be in order, but Massey Drive and Corner Brook are in harmony, there is no conflict. Those two municipalities are already sharing major services. Massey Drive is hooked up to the Corner Brook water supply and disposes its sewage through the Corner Brook sewer system. In both cases Massey Drive is paying for the Corner Brook service at a mutually agreed rate. Massey Drive uses the Corner Brook dump, which functions as a regional landfill site, so the basic services of water, sewer and garbage disposal are already functioning on a shared basis, mutually agreeable.

Fire protection I have already talked about. Massey Drive has a volunteer department which is providing an excellent standard of protection. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, Massey Drive, with a population of just over 500, has about twenty-five men on the fire department, so with that percentage of the population being very well informed about fire prevention, then there is obviously going to be a beneficial effect in the community, since virtually one man in every fourth household is a member of the fire department, so you can be fairly sure that in each firefighter's household, the fire rules and regulations are strictly observed.

In terms of advantages, Massey Drive really has no advantage that any other municipality has, Massey Drive taxes are among the highest in the Province at the moment. Corner Brook has had the dubious distinction for decades of having the highest municipal taxes in the Province that, despite the fact that Corner Brook is the product of the amalgamation of four municipalities in 1956. Massey Drive taxes are now on a par with taxes in Corner Brook. Actually, there are some couples in Massey Drive who pay more taxes than their counterparts in Corner Brook.

Property appraisals of course are done on a consistent basis for both municipalities. The average house appraisal in Massey Drive is higher than the average in Corner Brook; that is probably because proportionately there are more newer houses in Massey Drive. The City of Corner Brook, as I mentioned, is the result of the amalgamation of four towns and that occurred back in 1956. Some of you are familiar with the territory of the City of Corner Brook. For those who are not, I have to point out that it is an extremely large territory. It stretches all the way from Riverside Drive at the mouth of the Humber River to the south shore of the Bay of Islands at the end of Petries.

A few years ago I was told, and I do not have any reason to think that this has changed, I was told that of all the municipalities in Canada, Corner Brook had more miles of local roads per capita than any other, and to propose enlarging the territory by adding two more municipalities with relatively small populations, seems to me would just exacerbate the difficulties of the City of Corner Brook of servicing its population. As I mentioned before, to me it is quite obvious that the result of that merger would be an increase in the overall cost of providing local government, and that would translate into what are know as diseconomies of scale.

Now, amalgamation can be good when it results in economies of scale, when it results in lowering the overall cost or reducing the per citizen cost. Amalgamation can also be good when it eliminates or avoids duplication, or where it prevents conflicting developments. But in the case of Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, no such factors are present which would point in favour of amalgamation.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that amalgamation is so obviously wrong for Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, three years have gone by since the government's proposal, and still no decision - not even any time frame for a decision. The new minister has proposed that a study be done of the financial implications of this amalgamation. Well you would think that the government would have paused to do such a study before even making the proposal.

I do not have any problem with a study, although I think we already know enough to reject amalgamation, and I do have some problem with scarce public funds being wasted to study something that is perfectly obvious, but the study has to be fair. It has to be an impartial study that can be believed and trusted by citizens affected. The study also has to be a complete study. I am afraid that a narrow bookkeeper's type analysis of the municipal financial statements will give a result that is wrong and misleading.

With those comments I will now address what the present minister is doing. The present minister is saying that a financial study will be done through the City of Corner Brook by Doane Raymond, a firm engaged by the City of Corner Brook last year, to study the City of Corner Brook operations.

The City of Corner Brook is not unbiased in this exercise. While the city, as an entity, has not taken a stand on the amalgamation proposal, the mayor has said publicly this winter that he wants amalgamation, the sooner the better. Now the mayor has contradicted himself several times. He started out saying that there should be a study. Then he said he would only support amalgamation if it did not cost the Corner Brook taxpayers anything, but now quite recklessly he is saying, amalgamation, the sooner the better. Basically he will go along with whatever the Wells' administration wants. At any rate, the City of Corner Brook is not unbiased, yet the study is being done through the City of Corner Brook, so I would challenge the integrity of the study right off the top.

In terms of the completeness of the study, one would have to look at the terms of reference. I have asked the Department of Municipal Affairs for the terms of reference. Actually I support the approach taken by the Town of Massey Drive in asking that a committee be struck comprising equal numbers of representatives of the three municipalities, charged with collectively drawing up the terms of reference and then calling for proposals for the study.

The feeling I am getting from the department, although I am waiting to hear back from the deputy minister, is that basically no thought was given to the terms of reference. Somehow Doane Raymond, who did the work last year for Corner Brook, has been hired; but the terms of reference are hidden. They have not been made known to Massey Drive. They have not been made known to me, as the member for the district.

While reminding myself and others that the government did not take time to research the question of municipal amalgamation before rushing headlong into it three years ago, I am now concerned that they are going to spend taxpayers money to study the financial implications of amalgamating Corner Brook, Massey Drive and Mount Moriah, again without properly thinking through what they are doing.

This is an administration that seems to be quite inept in terms of managing. The government has attempted various major policy changes, but in just about every case you can think of, the proper planning was not done, decisions were announced rashly, retractions ensued, people were left up in the air, the confusion that resulted impeded good work being done, and there was unnecessary cost to the taxpayers.

A parallel example is education financing. This administration got elected on a platform of either abolishing or reforming school taxation, so you would think they would have thought about that before they took office. From time to time they were reminded of that issue, yet they waited until late last fall, partway through a government Budget year, partway through a school year, before telling people that they were, in fact, going to abolish school taxation. Now, when the government made that announcement they didn't have any idea where they were going to get the revenue to replace school tax revenue. They finally, after scrambling this spring, lighted upon increases to the payroll tax and personal income tax and announced that in the Budget.

In the meantime, school boards have been strapped. This spring, most school boards in the Province have had to incur extra and unnecessary cost to borrow money from the banks to carry them until the transition at the end of June. And this is at a time of economic hardship generally, when, for school boards, every penny counts. Some of the members opposite crusaded about inadequate school financing, lashed out at the previous administration because school children were going around selling chocolate bars to raise money for necessary school supplies. What has happened since they have come to office is that a bad situation has been allowed to deteriorate.

In some instances, policies of this administration, in theory, make sense. But, almost inevitably, they have botched the implementation. There seems to be a major weakness in management in this administration. I can only speculate on why that is. I think a lot of it has to do with the approach of the Premier, who has concentrated onto himself and his office too much power. He, alone, cannot possibly manage the whole show. He tries to do that. He delays decisions because he wants to be consulted and involved. A bottleneck effect results. There are a couple of good ministers over there who are trying to operate in an orderly fashion, but progress is impeded because of the management style of the Premier.

Of course, the Premier, before assuming that office, had no management experience. Earlier in his life and his career, he did not have to function as a manager. It seems to me, his management weakness has resulted in the kinds of messes we have seen in municipal affairs and in education financing.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot more I would like to say - does somebody else want to speak?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Okay. I understand somebody else on this side would like to have a few words, so I will sit down now. Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to these Estimates, not having an opportunity to participate in the Committees involved, to discuss the Estimates for Employment and Labour Relations, in particular, Municipal Affairs and Transportation.

Mr. Speaker, the Estimates of Employment and Labour Relations, Municipal Affairs and Transportation acquire a very significant portion of the interest, if not the Budget, of this government. Municipal Affairs and the large number of municipalities that we have that are seriously affected by government policy. I think we have to look at government policy in this area, particularly in municipal financing, as a complete failure. If it were not so, all one has to do is look to the response of the municipalities to the municipal grants program, and the reality is that the municipalities are totally incapable financially and revenue-wise of participating in the government's program. They just can't do it.

So what's happening is we come to this House and we see allocations made for municipal financing, one year after the next, and they look good on paper but the money is not going to be spent. All we have to do is look to the Estimates of last year and the actual expenditures last year and we will see that these communities cannot respond.

We have also only to look to the problems and the lack of response of this government in the biggest municipality of them all, the City of St. John's, with which this government amalgamated against their will, the communities of Wedgewood Park and the Goulds.

Mr. Speaker, I supported the amalgamation principle in this House, but I strongly object to the imposition, on the community of St. John's and the taxpayers of St. John's, of the additional burden of responsibility for these areas without any assistance from the government to ease that transition. There exists, in the City of St. John's, a higher level and standard of municipal services than obtains in the Town of the Goulds, now part of the city, and the expense and cost of bringing that area up to standard is an enormous burden to the taxpayers of St. John's.

In addition, we see imposed immediately upon the residents of the Goulds and Wedgewood Park, the higher obligation to pay taxes to the City of St. John's than obtained before.

Some would say, and particularly this may apply to the Town of Wedgewood Park, that this was, in fact, a situation for them that was untenable, that was not possible to justify, since they had the same services and had access to the same transportation system and other amenities as did the citizens of St. John's, that they should pay a lesser tax.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could ask the House for order. I don't care whether they listen to me or not, but I would prefer to be able to listen to myself without having to shout. I wonder if you could ask the members to be quiet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked for order. When an hon. member asks for order, then hon. members normally, and ought, to extend that courtesy.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, I don't care whether hon. members listen to me or not, but I don't want to have to strain to listen to myself.

So, Mr. Speaker, in those two areas it is clear this government's policies with respect to financing have not been adequate. They fail to take into consideration the call on the government by myself and some other members -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked for order. Quite frankly, I have not noticed any appreciable difference. This Chair doesn't appreciate that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the municipal affairs area, the department has failed to come to grips with the real problems affecting the City of St. John's in trying to deal with the new areas of the Goulds. They have failed to agree to assist the taxpayers in a transition period to phase in the higher taxes and to provide assistance to the City of St. John's to enable them to bring these areas up to scratch. That is unfair, Mr. Speaker, it is an example of the kind of downloading to lower levels of government and to individuals that we see from this Liberal government in a number of areas.

I move now then to the issue of Employment and Labour Relations. Mr. Speaker, we have in this year, seen a tremendous decrease in the size of the work force, the labour force. We have gone last April from 233,000 to now 222,000 a decrease of 11,000 in the work force and I wonder if the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations can provide an explanation for that. Have they all gone off to other places looking for work; have they gone out of the labour force altogether and are part of the increase in the social assistance role that the Minister of Social Services now has to deal with. Do we have large numbers of women who are forced out of the work force because jobs are not available and they are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance? This, Mr. Speaker, is another indication of the government's failure in that area.

The government has not devised a policy that makes sense for increasing the job opportunities in this Province and we have not seen anything except some sort of wait and see, and let us have a strategic economic plan introduced by someone else or devised by someone else, not by the government. So we have seen a failure of leadership in that area, Mr. Speaker, and I want to follow up on some suggestions I made to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations the last session when we were discussing legislation related to construction work in general and the issue of double-breasting. At that time, Mr. Speaker, I suggested that the government should introduce a fair wages policy for this Province similar to the federal government and what other provinces have, and I am pleased to advise the hon. members that this is not something that is pie in the sky or is airy-fairy or just comes out of nowhere -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: - this is something that has been introduced in a number of jurisdictions in Canada, most recently, Mr. Speaker, I have to say, most recently, I am pleased to say in the province of British Columbia, that in March of this year the British Columbia government announced a fair wage and skill development policy, which required that any provincial government or BC Crown Corporations which are engaged in construction contracts of in excess of $1.5 million have to pay wages in accordance with a schedule set by the government.

The purpose of that is two-fold. Number one, to encourage apprenticeship in the construction industry; and number two, to insist that the skilled labour force that exists in the construction industry is maintained. We have had a very serious problem in this Province where the double-breasting circumstance and the opportunity has forced a lot of workers to have to travel elsewhere or go against their union brothers and sisters. Not only New Democratic governments favour this. The provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and the Government of Canada, have such a fair wages policy in effect. That is something that I would like to see this government adopt. I will make available a copy of this to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

I cannot stop without mentioning something that may be of interest to the Member for Eagle River. Recently he has suggested in the transportation field that more funds be directed to support the Labrador Highway, and I agree with him. Now he has made a suggestion that is probably worth considering. I will not jump on it right now, lest he accuse me of bandwagoning. What he suggested was that perhaps the $100 million that is being preserved for the Outer Ring Road might be more usefully used in Labrador, and he may well be might.

I for one do not want to see an Outer Ring Road destroy the Pippy Park in St. John's and I am opposed to that. It may be that the government can find a way of rerouting that road so it does not destroy the park. If the only solution is to use those funds for the Labrador Highway then I think that would be a preferable solution then destroying Pippy Park.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend tomorrow to continue on and finish the concurrence on the Government Services Estimates Committee, and then get into the estimates of the Executive Council. So these are the legislative plans. I think the Private Members' motion on Wednesday will be the motion as put forward by the Member for Torngat Mountains, was it? Torngat? That will be the Private Members' motion on Wednesday.

MR. TOBIN: I introduced a resolution a couple of weeks ago and (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, if the Clerk could make note of that and check into it. If such is the case then I'd - of course, hon. members could decide which resolution is going to be debated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Okay. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, and the House do now adjourn.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.